Archive for the ‘Worldwatch’ Category

Weekend reading (special edition): Ed speaks

Friday, October 1st, 2010




Ed Miliband – A New Generation

The younger Miliband brother is now leader of the UK Labour Party and this conference address is his first extended speech in that role.

Some commenters here at Policy Progress haven’t been impressed, but I’ve been reading the text of the speech (my preferred approach to taking in these sorts of things) and, while I can’t comment on his skills as an oratorical “performer”, I thought the content was pretty good. He set some distance between himself and New Labour:

New Labour embraced markets in our economy and was right to do so.

But lets be honest we became naïve about them.

. . . We must shed old thinking and stand up for those who believe there is more to life than the bottom line.

And:

The hard truth for all of us in this hall is that a party that started out taking on old thinking became the prisoner of its own certainties.

The world was changing all around us – from global finance to immigration to terrorism – New Labour, a political force founded on its ability to adapt and change lost its ability to do so.

The reason was that we too often bought old, established ways of thinking and over time we just looked more and more like a new establishment.

Let me say to the country:

You saw the worst financial crisis in a generation, and I understand your anger that Labour hadn’t changed the old ways in the City which said deregulation was the answer.

You wanted your concerns about the impact of immigration on communities to be heard, and I understand your frustration that we didn’t seem to be on your side.

And when you wanted to make it possible for your kids to get on in life, I understand why you felt that we were stuck in old thinking about higher and higher levels of personal debt, including from tuition fees.

That comment about tuition fees is rather intriguing. Like others, I’m a little uncomfortable with this and other comments about immigration in the speech but there’s a difference between validating grassroots concerns and being anti-immigrant, and I think he stops short of crossing that line. The speech also has a strong generational theme:

This generation wants to change our economy so that it works better for working people and doesn’t just serve the needs of the few at the top.

This generation wants to change our society so that it values community and family, not just work, because we understand there is more to life than the bottom line.

This generation wants to change the way government works because it understands the power of the state to change lives but also how frustrating it can be if not reformed.

This generation wants to change our foreign policy so that it’s always based on values, not just alliances.

And this generation knows very profoundly that to change Britain we need a new politics.

Above all, I lead a new generation not bound by the fear or the ghosts of the past.

Miliband also returns to his theme about a renewed focus on inequality:

And we need responsibility at the top of society too. The gap between rich and poor does matter. It doesn’t just harm the poor it harms us all.

What does it say about the values of our society, what have we become, that a banker can earn in a day what the care worker can earn in a year?

I say: responsibility in this country shouldn’t just be about what you can get away with.

And that applies to every chief executive of every major company in this country.

As the Guardian said just ahead of the speech, “Ed Miliband is not expected to make any major policy announcements in his speech; he favours a long-term approach using semi-independent policy commissions.” But there’s some interesting hints there of directions to come.

It’s Ed!

Sunday, September 26th, 2010

The new leader of the UK Labour Party has been announced. The contest had turned into a two-horse race between the Miliband brother, David and Ed, sons of the prominent Marxian economist Ralph Miliband who each worked for many years as advisors for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown respectively, and then went on to become senior ministers in the Brown Cabinet.

The elder brother David entered the race as the favourite, but in the end the winner was Ed Miliband, the younger and reportedly the more leftwing of the two — although a set of parallel Q&As by the blog-site Left Foot Forward highlighted how similar they were on the substantive issues.

The victory makes Ed Miliband a central figure in the international progressive movement at an important period of renewal. His views and the way he goes on to shape his party will inevitably have an influence on the tenor of progressive thinking here in New Zealand.

So I thought it was worth citing the following statement (from those same Left Foot Forward Q&As), which I think sets out one of the central challenges for progressive governance in our time (as also discussed at Policy Progress, here and here):

Would you make tackling income inequality a specific goal of a Labour government?

Yes. It is the right thing to do for people on low incomes and it is the right thing to do for society as a whole. Strong, cohesive societies are ones in which hard work is fairly rewarded. More unequal societies are less well off in a range of ways, for example suffering with poorer physical health, poorer mental health and higher crime rates.

New Labour was too cautious on this issue, and as a result, despite us being the most redistributive government in history, inequality rose. So we need a different approach that targets the fundamental causes of inequality rather than focusing on just trying to use redistributive payments to correct for failures in our economy. That is why I am so passionate about a living wage and want to see tax cuts for responsible businesses who pay a living wage.

Many people are surprised to discover that taxpayers are paying more than £6bn each year subsidising low wages in our economy and I want that to end – improving pay and saving money for government. I want a High Pay Commission to sit alongside the Low Pay Commission and address the unfairness that comes when a banker earns in a week what their cleaner earns in a year. And I want a new industrial activism to build a new economy less reliant on low-wage, low-skill jobs and better at investing in people and in skills.

P.S.: Left Foot Forward offers some advice to the new leader.

P.P.S.: As does Malcolm Tucker (from The Thick of It).

Is the Left guilty of the “Politics of Evasion”? [re-post]

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Originally posted on 25 February 2010 (the first week of Policy Progress).

The left in Europe has been guilty of what can be described as the “politics of evasion”: it has failed to confront the fundamental causes of its vulnerability, loss of trust and élan in past years . . .

If social democrats are to recover their ability to set the political agenda in an era of insecurity, complexity and constant change . . . we have to face up to hard truths and, if necessary, shatter the cosy and comfortable consensus that surrounds the deliberations of so many fora which social democratic parties inhabit.

So states the summary document of the Amsterdam process, a two-year project aimed at no less than the “ideological renewal of European Social Democracy” and a “new revisionism for the 21st century”.

It’s a collaboration between two European progressive think-tanks, the Wiardi Beckman Stichting (the “scientific bureau” of the Dutch Labour Party) and the UK-based Policy Network.

Their initial publication, the Policy Network’s Challenging the politics of evasion: the only way to renew European social democracy, continues this take-no-prisoners rhetoric.

The writers seem at first glance equally critical of the “third way” revisionists (“embarrassed by the various accommodations made in the mid-1990s with the perceived realities of international capitalism and globalisation”) and of traditionalists (accused of “complacency” in their demand for “a return to the eternal verities and truths that the revisionists allegedly lost”).

This impression is probably incorrect, however. The Policy Network is pretty closely associated with the Blairite wing of the UK Labour Party. Peter Mandelson is its president, and two of the three authors of Evasion, Patrick Diamond and Roger Liddle, have previously worked with or for both Mandelson and Tony Blair. The Policy Network is also the secretariat for the Progressive Governance Network, which has been bringing together progressive leaders from around the world (including New Zealand) for over a decade, so it is hardly on the fringes of recent trends in the movement.

As the report continues, it becomes apparent that what it is proposing is a refurbishment of the existing “revisionist” approach, amending some misjudgments and correcting some overreaches. Below are the five dimensions of their “way forward”, with some of my impressions of what they are proposing in each.

Greater clarity about the politics of globalisation: comprehensive reform of global economic governance; active measures to promote responsible business behaviour; and going beyond the ‘enabling state’-as-training-scheme to a “new era of industrial activism” — while stressing that none of this means that the “big state is back”.

Coming to terms with the centre-right response to the financial crisis: where conservatives capture traditional social democratic territory, such as the need for active government during the global recession, progressives should ’stand their ground’ rather than moving further left in response.

Understanding the weight of anxiety about moral and social decline: although rhetoric such as ‘broken Britain’ is exaggerated, progressives should acknowledge the unease it reflects by rediscovering traditional narratives about what makes a good citizen and the politics of virtue, perhaps drawing upon the work of US moral philosopher Michael Sandel.

Confronting confusion about the politics of redistribution and fairness: by framing welfare rights and responsibilities in a way that aligns with what UK Labour minister John Denham has called the “fairness code” of the general population, taking into account desert, opportunity, and the avoidance of material hardship.

A bold plan for the future that captures the imagination of social democracy’s natural allies, new and old: a coalition of modernising institutions, working with sister organisations and thinktanks throughout Europe, drawing on the experience of the US Democratic Leadership Council that helped to elect Bill Clinton.

Apart from perhaps the first of these, it’s not clear that this amounts to much change at the policy level (as opposed to strategy and messaging), but it does represent an attempt to articulate a clear and comprehensive post-crisis progressive programme.

It will be interesting to see where the Amsterdam process takes these initial broad-brush propositions.

Is the Left guilty of the “Politics of Evasion”?

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

The left in Europe has been guilty of what can be described as the “politics of evasion”: it has failed to confront the fundamental causes of its vulnerability, loss of trust and élan in past years . . .

If social democrats are to recover their ability to set the political agenda in an era of insecurity, complexity and constant change . . . we have to face up to hard truths and, if necessary, shatter the cosy and comfortable consensus that surrounds the deliberations of so many fora which social democratic parties inhabit.

So states the summary document of the Amsterdam process, a two-year project aimed at no less than the “ideological renewal of European Social Democracy” and a “new revisionism for the 21st century”.

It’s a collaboration between two European progressive think-tanks, the Wiardi Beckman Stichting (the “scientific bureau” of the Dutch Labour Party) and the UK-based Policy Network.

Their initial publication, the Policy Network’s Challenging the politics of evasion: the only way to renew European social democracy, continues this take-no-prisoners rhetoric.

The writers seem at first glance equally critical of the “third way” revisionists (“embarrassed by the various accommodations made in the mid-1990s with the perceived realities of international capitalism and globalisation”) and of traditionalists (accused of “complacency” in their demand for “a return to the eternal verities and truths that the revisionists allegedly lost”).

This impression is probably incorrect, however. The Policy Network is pretty closely associated with the Blairite wing of the UK Labour Party. Peter Mandelson is its president, and two of the three authors of Evasion, Patrick Diamond and Roger Liddle, have previously worked with or for both Mandelson and Tony Blair. The Policy Network is also the secretariat for the Progressive Governance Network, which has been bringing together progressive leaders from around the world (including New Zealand) for over a decade, so it is hardly on the fringes of recent trends in the movement.

As the report continues, it becomes apparent that what it is proposing is a refurbishment of the existing “revisionist” approach, amending some misjudgments and correcting some overreaches. Below are the five dimensions of their “way forward”, with some of my impressions of what they are proposing in each.

Greater clarity about the politics of globalisation: comprehensive reform of global economic governance; active measures to promote responsible business behaviour; and going beyond the ‘enabling state’-as-training-scheme to a “new era of industrial activism” — while stressing that none of this means that the “big state is back”.

Coming to terms with the centre-right response to the financial crisis: where conservatives capture traditional social democratic territory, such as the need for active government during the global recession, progressives should ’stand their ground’ rather than moving further left in response.

Understanding the weight of anxiety about moral and social decline: although rhetoric such as ‘broken Britain’ is exaggerated, progressives should acknowledge the unease it reflects by rediscovering traditional narratives about what makes a good citizen and the politics of virtue, perhaps drawing upon the work of US moral philosopher Michael Sandel.

Confronting confusion about the politics of redistribution and fairness: by framing welfare rights and responsibilities in a way that aligns with what UK Labour minister John Denham has called the “fairness code” of the general population, taking into account desert, opportunity, and the avoidance of material hardship.

A bold plan for the future that captures the imagination of social democracy’s natural allies, new and old: a coalition of modernising institutions, working with sister organisations and thinktanks throughout Europe, drawing on the experience of the US Democratic Leadership Council that helped to elect Bill Clinton.

Apart from perhaps the first of these, it’s not clear that this amounts to much change at the policy level (as opposed to strategy and messaging), but it does represent an attempt to articulate a clear and comprehensive post-crisis progressive programme.

It will be interesting to see where the Amsterdam process takes these initial broad-brush propositions.