He defined the political constituencies who have abandoned the progressive cause here and abroad. New forces are forever shaping political realities, and he spoke deeply about the nature and challenges of the last decade of change. But perhaps more significantly, he began to answer the profound question consuming the minds of all those engaged in the lefts political resurgence: what next and where do we go from here?
Miliband’s speech is a must-read for anyone looking to understand the left’s demise and revival. At its heart was an admission of the left’s failure to adapt to the changed realities of the 21st century. A real and deep sense of insecurity has been one of the predominant forces to emerge in the past decade. We see this in our economic, political and social realms and is one of the principal reasons behind the current parlous state of the left in Europe. One of the key arguments advanced in the speech is not only that the public regard the left responsible for these insecurities, whether on immigration, the economy, or the welfare state, but that it has failed to comprehend the nature of this development.
Our economic and social existence has come under pressure from the forces of insecurity, ‘the downward escalator that makes people fear for their children’s economic future has been stronger than the measures to promote social mobility’. His argument continues that the state has become disempowering and ineffective, a ‘good servant but a bad master’. And equally how a lack of communal belonging and shared identity had contributed to ever-harsher instincts on immigration, identity and welfare.
On rekindling the left’s success, it will take nothing less than a ‘reconnection with disenchanted electorates through new ideas; through new mechanisms for organisation; and through renewed political strategies appropriate to each country’. We need to begin with an ‘ethic, not a policy’. The speech concluded by challenging progressives to engage in the big questions of how we build a moral economy, a decent society, sustainable globalisation, and develop new ideas.
Creating a nation of powerful people, individually and collectively, holds the key to the movements revitalization.
Central to the argument is a reforming state, who are not only innovators of public services but private sector reformers too. The left must live by the principle that we are ‘socialists, not statists’.
In an interdependent and insecure world, progressives will also need to formulate a new internationalist prospectus. And the established convention of how ideas are developed needs to be radically overhauled, ‘we express our political soul in the way we do politics as much as our policies and programmes; and processes that are top down produce solutions that are top-down’.
Without doubt, there has been a decisive shift in public attitudes and feelings in the past decade. The depth and pace of change driven by the forces of globalization have created new realities. One of those realities is a harsher public instinct. Globalisation creates an abundance of new opportunities and possibilities; but in equal measure in creates threats and risks. In the past few years, public attitudes have hardened considerably on issues of tax and spend, immigration, welfare, and public services. You only have to look at the findings from the Searchlight report, strongly referred to in Miliband’s speech, to get a sense of the scale and tone of change.
The Conservatives have understood and tapped into those sentiments better than Labour, at least on a political level. Just look at their positions on immigration, welfare reform, public services and Europe.
On all of them, they carry far greater emotional resonance with the public than Labour’s. However, their latent hostility to the role and purpose of government is a fundamental flaw in their thinking. You cannot create a nation of powerful and secure people as they are attempting to do (watch out for their upcoming white paper on public services reform) through decimating public services. I don’t dispute their libertarian doctrine will accord people with some freedom. But what value does freedom have without power? The challenge for the left is to reformulate a new purpose and ambition for the state. It is not about more or less government, but the existence of an empowering, inventive and moral government. As Amartya Sen would say, to be truly free, one must be powerful and capable. David Miliband’s LSE speech has laid the intellectual and philosophical foundations for the left to succeed. Now the journey begins in making it a reality.
Read also… speech to Progress event by Douglas Alexander MP, shadow foreign secretary, on the crisis in international social democracy and David Coats’ report of the event itself
absobleedin’lutely!
David Miliband contradicts himself. This then leaves open the door to tribalism. He suggests on the one hand that the “centre right” is “fatally fractured” between liberals and libertarians. But, on the other, he shows that its approach to equality (race / gender), the environment, even economic justice is being transformed. David has missed the important point that the “centre of gravity” of politics in Europe and beyond has shifted. Ideas cherished progressives for a century have won – or are winning – the day. So while the “centre left” is today out of power, some of its long-held ideas are in command. How should we react to this? Do we open ourselves up to work with all those who support e.g. racial equality, environmentalism, penal reform (= hugging hoodies)? Or do close ourselves down from this because their support of those ideas is incomplete (what David calls “fatally fractured”)? We have to be open, surely. We have to be for cooperation, joint action and alliances and we have to be against sectarianism and tribalism. This is not only logical. It is also necessary. The necessity arises from the fact that our European societies have not successfully expunged their atavistic past. The Searchlight poll demonstrates this in the UK. Marine Le Pen demonstrates this in France. This racism is based in a tribal identity. You only have to look at the fancy dress worn by EDL members. This identity can only be expunged by rejecting tribalism ourselves, by making common cause with all who want race equality, by recognising the specificity of racism (not subsuming it within all the “equalities” as Labour does), by building communities. Our populations en masse need to be won to join a new type of tribe – an anti-tribe – with a multiracial, multicultural, multifaith identity. Otherwise, our future will be bleak. Progressives in the UK and elsewhere in Europe cannot do this alone. They need others, however “fractured” they may be. Progressives will not regain and retain political power unless they attend to the ideological as well as the economic. I think David will agree.
I mean lets be honest David himself is to the right of the labour party, well OK not to the right the far bloody right. I do not think both he and his brother Ed have any idea at all about labour just new Labour
honest?or a bit dopey?