This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/27/ed-miliband-unity-economic-inequality-labour

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ed Miliband’s five-year slow shuffle was meant to bring unity not sclerosis Ed Miliband’s five-year slow shuffle was meant to bring unity not sclerosis
(about 2 hours later)
As long as a political party doesn’t move too fast it can make sclerosis look like unity. Under Ed Miliband, Labour has taken a few thrusting strides – attacking Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking; pledging to freeze energy bills – but the distance travelled since the last election has mostly been covered at a slow shuffle. As long as a political party doesn’t move too fast it can make sclerosis look like unity. Under Ed Miliband, Labour has taken a few thrusting strides – attacking Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking, or pledging to freeze energy bills – but the distance travelled since the last election has mostly been covered at a slow shuffle.
Miliband did not hide his intention to advance in increments. “As your leader, I will never leave this party behind,” he pledged in 2010. The audience understood that as a dig at Tony Blair for charging out of the comfort zone without a tender backward glance for the bewildered infantry. By moving slowly, Labour has stayed in formation but rarely looked dynamic. Sensible positions have been secured and modest victories won. But sensible modesty sets no pulses racing. A case in point: forcing the government to accept amendments to the infrastructure bill on Monday, imposing tighter regulations for shale gas extraction. It was a “huge” U-turn, according to Caroline Flint, shadow environment secretary. (Is there any other kind in the lexicon of opposition?) Miliband did not hide his intention to advance in increments. “As your leader, I will never leave this party behind,” he pledged in 2010. The audience understood that as a dig at Tony Blair for charging out of the comfort zone without a tender backward glance for the bewildered infantry. By moving slowly, Labour has stayed in formation but rarely looked dynamic.
But eco-activists, for whom fracking is a dirty word, will be unimpressed that the industry hasn’t been shut down, while the industry will carry on lobbying for concessions. Labour’s position on shale gas is much like its position on budget cuts, welfare reform, free schools and immigration control – not against it; just against doing it badly. This is a morally creditable position for a government-in-waiting but an invitation to be ignored in the crowded marketplace of political outrage. As one senior Labour backbencher said after the fracking vote: “The danger on days like this is that we end up looking like mush.” Sensible positions have been secured and modest victories won. But sensible modesty sets no pulses racing. A case in point: forcing the government to accept amendments to the infrastructure bill on Monday, imposing tighter regulations for shale gas extraction. It was a “huge” U-turn, according to Caroline Flint, shadow environment secretary. (Is there any other kind in the lexicon of opposition?)
Cautious pragmatism once looked like a safe option. That was before Ukip and the Greens started challenging Labour’s monopoly on opposition. Conventional political wisdom says those threats may yet subside as polling day nears. But conventional wisdom has been an unreliable guide in this parliament. Labour candidates are discovering with the Greens something that their Tory counterparts have already learnt in unsuccessful attempts to talk voters down from backing Nigel Farage. Telling people they mustn’t indulge a party that cannot win because the system insists on a choice between two bigger players is counter-productive. Exclusion from the system is what makes people identify with the small parties in the first place. But eco-activists, for whom fracking is a dirty word, will be unimpressed that the industry hasn’t been shut down, while the industry will carry on lobbying for concessions. Labour’s position on shale gas is much like its position on budget cuts, welfare reform, free schools and immigration control: not against it, just against doing it badly. This is a morally creditable position for a government-in-waiting but an invitation to be ignored in the crowded marketplace of political outrage. As one senior Labour backbencher said after the fracking vote: “The danger on days like this is that we end up looking like mush.”
That is frustrating for Tories but harrowing for Labour, since representing the excluded is meant to be a core competence of the left. It doesn’t make the party feel any better that Miliband has a theoretical explanation for the causes of disaffection: the way our economy has been organised for a generation shares the proceeds of growth unfairly, favouring the few over the many, depressing wages, eroding workers’ rights and fomenting anxiety. The insecure and unprotected are easy prey for populists. This is true, but it is also what the left has always said about capitalism without yet turning that complaint into a winning campaign. What gave Labour confidence after 2010 was a feeling that the financial crisis and its aftermath have exposed the systemic iniquities – and Tory complacency – like never before. This time was different. That is also something the left always says. Cautious pragmatism once looked like a safe option. That was before Ukip and the Greens started challenging Labour’s monopoly on opposition. Conventional political wisdom says those threats may yet subside as polling day nears; but conventional wisdom has been an unreliable guide in this parliament. Labour candidates are discovering with the Greens something that their Tory counterparts have already learnt in trying to talk voters down from backing Nigel Farage. Telling people they mustn’t indulge a party that cannot win because the system insists on a choice between two big players is counter-productive. Exclusion from the system is what makes people identify with the small parties in the first place.
Miliband isn’t against capitalism, just against doing it badly. The weakest part of the analysis is its parochialism. The hard left and the liberal right both know that capitalism’s genius and resilience are a function of global penetration. The difference is that one camp sees transcendence of national boundaries as wicked financial imperialism and the other sees it as wealth-spreading progress. Labour impulses vary wildly on that front, as would quickly become clear if the party found itself in government dealing with the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a huge free trade deal currently bogged down in talks between the EU and the US. Anti-globalisation activists see it as a charter for multinational corporate bullies. Labour’s position is that familiar guarded, conditional support: not against TTIP, but against doing it badly. That is frustrating for Tories but harrowing for Labour, since representing the excluded is meant to be a core competence of the left. It doesn’t make the party feel any better that Miliband has a theoretical explanation for the causes of disaffection: the way our economy has been organised for a generation shares the proceeds of growth unfairly, favouring the few over the many, depressing wages, eroding workers’ rights and fomenting anxiety. The insecure and unprotected are easy prey for populists.
Miliband’s instincts on globalisation are obscure. His criticism of capitalism is usually confined to its British manifestation. He is pro-European, in the automatic fashion of so many on the left who support the EU by default because it was conceived as an antidote to nationalism and causes the Tories pain. But Miliband will not be drawn on how the single market might evolve to compete with China, India and the US, or on whether the EU can adapt at all with the single currency in perpetual crisis. “Ed doesn’t really do abroad,” notes one shadow minister dealing with these issues. This is true, but it is also what the left has always said about capitalism without yet turning that complaint into a winning campaign. What gave Labour confidence after 2010 was a feeling that the financial crisis and its aftermath have exposed the systemic iniquities – and Tory complacency – like never before. This time was different. That is also something the left always says.
The weakness in Miliband’s position is not reluctance to chase the Greens or anyone else down a path of more drastic anti-market rhetoric. It is parochialism. Britain, he says, has the wrong sort of capitalism, which it probably does – except that the one point on which the hard left and the liberal right agree is that capitalism’s genius is a function of its global reach. The only difference is, the former see the supremacy of commerce over national boundaries as imperialism, while the latter see it as progress.
Labour impulses vary wildly on that front, as would become clear if the party found itself in government grappling with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a huge free trade deal bogged down in talks between the EU and the US. Anti-globalisers see it as a charter for multinational corporate bullies. Labour’s current position is, once again, conditional support: not against TTIP, just against doing it badly.
Miliband’s instincts on globalisation are obscure. His criticism of capitalism is usually confined to its British manifestation. He is pro-European, in the automatic fashion of so many on the left who support the EU by default because it was conceived as an antidote to nationalism and causes the Tories pain.
But Miliband will not be drawn on how the single market might evolve to compete with China, India and the US, or on whether the EU can adapt at all with the single currency in perpetual crisis. “Ed doesn’t really do abroad,” notes one shadow minister dealing with these issues.
Difficulty addressing the political side-effects of globalisation without abandoning liberal economic remedies is not a problem unique to Labour. Others are just as confused and more hypocritical. Scottish Nationalists sell independence as an escape route from Anglo-Toryism, while promising bargain basement corporate tax rates and de facto surrender of economic autonomy to the whim of the oil market. Nigel Farage is a free-market fanatic, riding on angry demands for protection, intervention and closed borders. David Cameron has tried to play the same game.Difficulty addressing the political side-effects of globalisation without abandoning liberal economic remedies is not a problem unique to Labour. Others are just as confused and more hypocritical. Scottish Nationalists sell independence as an escape route from Anglo-Toryism, while promising bargain basement corporate tax rates and de facto surrender of economic autonomy to the whim of the oil market. Nigel Farage is a free-market fanatic, riding on angry demands for protection, intervention and closed borders. David Cameron has tried to play the same game.
The difference with Miliband is that resolving the contradiction is the one big thing he is supposed to be all about. Failure to engage with the international context is not a minor omission. It is a flaw in the whole project because there is no credible reform agenda for British capitalism that glosses over globalisation. Yet Labour’s shallow unity is sustained by just such a gloss. Divisions emerging on the left seem bad now. They’re worse than they look. The difference with Miliband is that resolving the contradiction is the one big thing he is supposed to be all about. Failure to engage with the international context is not a minor omission; it is a flaw in the whole project because there is no credible reform agenda for British capitalism that glosses over globalisation. Yet Labour’s shallow unity is sustained by just such a gloss. Divisions emerging on the left seem bad now. They’re worse than they look.
No one can accuse the Labour leader of ignoring the way Britain’s economy has bred inequality and political dissatisfaction. The promise to the party – the prize for sticking with Miliband on his five-year shuffle – was a new economic blueprint to satisfy the left’s appetite for a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunity. That meant delving deeper than New Labour ever did into the structures of the economy. It might be slow going but it was a journey that would not leave the party behind. But wherever it was Miliband meant to be, he hasn’t got there yet. And neither global capitalism nor the general election are going to wait for him. No one can accuse the Labour leader of ignoring the way Britain’s economy has bred inequality and political dissatisfaction. The promise to the party – the prize for sticking with Miliband on his five-year shuffle – was a new economic blueprint to satisfy the left’s appetite for a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunity. That meant delving deeper than New Labour ever did into the structures of the economy. It might be slow going but it was a journey that would not leave the party behind.
But wherever it was Miliband meant to be, he hasn’t got there yet. And neither global capitalism nor the general election are going to wait for him.