Does Ed Miliband intend - as he and a number of
commentators have suggested - to
call time on three decades of neoliberalism
and establish a new long-term political consensus, as Thatcher and
Attlee did before him? In the absence of any firm policy detail, the
only way to answer that question is to examine the language Labour has
used to critique government policy and set out its own position. Any
political paradigm shift requires, in the first instance, for dominant
narratives, common assumptions and conventional ways of understanding
the issues to be subjected to fundamental challenge. Without first
establishing that the old ways of thinking were misconceived, new
approaches cannot be brought in to take their place. Yet the evidence so
far does not suggest that Miliband's Labour is willing to take even
this crucial first step.
Start with Labour's position on the Tory benefits cap. The headline response to the "
strivers versus shirkers" theme was that a real terms cut in social security would effectively be a "
Strivers Tax"
because it hits claimants who are in work. The basic dichotomy -
working "strivers" and unemployed "shirkers" - was thereby effectively
endorsed. For anyone hoping for the imminent demise of Thatcherism, the
sight of a Labour Party unwilling to challenge the neo-Victorian
lie that unemployment is caused by wanton idleness, even five years into an economic
depression, will have been somewhat less than encouraging.
What of Labour's jobs guarantee for the long-term unemployed? A great
idea in principle, except the guarantee does not extend to those jobs
being secure, permanent or paid at or above the Living Wage. Miliband's
broad diagnosis that, rather than government redistributing to
compensate for the iniquities of the market system, the rules of the
game themselves should be changed so that wealth is "predistributed"
more equally through good and decently paid jobs, is both timely and
correct. But fine words are of little practical value when one of
Labour's first new jobs policies drives a coach and horses through those
basic principles.
Miliband's
recent speech
on immigration was, superficially, a little more encouraging,
reflecting a sense of ease and contentment with the cosmopolitan nation
that Britain has become. But substantively, the way he framed the issue
simply reflected the real 'political correctness' of the day: Britain
has had its problems with racism and xenophobia in the past, but thanks
to our heroic national character these have now been overcome, leaving
only legitimate concerns about immigration, caused in part by the
failure of immigrants themselves to properly
integrate
with local communities. There was not so much as a suggestion that
ignorance and prejudice may play some part in fuelling the hostility
faced by this generation of immigrants, as was the case with the last.
There was no mention of the
relentless xenophobia of the gutter press, no mention of the current threat posed by the "
English Defence League", and no mention of
continued harassment
of black youths by the police, to take some examples. What place will
today's victims of bigotry have in the "One Nation" envisaged by a
Labour leader so anxious to placate anti-immigrant opinion?
Perhaps the lowest point of Miliband's leadership was his opening of a
June 2011 speech
with the story of how he had met a man on incapacity benefit who he was
"convinced" could find a job, and who was "just not taking
responsibility" while "other families on his street are working all
hours just to get by." This assessment was offered without evidence,
knowledge or medical expertise, mirroring the many prejudicial
judgements made against disabled people, especially those with
"invisible disabilities", both by their more ill-informed neighbours and
by the right-wing press. Make no mistake. This
cruel ignorance leads directly to
real, physical and emotional suffering.
That Miliband chose to pander to that prejudice rather than to defend
the maligned and the vulnerable gives us some indication of the
character of his leadership.
For the New Labour generation of politicians, intellectual conformity
and acceptance of Thatcherite conventional wisdom was seen as the
ultimate test of seriousness. But if Miliband really wants to be a
transformational leader (of which I am sceptical), then these are
precisely the wrong instincts to have. Put simply, if he doesn't have
the nerve to pick tough rhetorical fights now, then he has no chance of
winning the hard policy battles later on. If anything, the more he
accepts the terms of debate as he finds them, the more entrenched the
status quo will become.
Is it any Wonder that across the UK, Labour is losing voters on mass. Scotland a former Labour stronghold has seen its voters on mass move to SNP, in Brighten the Greens have replaced Labour, whilst Labour are still reeling from the loss of the safe Labour seat of Bradford to Respect, across the UK, Labour is also under political knock out from other more local Groups such as no to HS2, Save our NHS, and in Lewisham the massive rise of People before Profit a sound political movement with a clear economic policy and real vision,following on from the political breakthrough in Ireland when at the first go, People before Profit secured 2 MP seats and a dozen Councillors. Lewisham has 3 Labour seats , a Labour council and a Labour Mayor, all deeply unpopular due to the Last Labour Goverments role in the PFI contract that has seen the Local Hospital face closure, whilst i am Sure they will win loads of Council seats, they are extremly active at grass roots level and have been able to bring all the opposition groups together, the fact that long term Labour MP Joan ruddock has resigned to take up a seat in House of Lords instead of Deptford, could see a real shock and the First People Before Profit MP elected for this seat in 2015.
Keep up to date with comment and events before they are published.follow Ray on twitter @Raywoolford
