The papers seem largely convinced – Red Ed is back. Some commentators on the left are arguing that the Labour leader’s “new bargain” and “new economy” represents a radical break with New Labour and the neoliberal hegemony of the past three decades. Those on the right see it as nothing but “back to the future”, with Labour, in time-honoured fashion having entered opposition, now off for a wander into leftist obscurity. If everyone’s saying it, they must be right, mustn’t they?
Well, if an emphasis on responsibility over rights and merit over need (and an earlier condemnation of strike action) marks a substantial, leftist break fromNew Right and Third Wayideologies then perhaps thirty years of Thatcher, Blair, and now Cameron have made us forget what social democracy actually means. Sure the “old” Labour drum sounded at points – particularly with the timeless “you can’t trust the Tories with the NHS” line, greeted with delight by the hall – but it was in no way a return to the pre-Blair era nor was it a particularly strong turn to a new leftist politics.
Some areas that Miliband touched on are simply a continuation ofThird Wayand centre-right policy themes. His emphasis on personal responsibility, particularly in the welfare system, was a crucial part of Blair’s, American-inspired, New Deals. The responsibility mantra has, in fact, been at the heart of welfare reform acrossEuropefor at least the past decade (for example,Germany’s “supporting and demanding” principle), with governments desperate to activate and recommodify their working age populations. European governments, ours included, are becoming ever more silent with regards to social rights, in the process shifting responsibility from the state to the individual. The old rights-based social contract is being torn up, replaced with one centred on reciprocity and conditionality. Ed Miliband’s proposals for social housing are simply another step down this path.
Where, Miliband did potentially signal a change was in extending this responsibility rhetoric beyond the unemployed and those in poverty, towards the top end of the income spectrum. This was most notably seen in his attack on Sir Fred Goodwin, criticising the former RBS CEO, not necessarily for his material contribution to the financial crisis, but more for the perverse values demonstrated by his astronomical salary. This moralistic narrative is particularly significant as, like the general responsibility discourse, it has traditionally been confined to people on low-incomes – a jobless, morally deficient underclass. Perhaps, Miliband is attempting to start a new debate on an “overclass” who are equally (self-) excluded from mainstream society, taking without giving back. This extension of the moral high ground to look over the rich as well as the poor is, therefore, surely a sign of a leftward shift, isn’t it?
Perhaps, but if, as some suggest, this is a radical change for the Labour party, its radicalism lies not in a socialist form but in a populist one. The speech was not about a renaissance in social democracy but instead centred on attacking popular hate figures most notably bankers, energy companies, unemployed welfare recipients, and Southern Cross care homes. It was a speech designed to resonate with the popular anger felt up and down the country about the state of the economy and society. Miliband’s delivery signalled this intention; the focus was on “You”, not you the Labour party member, but you one of the “hard working majority” or “the squeezed middle”.
If some see the content of the speech as a move to the left, then perhaps popular opinion, certainly with regard to big business and financial services, is beginning to reject the liberalism of the past thirty years. A leftward turn in public opinion with regard to welfare reform is, however, clearly not apparent, and despite huge problems in the supply of jobs, concepts such as welfare scroungers and benefit cheats still proliferate. In focusing on merit and responsibility with regard to benefit receipt, Miliband looked to tap into this “popular” anger aimed at the state-supported unemployed.
In speaking out against much derided groups at both ends of the income profile, Miliband is indeed turning away from New Labour. He is attempting to build a “People’s Labour Party”, but not in the shade of deep red that some commentators are reporting. Unlike the last great depression the grand narratives of socialism (or fascism, thankfully!) no longer resonate with the general populous, people are simply angry at those they perceive to be getting a free ride. Ed’s speech was, therefore, a call to create a kind of moralistic meritocracy, a radical change perhaps but radically populist rather than socialist.
The Young Political Bloggers 