Ed Miliband “gets” social democracy

Look beyond the presentation skills.

That Ed Miliband is an impressive and accessible orator with a human touch is a much-voiced argument. I buy that. But what enthuses me about his campaign for the Labour leadership is that his language is more than just eloquent; it reveals an independent mind, a willingness to challenge orthodoxy, and above all a consummately social-democratic philosophy, free of the triangulating tendencies of the previous generation of party leaders.

Perhaps this is a product of Ed's spell as energy and climate change secretary, a portfolio predicated on the use of state intervention to tame and harness the chaotic effects of globalisation. It is to his credit that he flourished in a role defined by such a peculiar mixture of the generationally long-term and the precipitously immediate.

The Climate Change Bill, in particular, represented a triumph of his ambitious, responsive dirigisme. It lifted the target for 2050 emissions cuts from 60 per cent to 80 per cent and heeded calls to curb aviation and shipping emissions. The director of Friends of the Earth admitted that "the government has listened", and the lead scientist at Greenpeace claimed: "In a decade in power, Labour has never adopted a target so ambitious, far-reaching and internationally significant as this."

Moreover, at the Copenhagen summit last year, Ed was widely praised for his role in rallying international governments around an amendment that, according to the environmentalist Franny Armstrong, "prevented the talks from collapsing". As climate secretary, he also introduced a more interventionist approach to cutting domestic energy use: obliging energy companies to meet 60 per cent of insulation costs, offering loans for energy-saving technologies and introducing grants for small-scale energy generation.

Ed is putting this commitment to the active state at the heart of his leadership campaign, offering a break from that desiccated managerialism whose stated raison d'être was (in the words of Alan Milburn) to help people "earn and own". It is a break that can be found in his call to "take on the power of the markets", in his communitarian support for a national network of Post Banks, and in his willingness, rare among former ministers, to talk not just about equality of opportunity, but about equality of outcome.

"The connection between our sense and the people's sense of fairness frayed and we need to acknowledge that," he has said. "It frayed over excesses at the top. And it frayed over the people at the other end of society as well."

On Friday, he will launch a campaign for a National Living Wage. This is an encouraging sign of things to come. Imagine it on the 2015 pledge card: three words telling a powerful story about Labour's vision for the good society.

But beyond the policy's social merits, a debate on the living wage could also give the party the chance to discuss issues that in the past have been swept under the carpet: the distribution of wealth, the work-life balance, the impact of globalisation on wages, housing and public services. Ed is going the right way about putting these back on the agenda.

So, solely to foreground the younger Miliband's personal skills, his rhetorical style and ability to "talk human" does the man a disservice. Both as a cabinet member and now as a leadership candidate, he has been distinguished by what he says, more than how he says it.

Where others use "aspiration" as an empty buzzword, he explains that it must mean more than prosperity. Where others talk about "making work pay", he adds that work must also be dignified. Where others discuss "fairness" in the abstract, he talks about the need to address the gap between rich and poor. As such, I believe that he would make an excellent leader of the Labour Party.

Jeremy Cliffe is a a convenor for Compass and a student at Oxford University.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.