Show Hide image

David Miliband: Labour cannot be conservative

New Statesman guest editor's leading article.

Parliament packs up for the summer holidays on Tuesday. This time last year, Labour was nervous and the Conservatives were enjoying themselves. Now, the positions seem to be reversed. The Liberals are at least consistent – but gallows humour is not very attractive in politics.

There are risks for both main parties over the next year, the biggest of which is that many voters see politics as broken, having nothing to do with their lives and offering no solutions to the country’s problems. As the economy stagnates, politics needs to respond with vigour and imagination.

The danger for the Tories is to become consumed with political tactics at the expense of running the country. That is the most obvious explanation for the lurches and U-turns since the Budget in March. The crudity of George Osborne’s smear campaign against Ed Balls over the LIBOR fixing scandal suggests he is going to fall deeper into the trap.

The risk for Labour supporters is different. According to a recent ComRes poll, 74 per cent of them now expect the Tories to lose the next election. The danger is to confuse being a better opposition with becoming a potential government.

Labour has been calm, united (the attacks on the think tank Progress aside) and quick to point out Tory weakness and hypocrisy. Yet the Tories still stand on 35 per cent in the latest YouGov poll, giving weight to Ed Miliband’s warning after the May local elections that Labour’s next task was to become a magnet for votes, not just a receptacle for them.

Finding a voice

“The left needs to find a voice.” So wrote the historian of Europe and the left Tony Judt in one of his last books, Ill Fares the Land. Judt excoriated the cruelties, injustices and stupidities of western societies. But his book also exposed the main dilemma that parties of the centre left need to resolve.

Judt contended that, in seeking a better future, the left in recent decades has lost sight of the strong inheritance from the past. He advocated “defensive” social democracy, because “the left has something to conserve”.

At a time of austerity and recession, with a madcap reorganisation of the NHS and the Prime Minister’s demotic recycling of Peter Lilley’s 1992 Conservative party conference speech and its “little list” of benefit scroungers and welfare queens, you can see Judt’s point. There is a lot to defend.

Defensive social democracy won Harold Wilson the 1974 elections in Britain (just). More recently, centre-left parties in Denmark and France have kept their heads down and benefited from a swing against the right. But if defensive social democracy delivers a win – and it is a big if – the problem will be with governing. Economic power is shifting to the east, putting huge pressure on tax revenues. Meanwhile social needs are rising – because of economic inequality (including 25 million unemployed in Europe), on the one hand, and social pressures from demographic changes, on the other. In France, President Hollande is facing that reality as he looks to square the financial realities of an independent budget audit with electoral commitments.

Labour’s history is that it wins and governs when it aligns an economic narrative of modernisation with a social agenda of compassion and a political culture of dynamism and pro­gress. In 1945, the story was national renewal; in 1964, the scientific revolution; in 1997, a meritocratic Britain.

Today, Labour has a disruptive economic narrative – that Britain needs fundamental change in its market structure and culture to compete in the modern world. This is bold. Given the crash, it is also necessary. We could do worse than take Vince Cable’s 2012 Budget submission to the Chancellor, bemoaning the lack of a plan for growth and setting out how to deliver one, and promise to implement it.

There are big choices on social policy, too. Three areas cry out for attention: housing, childcare and eldercare. The fiscal situation is bleak. Labour needs to make “switch spends”, the difficult process of shifting expenditure to reflect priorities, not just renew commitments to “tax and spend”.

The think tank IPPR has proposed that housing benefit and housebuilding budgets should be combined and devolved to cities. There would be local decision-making about the balance between rent subsidy and housing investment. IPPR has also shown how a ten-year freeze on child benefit could pay for universal affordable childcare. Meanwhile, long-term care funding has been locked in the “too difficult” box for three decades because the extra public funding required – which the recent Dilnot commission now estimates to be £1.7bn rising to £3.6bn a year – has never been looked at alongside other funding for old age, from tax reliefs to pensioner benefits.

There are pros and cons to moves in any of these areas. The point is that defence of the status quo cannot deliver our goals. The Nordic countries have used family policy, including childcare, to create jobs and promote social integration. The German Social Democratic Party developed its “dual flexibility” programme – in export industries and the service sector – to drive the country forward. Neither strategy guaranteed votes – but they have helped build economies and societies we admire. We need to occupy that space, building a different kind of social market economy for the modern age.

Opening up the conversation

These are the kinds of issues that Jon Cruddas can get his teeth into as Labour’s policy tsar. He is not a policy wonk – a great advantage. Policy is where choices get made; but it is politics that opens up the choices rather than closing them down. Good politics starts with empathy, proceeds to analysis, then sets out values and establishes the vision, before getting to the nitty-gritty of policy solutions.

Political reform is not a diversion from this agenda. It is vital to it. In developing new policies, Labour cannot afford the old politics of a conversation with itself. Winning the public round to an agenda of real change is not about conference resolutions. It is about daily engagement with the people leading change in communities.

People know that the Tories are empty and tactical. They have rumbled that there is no Cameron “project” for the country. Now they want to discover what ours might be. And here, we have one great advantage. In the 1980s local government lost Labour votes. In the 2010s it can be the forcing house of new ideas on the economy, social security, crime and housing. It can pioneer a different conversation with the public.

People are frightened. Tactical Tory populism can have resonance. Their aim on Europe, immigration and the welfare state is to fuse a story about issues of identity and culture with one about economics. They must not be allowed to pull it off. Serious, credible actions and ideas are the best antidote. Tony Judt said in his book that “social democracy cannot just be about preserving worthy institutions as a defence against worse options”. Sadly, he did not live to contribute to that process, but the message is right. As it plots its next steps, Labour cannot be conservative. The prize is not just winning – it is being able to change the country again. 

David Miliband is the guest editor of this week's New Statesman. The magazine, cover-dated 16 July, will be on sale in London on Thursday 12 July and in the rest of the country from Friday 13 July. Domestic and international purchasers can obtain single issue copies here


David Miliband is the  President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee
He was foreign secretary from 2007 until 2010 and MP for South Shields from 2001 until this year. 

This article first appeared in the 16 July 2012 issue of the New Statesman, Age of Crisis

David Young
Show Hide image

The Tories are the zombie party: with an ageing, falling membership, still they stagger on to victory

One Labour MP in Brighton spotted a baby in a red Babygro and said to me: “There’s our next [Labour] prime minister.”

All football clubs have “ultras” – and, increasingly, political parties do, too: although, in the case of political parties, their loudest and angriest supporters are mostly found on the internet. The SNP got there first: in the early days of email, journalists at the Scotsman used to receive bilious missives complaining about its coverage – or, on occasion, lack of coverage – of what the Scottish National Party was up to. The rest soon followed, with Ukip, the Labour Party and even the crushed Liberal Democrats now boasting a furious electronic horde.

The exception is the Conservative Party. Britain’s table-topping team might have its first majority in 18 years and is widely expected in Westminster to remain in power for another decade. But it doesn’t have any fans. The party’s conference in Manchester, like Labour’s in Brighton, will be full to bursting. But where the Labour shindig is chock-full of members, trade unionists and hangers-on from the charitable sector, the Conservative gathering is a more corporate affair: at the fringes I attended last year, lobbyists outnumbered members by four to one. At one, the journalist Peter Oborne demanded to know how many people in the room were party members. It was standing room only – but just four people put their hands up.

During Grant Shapps’s stint at Conservative headquarters, serious attempts were made to revive membership. Shapps, a figure who is underrated because of his online blunders, and his co-chair Andrew Feldman were able to reverse some of the decline, but they were running just to stand still. Some of the biggest increases in membership came in urban centres where the Tories are not in contention to win a seat.

All this made the 2015 election win the triumph of a husk. A party with a membership in long-term and perhaps irreversible decline, which in many seats had no activists at all, delivered crushing defeats to its opponents across England and Wales.

Like José Mourinho’s sides, which, he once boasted, won “without the ball”, the Conservatives won without members. In Cumbria the party had no ground campaign and two paper candidates. But letters written by the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, were posted to every household where someone was employed making Trident submarines, warning that their jobs would be under threat under a Labour government. This helped the Tories come close to taking out both Labour MPs, John Woodcock in Barrow and Furness and Jamie Reed in Copeland. It was no small feat: Labour has held Barrow since 1992 and has won Copeland at every election it has fought.

The Tories have become the zombies of British politics: still moving though dead from the neck down. And not only moving, but thriving. One Labour MP in Brighton spotted a baby in a red Babygro and said to me: “There’s our next [Labour] prime minister.” His Conservative counterparts also believe that their rivals are out of power for at least a decade.

Yet there are more threats to the zombie Tories than commonly believed. The European referendum will cause endless trouble for their whips over the coming years. And for all there’s a spring in the Conservative step at the moment, the party has a majority of only 12 in the Commons. Parliamentary defeats could easily become commonplace. But now that Labour has elected Jeremy Corbyn – either a more consensual or a more chaotic leader than his predecessors, depending on your perspective – division within parties will become a feature, rather than a quirk, at Westminster. There will be “splits” aplenty on both sides of the House.

The bigger threat to Tory hegemony is the spending cuts to come, and the still vulnerable state of the British economy. In the last parliament, George Osborne’s cuts fell predominantly on the poorest and those working in the public sector. They were accompanied by an extravagant outlay to affluent retirees. As my colleague Helen Lewis wrote last week, over the next five years, cuts will fall on the sharp-elbowed middle classes, not just the vulnerable. Reductions in tax credits, so popular among voters in the abstract, may prove just as toxic as the poll tax and the abolition of the 10p bottom income-tax rate – both of which were popular until they were actually implemented.

Added to that, the British economy has what the economist Stephen King calls “the Titanic problem”: a surplus of icebergs, a deficit of lifeboats. Many of the levers used by Gordon Brown and Mervyn King in the last recession are not available to David Cameron and the chief of the Bank of England, Mark Carney: debt-funded fiscal stimulus is off the table because the public finances are already in the red. Interest rates are already at rock bottom.

Yet against that grim backdrop, the Conservatives retain the two trump cards that allowed them to win in May: questions about Labour’s economic competence, and the personal allure of David Cameron. The public is still convinced that the cuts are the result of “the mess” left by Labour, however unfair that charge may be. If a second crisis strikes, it could still be the Tories who feel the benefit, if they can convince voters that the poor state of the finances is still the result of New Labour excess rather than Cameroon failure.

As for Cameron, in 2015 it was his lead over Ed Miliband as Britons’ preferred prime minister that helped the Conservatives over the line. This time, it is his withdrawal from politics which could hand the Tories a victory even if the economy tanks or cuts become widely unpopular. He could absorb the hatred for the failures and the U-turns, and then hand over to a fresher face. Nicky Morgan or a Sajid Javid, say, could yet repeat John Major’s trick in 1992, breathing life into a seemingly doomed Conservative project. For Labour, the Tory zombie remains frustratingly lively. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.

This article first appeared in the 01 October 2015 issue of the New Statesman, The Tory tide