Registered user login:

My vision for the future

David Miliband

Published 02 April 2007

Will the forthcoming change of prime minister lead to a radical change in British politics? As speculation mounts about a leadership contest, David Miliband sets out a new approach designed to revitalise the centre-left

Politics requires many virtues - organisation, ideas, resolution, luck. But chief among them is the hardest to define: that elusive sense of being in tune with the times. Political parties succeed when they join their values to deep economic, social and cultural trends. I am convinced that a fourth election victory, and fundamental changes to the landscape of Britain, are possible precisely because a more demanding, educated, savvy population want the power and control that modern progressive politics can offer. I believe the opportunity is as great as at any time in the past 60 years.

In the years after 1945, people said: "I need . . ." I need the basics of a civilised life: good insurance against pain and economic misfortune, a decent education and housing. The Labour Party understood that mood, shared it and enacted policy to make it real.

The fit was both philosophical and administrative. Labour's governing ideas of community and fraternity were perfectly suited to a society that had lived through the most binding of all common experiences, a war against an aggressor. Labour's strategy - the state as the provider of social goods such as healthcare and education - was no more than a continuation of the evident success of the wartime economy. Millions of lives were made better as a result.

In the 1980s, "I need" was replaced as the dominant philosophy by the politics of "I want". A political philosophy emerged which, again in its ideology and its methods, understood the times. The Thatcher government licensed this materialism, encouraged aspirations and captured a new constituency. Its method was simple: get out of the way. The revolution was never completed. The state actually grew in size.

Millions of people, every bit as aspirant as those who had been rewarded, were left behind. Some communities missed out altogether.

The government stood by. The helping hand of the state had been scorned, replaced by the invisible hand of the market. We are still living with some of the consequences of those times: the families struggling to get on the housing ladder; the young people outside education, training or work, unsure of their futures. The politics of "I want" collapsed under its own weight. In the end, no society can be the sum total of individual desires.

Since 1997, Britain has changed in some ways more fundamentally than new Labour promised. It is a different country - richer, fairer, more confident. I also think it is being driven forward by a new spirit. I call it the politics of "I can". The era of "I can" is the culmination of the long decline of deference and automatic authority. It is the late flowering of individual autonomy and control. It is, in other words, one of the founding ideas of left-of-centre politics: to put power in the hands of the people.

In the "I can" era, people want to be players, not just spectators. They want to be contributors, not just consumers. Technology is enabling these aspirations to be fulfilled and new institutional models to emerge. In South Korea, the online newspaper Ohmynews has, as its motto, "every citizen is a reporter". It is the first "paper" in the world where the majority of the content is written by freelance contributors who are mostly ordinary citizens. YouTube and MySpace enable citizens to create and distribute content, shifting power from traditional broadcasters and record companies to citizens and small groups.

Politics cannot stand apart from these changes. A generation is coming to political maturity that expects not just high standards of provision, delivered quickly to specification, but also real control.

David Cameron is groping for this when he talks about social responsibility. But it is not enough to say that the world would be a better place if people showed social responsibility. This soon becomes a new code for malign neglect, the old Tory idea in fancier dress.

An "I can" society asks new things of citizens, and demands that they acquire new skills. But it also requires very different government institutions. That is why social and economic change today require government leadership and profes sional innovation, as well as mass mobilisation.

In the battle against climate change, an "I can" society enables citizens to become producers as well as consumers of energy. Within ten years, all new homes will need to sell energy back to the national grid, with citizens getting a fair price for their electricity. The power stations of the future will draw energy from a million roofs, rather than just a central generator.

"I can" must be combined with a sense of "we can" - the belief that there is a shared willingness within each community that individuals' actions will be reciprocated by others. The best way of getting citizens to invest in energy-efficiency measures is not just to appeal on the basis of individual self-interest, but to target a whole street or ward and make citizens feel part of a wider drive to tackle climate change. That is why energy policy in future must be a matter for local government as well as national government.

In public services, an "I can" service will continually ask: how can we devolve power, funding and control to the lowest appropriate level, while maintaining high national minimum standards? Can teachers and children inject more creativity into what is learnt, where and how? Can communities manage public spaces, from parks to community centres? Can the criminal justice system become more connected to the communities it serves, with courts based within communities, and citizens able to have influence over sentencing (as happens in the pioneering Liverpool experiment that Charlie Falconer described to the cabinet two weeks ago)?

This is not a zero-sum game between government power and citizen power; it is a genuine partnership that breaks down the divide between producer and consumer.

In the economy, "I can" companies and public sector organisations will inspire their employees to go the extra mile and apply their creativity in the workplace. Employees will be offered more power, responsibility and autonomy, from options to buy a stake in the company to the opportunity for further training.

These changes must be underpinned by changes in the way we govern. Strong local government in cities such as Manchester, Sheffield and Exeter has been the heartbeat of economic growth and social inclusion. But, in truth, new Labour has been better at strong national leadership than at nurturing strong local institutions of self-government. Yet look at our membership cards: they say clearly that we are pledged to put power, as well as wealth and opportunity, in the hands of the many not the few.

The concentration of power in Westminster is as antithetical to our ambitions of a more equal society as is the concentration of power in the private sector.

Creating institutions closer to citizens, open and accountable to their communities, able to reconcile conflicts and competing demands, is the way to tackle the sense of powerlessness that can seem pervasive. That means we need to fight the instinct of bureaucracies and political parties to hold on to power. One hundred towns and cities with the leadership, confidence and power to lead British economic, social and cultural renewal should be our aim.

New Labour has joined together the twin drives to meet needs and to fulfil aspirations. The next phase will be to capture the politics of a people who can now do so much more. That is a project that should excite everyone for the years ahead.

David Miliband is Environment Secretary. His blog is at http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

12 comments from readers

steffaction
29 March 2007 at 17:37

entirely meaningless, a set of platitudes with no real proposals. if miliband is the future for the left, then, for god's sake freeze me!

drdavidlowry
30 March 2007 at 10:36

David Miliband writes: "The power stations of the future will draw energy from a million roofs, rather than just a central generator." This would be excellent, but the trouble is Mr Miliband is backing the wrong kind of power - nuclear - in speeches here and abroad, such as at the UN in New York.

In January Mr Miliband accepted a nomination to become President of SERA (Socialist Environment Resources Association- Labour's environment campaign), succeeding Lord (Chris ) Smith, a former cabinet minister, and strong opponent on nuclear power.

There should be nothing odd about the environment secretary accepting such an honorary position, except that one of SERA's strongest policies since it was established in the mid 1970s (and a policy rigorously upheld by Chris Smith as its president) has been to oppose civil nuclear power development and nuclear fuel reprocessing at Sellafield. This policy has been reinforced by several resolutions at SERA annual meetings over past several decades.

Yet Mr Miliband, since becoming environment secretary last summer, has himself actively promoted nuclear power as an important component of his strategy to combat climate change and to reduce carbon emissions- as a little 'Sir Echo' of his boss, Tony Blair.

Yet another SERA supporter, deputy leadership contender and Miliband's Cabinet colleague, Peter Hain, has criticised nuclear as expensive, dangerous and unsustainable.

Are Miliband's views on nuclear power a chronic case of cognitive dissonance?

fraternally

Dr David Lowry

member*, SERA Energy Group

contributing author, Nuclear or Not? (Palgrave Macmillan, February 2007)

Stoneleigh

Surrey

* please note I cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Energy Group, although I know many share my concerns

NickNonAligned
30 March 2007 at 13:33

Steffaction - gosh, you are so clever! Cynicism is such a positive force for good - let's just criticise everything then we'll definitely see some forward movement in the world.

Surely politicians should be encouraged to develop and expound a philosophy - it's part of helping us to understand where they're coming from. Why are politicians always criticised for not trying to set policy with their every utterance? It just doesn't make sense - policy should surely only come after having given extensive thought to the right direction, which is what it seems to me that David Miliband is trying to do. I certainly know much more about where he is coming from than I do with Gordon Brown.

If I had the power to freeze you I would, to put both you and us out of your misery. Sadly I can't, so please keep your unhelpful and unconstructive thoughts where they belong.

NickNonAligned
30 March 2007 at 13:39

drdavidlowry - why do you seem to think that the fact David Miliband supports nuclear power means that he is not also keen to see microgeneration be a significant part of the mix. Surely the one thing that everyone is agreed about is that however we generate electricity in the future, it will come from a mixture of different sources. So there is no inconsistency that I can see in David Miliband's piece, and I really don't see that the point you are making has any relevance to this article.

drdavidlowry
30 March 2007 at 22:11

NickNonAligned suggests my comments on David Miliband's support for nuclear are irrelevant to the Environment Secretary's stated support for microgeneration: and what we want is fuel mix for electricity generation. Nick sadly shares Mr Miliband's lack of comprehension of the UK energy systems. It is not both /and nuclear /microgeneration, but either or. And the choice has systemic implications for energy options.

Let me set it out, using some energy practitioners somewhat more expert than Mr Miliband, but to whom he should actually be paying attention, but presently isn't.

Witness one: Jonathan Porritt, chairman of the government's independent advisors, the Sustainable Development Commission, in his essay accompanying the SDC's evidence to last year's Energy Review:

he stresses on the competiton between nuclear and microgeneration-

* Inflexibility - nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are stronger than ever.

* Undermining energy efficiency - a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that's required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency."

(see:http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html)

Witness 2: A joint Mayor of London/Greenpeace UK report 'Powering London into the 21st Century'.published in March 2006, prepared by independent consultants PB Power's Energy Services Division, demonstrates how there is a choice to be made between big cenralised systems such as nuclear, or coal, and decentralised distributed energy systems such as small scale CHP, micro- wind, and and solar power. anyone reding this 56-page summary report could come to no other conclusion that nuclear and microgeneration are inimical competitors, delivering very different kinds of power and heat systems.

(see: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport...)

I hope that helps.

Dr David Lowry

taghioff.info
31 March 2007 at 09:45

Milliband, like the rest of new labour, has borrowed these ideas from international development.

"I need" is basic needs theory. "I want" is neoliberalism, and "I can" is Human Development speak, inherited from Amartya Sen and Marth Nussbaums ideas about capabilities, passed through Lukes and Giddens and Blair, to become the "Third Way."

Unfortunately it means treating people as "Human Resources." (In India, also under the sway of such development discourses, the Ministry of Education is now part of the ministry of human resources.)

What is the problem with that? Well it means that the social is built around individualised careerism rather than collective action: "I can" is still an individualist notion, a hangover form the most anti-social of sciences, laissez faire economics.

There is little to no evidence that "I can" leads to "We can." Anyone can see this from their experiences of the workplace: a group of very capable individuals may well lack the skills to become an effective collective.

Collective action is a different set of skills, as well as a distinct kind of ethics, and it is these kinds of social skills and social ethics that we will need to meet our upcoming challenges, climate change being a perfect example.

see: http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_de...

GusA
04 April 2007 at 12:03

This would be credible if he - Miliband - wasn't part of a Labour Govt that has created an 'I Can't' society: I Can't afford to buy a home and I have no public housing, I Can't get home at night because my train is privatised and is absolutely useless, my grandfather can't afford to go private for his hip operation and cant afford to wait forhis PFI nightmare hospital service etc etc

This is more cyber-drivel from a wafer thin politician.

One thing You Can Do is Ditch Labour on 3rd May.

Saor Alba!

http://1820.org.uk/

DMT
05 April 2007 at 17:09

For those of us who would like to promote some sort of revival of the Left in British politics, "I can" is as solipsistic and barren as "I want". David Milliband must surely realize that there are many in our society "can't". If we truly want a more equal society we shall have to look beyond a simplistic desire to "empower the citizen" and extend our consideration to cover the needs (and qualities) of the very young, the elderly, the sick and those who have some sort of disability. If we really need some sort of snap slogan - and I doubt if it's very helpful or illuminating - I'd like to suggest "we care".

DMT

DMT
05 April 2007 at 17:23

For those of us who would like to see a revival of the Left in British politics, the slogan "I can" seems as solipsistic and vacuous as "I want". Many members of our society "can't", as I'm sure David Milliband realizes. If his intention is "to empower the citizen", the needs (and qualities) of the very young, the elderly, the sick and those with physical and/or mental disabilities should also be brought into the equation. If we think it is helpful to have a snap slogan - and I'm not at all convinced it is - then I would suggest "we care" rather than "I can ". An awareness of social responsibility is needed to counter-balance any sense of individual empowerment,

Admin
10 April 2007 at 11:19

From letters to the editor...

David Miliband’s vision in this weeks New Statesman is a vision of the orthodox media agenda . It is the same old argument he put to the Labour Local Government conference in February 2006. It was as tired and uninspiring then as it is now. I mean really, do we base a radical fourth term agenda on green issues and reform of local government? A real vision for the future works on the policy areas that mean the most to people. These would be education, health care, policing, jobs, taxes and fair working practices. Ending the culture of “Rip off Britain” would also be an area that would win support. But sadly the bright young hope of the Labour movement has come up with the same old media obsessed agenda and we can not go to the periphery areas of policy if Labour is to win again.

Steve Carter

Admin
10 April 2007 at 11:21

From letters to the editor...

David Miliband's sentiments are fine and dandy. "In the battle against climate change, an 'I can' society enables citizens to become producers as well as consumers of energy...The power stations of the future will draw energy from a million roofs, rather than just a central generator...."

My brother, Teddy Birnberg, was one such socially-conscious citizen who, with the eager support of his parish council, sought to use his roof to generate solar energy. However his 18th century house, in East Kent was listed and the local planners, abetted by the Government's Planning Inspectorate, frustrated him, even though the solar panel was to be put on a rear extension built in 1960 and "would not be seen from the public realm" as the planners accepted. He wrote up his personal experience in a full-page article which the Guardian published on 21 March (alas a day after his sudden death) in which he said that, if the Government is honest about wanting homeowners to play their part in combatting carbon emissions, policy guidance (planning statement 22) for listed buildings will need radical alteration by writing in a presumption in favour of renewable energy installations, rather than the woolly admonition to give them "significant weight".

As Environment Secretary I sent a copy of the article to Mr Miliband a month ago through his mother (an old client) to ensure personal delivery. So far there has been no acknowledgement. "Creating institutions closer to citizens, open and accountable to their communities.....is the way to tackle the sense of powerlessness that can seem pervasive.....we need to fight the instinct of bureaucracies....." When, oh when, will the reality match the rhetoric?

Yours etc.

Benedict Birnberg

Admin
10 April 2007 at 11:40

From letters to the editor...

Is there a prize for spotting the April Fool story in your last issue? The David Milliband article? Am I right, or all David's in Westminister delusional?

Dafydd Ladd

Beulah

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

David Miliband

David Miliband is MP for South Shields and foreign secretary

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?