Young Labourite #3: Ed Miliband – centrist or alternative Left?
The two people who are most affiliated with the left out of all five candidates are Diane Abbott and Ed Miliband. Following the lack of policy discussion in my last post concerning Abbott, I decided to read up more on policy for Miliband and, at the end of this article, I will try and compare them to each other. Concerning Ed, I will focus on three areas; Ed’s interpretation of social democracy, the Graduate Tax and the living wage.
Ed, who has been categorized as the “alternative” candidate for the lefties out there, has shown some promise in what he has had to say. When I went to the Hustings in Newcastle a couple of weeks ago, he was the one who gave the best closing speech and was most personable and answered directly to the people asking the questions.
Social democracy: Hustings aside, in his speech on Social Democracy on June 29th 2010, a long speech outlining his ideas and beliefs in what he wants the Labour party to become and in ways criticise the New Labour era, as he put it “while Old Labour was seen as anti-business, New Labour made an alliance with big business. The truth is that we need to be the champions most of all of small business.” In ways I cannot disagree with him here, I do believe the Labour party should be champions of the small business, but should we really reject the big business and the big executives in the private sector?
I don’t know much about the big wide world of economics and banking, but I do think idealistically that we should support the smaller business and I fully support imposing the Robin Hood Tax on the banks and bigger business, to help combat the deficit and also support frontline services such as the NHS.
Living wage: Evidence of Miliband’s efforts to support worker’s rights is through the initiative he has adopted into his campaign policy which is the living wage. He uses an analogy of a cleaner working in a governmental department, and how we ‘no deep in our soul’ that they should be paid enough to live on. I fully advocate and support this idea of creating a living wage, so that everyone in the country can have a sustainable life; maybe not an affluent life, but at least they will be able to live comfortably, which personally is right for all people who work hard, long hours.
Miliband justifies this as a key policy for the Labour party, and says that it is ‘because it touches our deep sense of justice, of fairness and of a belief in the dignity of work’. I couldn’t agree more [again], I have always believed in the dignity of working. What Miliband and other supporters of the living wage realise is that increasing the proliferation of low paying jobs reduces that dignity, and that benefit dependency is only made more attractive without a living wage.
Since the beginning of Ed’s campaign he has successfully moved away from the ideas of New Labour, much more than his brother, David. In his speech on the living wage to Citizens UK on May 28th 2010, in London, he clearly showed a sense of the end of the New Labour movement of mangerialism and move towards an idea of mobilization. A party which, as Miliband stated, must become a ‘genuine popular movement’ in order to win the next general election.
Graduate Tax: Another of Ed’s proposed policy (if to become leader) is to introduce the Student Graduate Tax, which would mean abolishing tuition fees and stop Universities from placing their own fees on students. A Guardian article from last year stated that research had shown students are not deterred by tuition fees.
As a student about to enter University, never has it crossed my mind that I will be in debt for the most of my life, to me University is an investment in my own future, adding to my opportunities. But the next generation faces being hit hardest with a big hike in tuition fees and the potential removal of the fee-cap. This will hinder the progress of many from poorer backgrounds, and if Universities are allowed to place their own fees, we’ll see the development of a two-tier education system; the Russell Group for the rich and brightest versus everyone else.
This is why I think a graduate tax would be better than getting rid of the tuition fees cap and allowing Universities to make students pay how the Universities want you to pay. Of course, graduates will be paying money back for a long period of time, but they will have invested in a future that will reap the rewards if they did not go to University.
Conclusion: On comparing the two ‘left’ candidates, personally Ed has come out on top; though Diane is the long-time running lefty, she doesn’t seem to hold a strong mandate for helping to progress the party, mainly though her lack of policy ideas. She has indeed, set out her ways in which she would reduce the deficit, especially through the replacing of Trident, which both candidates agree on. However, due to Ed’s influence within a government ministerial position (though a New Labour one), he does show a sense of grounding and wanting to change the party for the better and like I said at the beginning of the piece, he was an excellent speaker at the Hustings a few weeks ago.
My Order of Preference (currently)
Ed Miliband – 1
Diane Abbott – 2
David Miliband – no score (as of yet)
Andy Burnham – no score (as of yet)
Ed Balls – no score (as of yet)
A few things…
- Why is small business better than big business?
- Business in general has always seemed perfectly able at lobbying for its own needs. You’re the Labour Party – perhaps the hint on who we’re supposed to support is in the name?
- You talk about Ed’s credibility due to his ministerial position. Why does being a minister make him more credible? You have to balance that credibility with his cowardice over matters like gay marriage, his bumbling of the party democracy issue, his continuation of New Labour’s anti-poor legacy of demonising the poor and those on benefits and so on.
- Why is small business better than big business?
Because they are less corporatist and less monopolistic.
Also, it is more likely there will be better relations between the management and employees: large orgs try and put people into repetitive tasks so that work can be easily split up.
Thirdly, smaller firms are more entrepreneurial and dynamic. They don’t stifle competition and don’t have vast profits coming in to lock out others.
Fourth, most small companies are mom-and-pop (to use an American term) stores that have been the bedrock of this country’s development. They are the anti-thesis to soul-destroying chain stores.
Lastly, they are more likely to recycle money within local communities than transfer the wealth to corporate headquarters in the US, Europe or London.
You’re the Labour Party – perhaps the hint on who we’re supposed to support is in the name?
If the Labour party becomes anti-business generally it is doomed.
I’ll take my lectures on what Labour should and shouldn’t be from someone who wasn’t advocating a vote for the Liberal Democrats, Sunny, no offence to you.
As for the rest.
Firstly, are corporatism or monopoly necessarily bad things?
Secondly, is there any evidence for the idea that there are better relations between management and employees?
Thirdly, what use is being entrepeneurial and dynamic if there’s less capital floating around to invest in it?
Fourthly, what small companies have been the bedrock of this country’s development Sunny? And why can’t large businesses be adapted to their environment?
Lastly, if the problem is the removal of wealth from the immediate environment, then surely this isn’t a problem with ‘big business’ per se, it’s a problem with multinational business? Or with the freedom of capital to move across borders.
I’ll admit I’m playing devil’s advocate here – though I see many problems with what Sunny says, and with what Daniel says, my own position doesn’t come through in my objections, above. But it’s important to draw out these views, as in 1979 a Tory government was elected promising to favour small British businesses, and then did the opposite. I want people to understand that you can’t support small businesses without facilitating the processes that lead to large businesses, and ultimately to MNEs and opposition to tariffs and other restrictive policies.
who wasn’t advocating a vote for the Liberal Democrats
What a lame, cheap shot. I never advocated others vote for the Libdems. And I voted Libdem on policy at that time I felt strongly about – asylum seekers, civil liberties and Trident etc. Since you weren’t loudly advocating a vote for Gordon Brown, or making the case, I wouldn’t try that line of argument either.
Firstly, are corporatism or monopoly necessarily bad things?
Yes. They restrict competition and are bad for consumers.
Thirdly, what use is being entrepeneurial and dynamic if there’s less capital floating around to invest in it?
Non-sequitur.
And why can’t large businesses be adapted to their environment?
They’re less response than smaller firms because they are more bureaucratic. They make their extra profits via economies of scale – which by definition means a high degree of uniformity.
this isn’t a problem with ‘big business’ per se, it’s a problem with multinational business?
Big businesses are more likely to be multi-nationals. And even if they’re not, they still take money out of local areas.
Most businesses in terms of number are SMEs employing a small number of people.
Owing to their size, it can be argued that SMEs are less able to deskill labour, which is an obvious benefit for employees and the wider economy.
I think the issue is more business model than scale. Did you know the business model which employs more people than multinationals is co-operative enterprise? The idea Labour has ever been anti-business is misleading – the party has always supported SMEs, co-operative, and employee-owned firms.
BTW – I don’t think left/centre/right are useful terms & certainly not within the Labour Party. Re: the Miliband bros. David is a radical moderate, and Ed is a moderate radical.
“Also, it is more likely there will be better relations between the management and employees: large orgs try and put people into repetitive tasks so that work can be easily split up.”
“Fourth, most small companies are mom-and-pop (to use an American term) stores that have been the bedrock of this country’s development. They are the anti-thesis to soul-destroying chain stores.”
For equivalent work, smaller businesses tend to pay less than bigger ones. Just ask the “mom-and-pop” stores that pay at minimum wage.
Yes, small businesses are certainly not necessarily better employers than big ones and are often worse. Corner shop type businesses tend to work people hard for long hours. Big employers might try union-busting but at least it should be easier to form unions where there are lots of employees.
So the breadheads won.
Que?
David is a radical moderate, and Ed is a moderate radical.
That’s an excellent description.
For equivalent work, smaller businesses tend to pay less than bigger ones. Just ask the “mom-and-pop” stores that pay at minimum wage.
You’ll have to show me the evidence of that…
Ed Miliband. The ‘left’ candidate? Jesus H. Corbett.
EM is considered to be on the left because vacillating ‘soft-lefts’ in Compass and the liberal press have given people that impression. Where is his record of being remotely connected to working-class people and their needs? So he’s said a few things about a living wage and the environment; whoop-de-do. Most people in the left blogosphere probably saw Brown’s swansong performance to London Citizens before the election, where he laid the groundwork for this ‘Labour as an insurgency’ strategy. They’ve all been reading from this playbook: David Miliband for instance suggesting the laughable reorientation of the Labour Party as a ‘community organising’ network. Even the supposed ‘radicalism’ of Ed Miliband has developed out of the mainstream of the last government.
It’s hilarious, seeing people who should know better delude themselves into trusting politicians. Even my most disinterested, apolitical friends have common sense enough to regard all politicians as liars, and to beware salesmen bearing gifts when they want your vote. Why should people who are actually interested and invested in social change lose this basic, tested cynicism towards the powerful, even those on ‘our’ side? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
(Just to go on a tangent on moment: The living wage? Yeah, that’ll happen. How precisely is that a good idea from this sort of reformist perspective? Anything that eats into profits would entail a massive confrontation between the labour movement and employers. Small businesses would go under as their profits were wiped out, and encroaching on the surpluses of the big employers who could afford state-imposed higher wages would provoke an immediate and violent reaction against the government which attempted it. All social spending is redistributive, but there is a reason it is cycled through the state rather than legislated directly into out social relations – capitalism isn’t nearly homogeneous enough to withstand these types of assaults without forcing us into a battle that workers are not organised or politically prepared enough for.)
The next five years, and the five after that, won’t be determined by which Labour leadership contenders lies the most convincingly. It will be based on how organised, how determined the labour movement is to exercise its overwhelming numbers and potential stranglehold over the economy to stop these bastards sending us back into the dark annals of history.
The most the Labour Party can do is put a leash on the ability of the authorities to restrain our collective actions. That means lifting from our shoulders their restrictions on strikes, trade union organising, demonstrations and free assembly etc. On workers’ rights and civil liberties, the only candidate worth a damn, crap though she may be, is Diane Abbott. Any Labour MP willing to spend their time in the Commons trying to put a tent into the state’s ability to manage and disarm working people is fine by me. But let’s not pretend that Labour is able to deliver us a fair society, without the active involvement of the millions of people who need it; nor that the Labour Party as it exists today is even willing to try.
Dan: Ed isn’t suggesting a statutory living wage, rather suggesting Labour should campaign with trade unions, faith groups, etc to encourage employers to adopt living wage. There’s a business case for it in terms of being able to gain positive publicity from being a living wage employer, but also if workers are unable to survive on minimum wage then the quality of work will suffer as a result.
From here…
I’ve got to start reading the papers before breakfast. Bleaurgh.
James: There’s a ‘business’ case for a living wage? This is the same sort of mindset that pleads for more progressive education policies because employers need ‘skilled’ workers. Fuck their case.
The emergent living wage obsession in Labour circles, when the major attacks on working people are coming through direct assaults on the social wage, are an irrelevance. Boris Johnson may have been forced into paying lip-service to the idea, but this is due to special circumstances: Ken Livingstone giving it a prominent position; the high degree of organisation which London Citizens and trade unions have exercised amongst low-paid city hall staff; and the uniquely vulnerable position of the Tories in the capital. But that doesn’t mean business is in any general mood to concede to its employees, especially in a period when we are on the back foot and big cuts to our living standard are the policy of the day.
Ed Miliband has explicitly stated he won’t do a damn thing about the anti-trade union laws. Well, beyond going all Oliver Twist and pleading for a just a bit more, please, thank you, how are we supposed to campaign for and win big rises in wages?
It’s left-wing dog-whistle politics and it doesn’t mean a thing.
The very title of this post is shocking. Centrist or left-wing: those are the options? Like every other ex-government candidate, Ed Miliband is lock, stock on the Labour right and will change his tune, like Kinnock, Wilson and every other ‘left’ leadership candidate did as soon as they won, under the pressure of events and isolated from their base in the party. He has made it more than clear that Labour will not be adopting an alternative economic or political strategy to the Coalition that attempts to defeat them here and now – it will be business as usual and let’s hope the cuts are so bad the general public gives us a whirl in 2015.
Comrade, I would say fuck their case but we must use every argument to hand. Obviously employers aren’t going to say they brought in a living wage because of pressure from their employees…
We should welcome moves towards acceptance of extra-parliamentary campaigns on the part of leadership candidates. If it is dog-whistle – so what? It is a dog-whistle that everyone can hear – especially those who will be defending their own jobs and our social wage.
It’s an issue because people like Ed Miliband aren’t actually going to be aiding those extra-parliamentary campaigns through their behaviour in parliament, either in opposition or if/after they’re elected. It’s a sop to distract us.
The old joke about Ralph Miliband spending his life arguing the Labour Party had nothing to offer the working class, and his sons spending their lives proving it, is deadly accurate. As special advisors and ministers all these men were entirely inside the tent pissing out on us, and nowhere have they been specific or sincere about the reasons for Labour support withering by five million votes during their 13 years in office. They were opponents of genuine workers’ struggles during the last government, and simply because they got their arses handed to them doesn’t mean we should forgive or forget.
Labour is more intimately connected to the demands of the workers’ movement, more pliable to a left-wing and popular case for social reform, but nevertheless we have to win these struggles and force them to act by the strength and clarity of our organisation – namely through the militancy and unity demonstrated by ordinary trade unionists and by the union bureaucracy. People like Ed Miliband may very well one day be in a position to legislate in favour of higher wages, not to mention make it easier for people to win them through their own actions; but it will be despite himself – he will not lead those campaigns.
The fact he feels able to perch atop the campaign by Citizens UK and others for a living wage highlights only how far we are from being able to force these sorts of policies onto employers.
I know you didn’t write the above article. But can I ask, do you honestly believe that Ed Miliband would be willing or capable of actually governing according to an ‘alternative left’ agenda? Perhaps more importantly, do you believe a single word these people are saying?
Dan, as I told Ed Miliband himself, I am an agnostic. The issue of belief whether politicians are true in what they are saying is irrelevant – I have no illusions, what matters is action.
Not *their* action, is my point.
my problem with politicains like ed miliband is their constant bragging about the minimum wage, if they believe you cannot live on less that £6.70 an hour or whatever they announce next, WHY AM I TAXED ON IT, the tories and liberals have by far the better idea of not tax anyones pay who earn less that £10,000 a year
@ Scouser – to pay for public services like the police, the armed forces, fire & rescue, NHS, etc.