X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Politics

Will the real radicals please stand up?

26 January 2013

9:00 AM

26 January 2013

9:00 AM

At the next election, all parties will agree that Britain is in a mess. They will disagree about is who is to blame. Both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats will say that Labour left behind an even bigger set of problems than people realise; their government has started to fix things, they’ll argue, but they need more time. Labour will claim that the ‘austerity coalition’ has choked off growth.

But what’s odd — given that we’re heading for a second election where the voters will say ‘no’ when asked whether they’re better off now than five years ago — is the lack of radicalism in British politics. The ideas doing the rounds in Westminster do not meet the test of the moment. To be sure, the coalition is doing some radical things, including making significant changes in education and welfare. In the long run, these will boost Britain’s competitiveness.

But David Cameron, by temperament, is not a rip-it-up-and-start-again man. He prefers to work with what’s there already. Indeed, what is striking about his plan for a renegotiation of Britain’s terms of membership of the European Union is how much he intends to leave alone. He has already ruled out the idea of Britain negotiating some status outside the single market.

Nick Clegg is a radical in the proper sense of the term; he wants to change the constitutional order. But as the referendum on the alternative vote and the lack of public enthusiasm for Lords reform showed, this kind of reform isn’t in fashion. This country’s most pressing problems aren’t constitutional ones.

In both Cameron and Clegg’s case, though, there is something else going on: it is very difficult to take on the established order when you’re in charge. If you are not careful, you take on responsibility for the system. Avoiding this fate requires a conscious act of will. A few months after the coalition came to office, I was surprised to see Michael Gove vigorously applauding criticisms of the education system being made in a think-tank lecture. Afterwards, I asked him how long he felt he could clap such sentiments. He replied that the moment he stopped doing so was when he should quit. But few other ministers would be happy to applaud criticisms — direct or indirect — of their departments.

[Alt-Text]


This should provide an opening for Ed Miliband. Miliband was one of the first British politicians to argue that the British economic model was broken. Of the major contenders in the Labour leadership contest, he was the most prepared to admit what the last government had got wrong. Friends say that the fact that he broke off from working for Gordon Brown to go to Harvard has given him a perspective on the Blair and Brown years that many of his colleagues lack.

Miliband, though, has not yet found a clear way to tell the public how he would change Britain. He has talked about big themes — responsible capitalism, ‘one-nation’ Labour. But there’s frustration in his circle that the policy the party is coming out with is too often disconnected from them.

The charge that there’s a lack of policy riles Miliband’s aides. Challenge them about it and they’ll argue with an intensity that will put you off your lunch about how Miliband has come out with more policy than Tony Blair or Cameron had at this stage. But the quantity of policy is not in dispute; the question is whether all those detailed proposals really illuminate the big ideas Miliband has talked about. It is hard to think of specific examples of his commitment to responsible capitalism. He is telling the country what he wants to do, not showing it.

A friend of Miliband points to his Fabian Society speech as an example of what’s going wrong. It made an interesting argument about how, borrowing a phrase from Barack Obama, the economy needed to be grown from the middle out not the top down. But the new policy in the speech was about clamping down on ‘rogue landlords’. This might be a good idea but it is hard to see how it relates to building a new kind of economy. The speech was a missed opportunity for Miliband. If he wants to move the economic argument beyond the question of what cuts he will or won’t accept, then he needs to say what his alternative economic policy agenda is. His failure to do this compounds the problems caused by Labour’s determination not to commit to any post-2015 spending plans. It leads to an emphasis on small-bore initiatives such as a landlords’ register.

There’s also a sense that Miliband has held back from saying how different he is from his Labour predecessors. Some complain that members of the shadow cabinet get too jumpy about any criticism of the last Labour government. But given how much Labour’s record on certain issues contributed to it losing support, Miliband needs to show voters that he represents a change from both Blair and Brown. But it is, perhaps, only on immigration that he has made clear not only that he thinks the last Labour government had it wrong but also what he would do differently.

One should note that Napoleon Bonaparte would advise Labour against any big, new initiatives at this time. As one ally of Miliband puts it, ‘You don’t want to overly interrupt a government that is making a lot of mistakes.’

Again, though, there is concern among Miliband’s intellectual fraternity that an opportunity is being missed. They fear that too many of those involved in Labour’s electoral planning are hoping to win by a series of tactical feints. They fret that the political street-fighters in the operation are scared of Miliband’s intellectual shadow, that they have steered him away from interesting but complex ideas like predistribution.

I understand that Miliband will begin to come out with his signature policies at autumn conference. By then his policy review will have reported and he’ll try to set out how he will make concepts such as responsible capitalism real to voters; expect the living wage to be a major part of this.

There’s a risk in this delay. The longer Miliband goes without showing what he means by a one-nation economy or responsible capitalism, the more the media will fixate on which spending cuts he does or doesn’t accept. Miliband could end up presenting himself as a far less interesting politician than he actually is.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close