I have read the short version of Ed Miliband's Hugo Young lecture, to be delivered tonight. I am disappointed by it.
The opening is good. It's welcome that a politician says "For decades, inequality was off the political agenda. But there is growing recognition across every walk of life in Britain that large inequalities of income and wealth scar our society." But if that's true then you'd expect the politician in question to go on to say what he is going to do about wealth inequality.
But Miliband doesn't. He does not even go near the issue. Instead he talks about cuts. And as a surrogate for taking action on real issues - like addressing the tax gap and the wealth gap, which would require real political courage - Miliband talks about Labour's success in privatising cataract operations.
I accept, he does so to indicate limits on the power of the privatisation agenda to deliver reform. It's right for him to say "A Serco-G4S state can be just as flawed as the centralised state." But it's then completely wrong to say that the mass privatisation of power will resolve this, which is what Miliband seems to think.
Miliband wants people to design their disability budgets. And some will do that.
And he wants people to have power over schools. Which some already have. One is Toby Young. Idid once; I chaired the governors of a school for quite a number of years.
And he wants to devolve power to local communities without saying how.
Now I have nothing against participatory democracy. Or localisation. Or patient involvement. All can be of benefit. But this is a speech by a man who yearns for power and who thinks it is all that matters in life. And he's wrong. My own experience tells me that most people are more than willing to forego decision making on many issues to others, most of whom they will consider to be experts on issues where they need advice. And others - very many others - simply don't want power.
I remember when I was quite a young auditor asking questions of a senior manager in a company and he made quite clear I was addressing my questions to the wrong person. As he made obvious he was number two in the company, and it was by choice. "I am a great number two", he said. And he was. "And I'm not suited to be number one. He's next door. Go and ask him." And I did.
John (for that was his name) was a wise man, and he taught me a valuable lesson. It's not just that not everyone wants power, but that some are wise enough to realise it is not for them to have. They don't want to, and maybe can't, make the decisions that power demands of them. Which is absolutely fine. They can manages the consequences of power, implement the decisions taken with considerable ability and prepare information that informs the decision making process. But to pretend all want power is absurd. Some (in fact, I'll be candid, experience suggests that this is many) don't want to be in charge on a whole wide range of issues. I think none the less of them for that. I just think it's absurd to pretend they have a quality they don't possess when they have plenty of others to celebrate instead.
In that case Miliband's barking up the wrong tree. People don't want to sack head teachers. Sacking anyone is tough (I know; I've had to do it) and few want the responsibility for doing so. And most people don't want to design their health care package, although they do want professionals to have the time to discuss what the options are with them before choices are made, which is something entirely different and which requires money; the issue Miliband has implied he will not address.
To put it another way, Miliband's agenda does not change real power structures; it just passes the buck. And it does not change inequality because wealth remain where it is.
In that case this is not a programme for real change. It's just a repackaged choice agenda. And that was always a lame apology for an agenda.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The education proposal particularly distasteful because of it’s focus on the negative/failing angle – it simply reinforces Gove’s agenda. Removing the head of a maintained school is a fast-track to academisation.
As it is presented, it’s likely parents’ concerns will only really trigger action if Ofsted agrees. This makes it unlikely that a bullying/unfair/lying head would feel the pressure – these days it doesn’t seem to matter much how you get results.
It’s always interesting to read your entire blog on any particular subject, Richard. But in this instance six words at the end of this blog capture the issue so perfectly you really didn’t need to say any more:
‘It’s just a repackaged choice agenda.’
And to be honest, ‘lame’ is also a little too polite. ‘Pathetic’ would be more accurate and appropriate.
It could rightly and accurately be called ‘lame’ when the Blair governments tried it as an underpinning (philosophy?) to their various policies in the period 1997 – 2007.
But given the lessons we learnt during and after that period (which are basically along the lines you outline in your blog), to resurrect it now indicates that a number of very troubling things maybe/are taking place amongst those in charge of pre-election policy development within the Labour Party. Chief amongst them may well be the increasing dominance of a Blairite rump who appear unwilling or unable to learn any serious lessons from an assessment of new Labour’s successes and failures.
But also, of course, this demonstrates that Miliband, his advisors, fellow shadow cabinet members, and quite possibly the majority of the parliamentary Labour Party simply cannot break from the neoliberal mindset that enslaves them. Thus, as fast as they come up with a half decent idea that might actually address the concerns and experiences of the majority of citizens of the UK (such as tackling inequality), by the time it resurfaces as an outline policy proposal its potential utility and substance has been almost entirely emasculated by the yoke of neoliberal orthodoxy.
I note that in another of today’s blogs you mention some of the latest crop of inane ideas from the so-called Tax-Payers’ Alliance. The truly sad thing is that while Labour remain stuck in their neoliberal, Blarite, past they continue to have more in common with the TPA than they do with the majority of the electorate of the UK.
I’m always encouraged when you agree
Choice? Bah! Humbug! (And unlike Scrooge, I’m not about to change my views on this)
Far to often choice is a chimera – 300 varieties of yoghurt, when far fewer would be enough. Or “soap powder” choice = same powder in different packaging.
REAL choice in most areas of life is a function of trust – the chooser’s ability to trust the provider.
As a school governor and local politician, I always said the ONLY choice the parent really neede was that of knowing that their LOCAL school could meet the particular needs of their particular child(ren), and as Vice-chair of the School Organisation Committee, got that principle written into the School Organization Plan – only to have it taken out the following year, when the Tories wrote in their (bogus) choice into the Plan. I say bogus, because Tory “choice of school” is actually “choice of pupils BY the school”.
Instead of “choice” can we have REAL empowerment? For which it is necessary to restate the rules, and get everyone on a fair footing, which means some sort of positive discrimination for the marginalized and disadvantaged = Staggered starts in the 800 metres race.
And this can only happen if we a) deal with the wealth distribution and tax gap issues b) re-create an ethos of public service by trusted experts, who can be trusted to work for the common good.
This was the case in the post WWll generation, though it had rigidified and ceased to operate well by 1979.
However, as with bleeding in pre-modern medicine, the Thatcherite “cure” – full marketisation and to hell with “experts” and “the common good” as “the market knows best” = the Thatcherite “Cultural Revolution”- was FAR worse, and far more destructive than the disease.
Very true … and it doesn’t address your top ‘man next door’. The real driver of change has to address the so-called trade agreements which aren’t very much about trade and are about locking future governments,regardless of hue, into doing what the corporations and financial sector want. As you say, the wealth (and hence power) remains where it is.
Thanks
I don’t think that people don’t want power or empowerment in their lives; I think it’s a basic part of human nature to want to be in control of ones life and its course. The trouble comes with the power structures that people are ‘offered’ on a take it or leave it basis; that’s why most people prefer to leave it… For instance you give the example of sacking head teachers; but the real issue that is never addressed is where the power in something as essential as education comes from; as we know education policy is top down. If people had the power to ensure that their own experience of life, their views and subject positions really mattered in education they would be happy to have that power. But they’re not so they reject ‘the power’ they’re offered because it doesn’t really give them any power at all.
I like that analysis
Under 25s are especially disempowered as this poll would seem to suggest. The depth of animosity towards the mainstream political parties was highlighted by the latest opinion poll held by political blogging website Omnipolitical.com. Results of the February 2014 Omnipolitical vote:
1, None of the Above 43.7%;
2, United Kingdom Independence Party 25%;
3, Labour Party 10%;
4, Green Party 5%;
5, Liberal Democrats 4.7%;
6, Conservative Party 4.3%;
7, British National Party 3%;
8, Respect Party 2%;
9, Scottish National Party 1.3%;
10, Plaid Cymru 1%.
http://notavote.co.uk/
Shouldn’t the word ‘power’ be substituted by the word ‘responsibility?’ Power now equates with egomania/cupidity/manipulation.
The Labour Party is simply dead -they should be offering the electorate a new model of economic behaviour but are clearly scared of challenging the neo-lib narrative. It is terribly sad. The Lib Dems are now potentially more radical that Labour and have a tradition of being so! The anger vote will now go to UKIP which is an utter waste.
As for education, as Chomsky has pointed out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVqMAlgAnlo) it is barely raising awareness of the real forces that shape peoples lives and Politicians have given up their educative function to become vox populi slaves. Expect nowt’ from labour.
“It’s not just that not everyone wants power, but that some are wise enough to realise it is not for them to have. They don’t want to, and maybe can’t, make the decisions that power demands of them.”
That is such a depressing and frankly insulting article….
I had always thought that you had a benign paternalistic view of the electorate with your religious faith driving the moral crusade to help the poor while your ideology brings the hatred of the rich. But this shows a contempt of the general public (normally only shown by you when they use democracy against your wishes) that is truly revealing.
That your separate the entire population into the herds (that need a powerful state to guide them, naturally led by you) and the entrepreneurs who need punishing for their inequality raising ways is frightening.
Very, very revealing……….
Not at all
Making people take decisions they do not wish to make is the error of judgment
I make clear that I condemn no one for not wanting to make decisions on issues. Indeed, I’m more than happy to defer decisions on a great many matters to other people. For example, I very often defer to doctors. I respect my son’s teachers to exercise sound judgement. And I, whether wisely or not, allow the companies ith who I have entrusted monies for my pension to invest it without telling me what they are doing
All of which is just fine and absolutely typical of the fact that only a fool thinks they can have control of all aspects of their lives.
The overwhelming evidence is that we don’t. So why do you wish to deny that truth?
I agree with Richard’s analysis. I was Chair of a School Board (in Scotland) and although it was a middle class school few parents showed much intrest in participating in the general affairs of the school- though they (at least the Mums) were very keen to know about their children’s progress.
The idea that masses of people want to participate is not based on any solid research. For the most part the majority are happy to allow the minority to take responsibility. That said, they do want to know who they can consult if a problem arises.
This is not paternalism – it is living in the real world,
Quite so
Dogmatists don’t do that
Alternatively they claim those with lives (or the need to earn a living ) are disenfranchised by choice. That is called capture of the state by an elite
We had it for a long time. Not again thank you
I’m inclined to agree with this, Richard.
I’m of the conclusion that the whole ‘choice agenda’ is emblematic of the sharp-elbowed middle-class mindset that dominates our politics currently.
For most people, myself included, what is desired are public services that work properly when we need them to. Speaking for myself, I have neither the time, knowledge nor inclination to spend holding all our public services to account. When I get home from work each day, having done some exercise after work, I’m exhausted. But then I need to cook and clean, perhaps do some laundry. And I’m just a single bloke without a family.
By the time I’ve done all that the very last thing I want to be doing is then engaging my mind worrying about how the local hospital or school is running mainly because I would be doing such complex and serious issues a disservice by devoting a tired mind to considering them. I think it’s reasonable to assume that others will be in a similar situation.
Instead, we’re told we must all be like the yummy mummies and the chatterati in Stokey and Shoreditch and Surrey who demand power regardless of our qualification to wield it.
But to think otherwise is to be branded ‘paternalistic’. I’m not. I’m just cognisant of the fact there are only 24 hours in a day.
Precisely!