What weird contorted, politically arrogant logic comes to the conclusion that David Miliband should join the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, as Nick Boles attempted to argue yesterday? While setting on a course that gives Margaret Thatcher a run for her money in terms of its social and economic destructiveness, the government has finally been lifted from the ground with the hot air of its own rhetoric. The definition of socialism is what a Labour government does and anything this government does is progressive reform – by definition. Why? Well, because it’s a progressive reformist government, duh.
With Labour’s leadership election out of the way, the fog of war is starting to clear. David Miliband and all those on the left who know that the state must change – be more personal, more local, and more innovative – equally know that the type of reform offered by the Tories and Lib Dems is anything but progressive. David Cameron and Nick Clegg know that as long as they can be seen to be taking it out on relatively high earners as well as the least well-off then the progressive fig leaf will stay in place.
So high rate taxpayers lose £1billion of child benefit. Others much lower down the earnings ladder lose up to £15billion a year. There is a £9billion hit for 3.5 million disabled people over five years according to the think tank, Demos. Progressive. Then there is the pupil premium: the government’s get out of jail free card when it comes to fairness. Or so they think. It conveniently ignores the fact that there already is a pupil premium. It goes to local authorities. Meanwhile, investment in creating the school buildings of the future for many is cut. Progressive.
This is a government that believes in social mobility. At the same time, it pursues policies that will unnecessarily cut hundreds of thousands of the sort of jobs that facilitate social mobility – in the public sector. It seems likely to implement a higher education financing regime that will turn many working and middle class kids away from the best universities, which will charge more than they can get a loan to cover. Progressive.
The more this government says it’s progressive, the more regressive its actions become. So if you are on low or moderate income and you hear the word ‘progressive’, be alert. The Tory-Lib Dem government has set about distorting the meaning of the word ‘progressive’ with such gusto, it’s as if it were made of Plasticine. You can forget about the word ‘fairness’ too – rendered meaningless.
For Conservatives and Liberal Democrats there is only one cause of injustice in modern Britain – the state. People are poor because of the welfare state. Forget the fact that the biggest increases in poverty and inequality were in the 1980s when the state was gradually withdrawn. Obviously, this time it will be different. Our kids aren’t as well educated as those in Finland or South Korea. The state doesn’t teach them Dryden, that’s why. The cumulative impact of the insecurities, low wages, low esteem, and rapid and convulsive change ripping through communities as a result of the triumph of liberal economics is neither here nor there. That’s the state’s fault as well if you believe the Red Tory faction.
Whatever the clunky, rusty, slightly out of fashion vehicle this modern British state may be, it is the only only one we’ve got. We need it. Fiddle under the hood without knowing what you’re doing or in the wildest fantasies of a few, send it to the knackers yard, and we’re grounded.
Paul Mason’s brilliant Newsnight report from Gary, Indiana on Tuesday evening showed what happens when the state withdraws and society isn’t strong enough to take on the burden: social breakdown (remember that)? It is exactly what I found in the communities on the south side of Chicago, where Barack Obama had been a community organiser. Quite simply, there is social and economic meltdown on a terrifying scale. It won’t be quite as bad in our case as there is a higher starting point of social support.
But, make no mistake, withdraw the state in the name of the big society and what emerges won’t be a new civic revolution. It will be suffering and despair. And what’s even more painful is that, just like those US urban wastelands, we may not even notice. The voiceless, as you would expect, have no voice.
So David Miliband won’t be joining this Tory-Lib Dem coalition, and nor will any real progressive. In fact, if all the huddled masses of social entrepreneurs, communitarian philosophers, digital gurus, civic activists, community organisers, public institution builders, and former management consultants turned social visionaries have any sensitivity to what is actually happening around them, quite the opposite will happen.
The big society pioneers – if that is what they really are – will realise that a smaller state means a more brutal society. So it is to the left that they will turn – whatever its quirks and idiosyncrasies. A smarter state working towards a mutualist society is needed for sure. But when it comes to creating a bigger society the state is not a barrier; it’s a prerequisite. Far from being the left’s embarrassing secret, the state is actually its trump card.
Anthony Painter has published ‘Mutualism and the bigger society’ with Policy Network today.
Tags: Anthony Painter, Big Society, David Miliband, mutualism, state, Tories, trump card
If you think Cameron and Osborne are progressive or believe in “fairness”, you only have to remember that they joined the Tory Party when Maggie Thatcher was PM.
No young progressive idealist who believed in fairness would ever have done such a thing, or stayed with that party for so long…
The link does not work. This is one that does:
http://www.policy-network.net/articles/3901/Mutualism-as-a-means-to-a-bigger-society
Could you substantiate the figure of £15bn per annum? It does make the £1bn saved by not giving child benefit to higher rate rax payers seem puny by comparison. You mention a £9bn hit for disabled people, but go on to clarify that that is over 5 years.
Perhaps we have been blinded by the size of the deficit, but I think £1bn per annum is a worthwhile saving. I am appalled that a left-wing party is taking issue with a right-wing coalition about cutting perks for higher-rate (40%) and highest-rate (50%) tax payers.
The definition of socialism is what a Labour government does and anything this government does is progressive reform – by definition. Why? Well, because it’s a progressive reformist government, duh.
This confuses me. Is it meant to be ironic? There seem to be many Labour supporters who reject totally the notion that Mr Blair’s Labour government was even “Labour”, let alone socialist. So was Mr Blair’s Labour government reformist & progressive, as Nick Boles suggests? Or is it that a Labour government is only a Labour government if you say so?
I ask because a few paragraphs later you say:
The Tory-Lib Dem government has set about distorting the meaning of the word ‘progressive’ with such gusto, it’s as if it were made of Plasticine. You can forget about the word ‘fairness’ too – rendered meaningless.
The result is, you seem to be complaining about the meaning of words being distorted shortly after having mangled the meaning of words wholesale yourself. And as a result of that, one does begin to wonder whether you actually understand what any words mean.
Forget Chicago, I am much more bothered by the example of long-term Labour rule which Glasgow offers. What solutions can you suggest to improve the life of Glaswegians living in poverty?
Braveheart
Would that be the Margeret Thacher who was PM at a time of unprecedented social mobility? It is a funny definition of the word “progressive” if Gordon Brown, who was Chancellor and PM at a time of decreasing social mobility and unprecedented reduction in take-home pay was considered more progressive. Newspeak, same as Labour speak.
Random – during Thatcher’s rule the share of national income going to capital increased, and the share going to workers decreased. Poverty skyrocketed. So “social mobility” might not be all that progressive after all…