What does “one nation” mean? Anyone?

by David Talbot

Dark warnings permeated throughout Westminster last week that the chancellor had been put on final notice. Osborne, it was said, had been politely but firmly informed that restless Conservative MPs had earmarked his fourth budget as the last opportunity to restore economic and political credibility before the countdown to the general election in 2015. In marked contrast to last year, the chancellor and his team imposed tight discipline on his preparations to ensure none of the headlines contained a variant of the word “shambles.”

To that end, the chancellor can be relatively pleased. In the run up to the budget he had made, and had deliberately been seen to be making, a concerted effort to court long-neglected Conservative MPs. The frequency with which Osborne systematically name-checked colleagues in marginal seats, who had miraculously succeeded in planting their pet projects into the budget, would suggest a chancellor who, firstly, knows he is unpopular and secondly, who rightly recognises that the government is dangerously listless.

The “aspiration nation” is the Conservative response to Ed Miliband’s much-heralded “one nation” Labour party. It’s difficult to envisage a way in which you could abuse the English language more efficiently, but clearly the Conservative elders are pleased with their effort. For they desperately need something – even a slogan – to inject impetus into a moribund government that is fighting itself, rather than for the country.

The catalogue of errors that are now strewn across the government’s record is now so damaging it threatens the basic concept of governance. Cameron capitulated over Leveson, despite having established the inquiry. Under pressure last year at PMQs he announced the government will force energy companies to provide cheaper tariffs, with no idea how. In 2010 he came into government promising no top-down reorganisation of the NHS and has embarked on precisely that. He emptily vetoed the EU budget last December, and under pressure from UKIP promised a referendum – raising the prospect that the UK might leave the EU, a prospect he is on record as saying he does not want to happen.

The biggest beneficiary of all this buffoonery has been Labour. But the strong national polling figures mask the poor intellectual shape the party is in. As the Eastleigh by-election proved, where the party added a dismal 0.2% to its already bad 2010 total, the warning signs for Labour are there.

“One nation” may have played well to the media and the party faithful, but its lack of policy grit is beginning to hurt.

We are told, and were told some 46 times during the Labour leader’s conference speech, that Britain under Labour will be “one nation,” which is nice. However, it does not resonate with any key, immediate, issues and it certainly is not yet a coherent ideology. Buried in a recent article from the New Statesman’s Rafael Behr was an anonymous quote from the ubiquitous “senior Labour strategist” so commonly cited in all of these pieces:

“Miliband, his advisers say, is redefining social democracy for the 21st century. ‘To establish that agenda takes time,’ a senior Labour strategist tells me. “

Well, that is positively alarming. If the Labour party were an undergraduate then yes, by all means take years to formulate a new ideology. Take as long as you want, frankly. But people need answers to today’s problems now, not abstract policy pamphlets read by, oh, dozens in 2015.

What will prove the “one nation” mantle is whether it can last all the way to the 2015 general election as a solution to all the nation’s ills. At the moment it is purely being used as a vehicle to show that Labour’s vision for Britain is not David Cameron’s, which should be obvious enough. According to the Labour leader it has variously been about preventing a lost decade, about rebuilding the nation’s economy, for tackling rogue bankers, for cheaper childcare and more housing, and sending more working class children to university. It may also include commitments to motherhood and apple pie – we simply don’t know.

What, for instance, will “one nation” spending cuts look like? Labour has neither the distinctive agenda nor the common-sense language to articulate that yet. For all their faults, the Conservatives can still play to the common parlance. Aspiration can be understood by all.

Nobody knows if Ed Miliband’s grand project will succeed. Labour’s task this year will be to focus on what a “one nation” Britain would actually entail. A willingness to engage voters in an honest conversation about the tough choices that lie ahead would be a good starting point. Spending years pontificating about “redefining social democracy” almost certainly is not.

David Talbot is a political consultant


Tags: , , , ,


4 Responses to “What does “one nation” mean? Anyone?”

  1. swatantra says:

    Your guess is as good as mine. Its a ‘Good Society’, whatever that means. But some of applications of ‘One Nation’ in the abstract are orth considering.
    One Nation requires complete impartiality and objectivity; it requires fairness in which case some sectors of society are going to lose out for a while. But it also require inclusivity and compassion and empathy, and understanding. In brutal terms it requires prioritisation, and knowing what is for the future good as well as the present good. It goes back to Plato’s Guardians who are best able to decide what is in the interests of One Nation.
    But knowing where ll 3 Paries come from and the vested interests pulling their strings, I doubt if any Party can deliver One Nation.

  2. Ex-Labour says:

    “The catalogue of errors that are now strewn across the government’s record is now so damaging it threatens the basic concept of governance”

    Er…are you forgetting Brown and Balls when in power and the state the country was left in? I’d call that totally incompetent.

    “Cameron capitulated over Leveson”.

    Er….no Labour threatened to wreck bills which had nothing to do with Leveson if they didn’t get their own way.

    “Miliband, his advisers say, is redefining social democracy for the 21st century. ‘To establish that agenda takes time,’ a senior Labour strategist tells me. “

    Well, that is positively alarming. If the Labour party were an undergraduate then yes, by all means take years to formulate a new ideology”.

    Er……subtext we’ve had no policies for two and a half years and we still don’t.

    “It may also include commitments to motherhood and apple pie – we simply don’t know”

    Repeat the comment above

    “What, for instance, will “one nation” spending cuts look like? Labour has neither the distinctive agenda nor the common-sense language to articulate that yet”

    Repeat the above comment

    The public are constantly telling Labour via polls that they are not trusted on the economy, immigration etc and yet we still hear nothing except vague waffle that means nothing.

    As you point out the Conservatives are at least trying to articulate some policy and direction – even if you dont agree with them. If I was a Tory strategist I would be making sure that every Tory politician interview made mention of no Labour policy – because slowly the public are recognising this.

    My take on it, for what its worth, is that Labour are aware of the polling and want to keep any policy decisions as late as possible. This would indicate the policy plans (if they have any) fly in the face of current public sentiment. There was a brief foray into immigration two weeks ago which totally missed the public mood by concentrating on the welfare of immigrants when the public is more concerned about how many there are and what national resources are being used in supporting them.

    We’re just a couple of years out and its time to see some critical thinking in terms of policies.

  3. e says:

    As a slogan One Nation’s potency is of course in the fact that it encapsulates what we don’t have: a government working openly and fairly for all sectors of society. Problem for Labour is that UKIP is arguing this is because small state neo-liberalism cannot make a virtue of balancing the needs of all sectors of a “British society” from within the European Union – and they would be right. UKIP’s anti EU stance is successful because there is collusion, conscious or otherwise, which capriciously describes any and all alternatives to small state neo-liberalism along revolutionary or communist lines, hence the potency of TINA.

    As an aspiration, I fervently hope that One Nation Labour makes the intellectual breakthrough that is required, and in doing so generates the space for an imaginative, dynamic agenda which secures a future for an open, fair, functioning 21st century social democracy within the EU. Its fight or flight for many otherwise…..

  4. Landless Peasant says:

    There can only be “One Nation” when you redistribute the wealth. Anything short of that is a fail.

Leave a Reply