Ed Miliband is the only politician talking about what really matters: inequality

by Robin Thorpe

With Ed Miliband’s recent talk of rebuilding the middle class and his previous rhetoric of the squeezed middle are we now seeing a resurgence of class consciousness? Or is Ed just focusing on familiar words to cloak his lack of credible policies? I sincerely hope it is the former. The problem with the concept of class is that because the labour market is now so diverse it can be difficult for people to identify what class they are. Perhaps, therefore, we should just recognise that there are broadly only two classes of people; the ‘power elite’ and the rest of us.

I can understand why people may want to cling to the notion that there is a hierarchy of socio-economic divisions that we can climb up if we only work hard enough. People have evolved to compete for resources and societies have long been predicated on prestige and social position. But surely we must now recognise that the division between the elite and the rest is so entrenched that it will take more than a bit of pluck and a protestant work ethic to break the stranglehold of inequality. Will Hutton has written that he thinks that Ed Miliband’s “cost of living” crisis is a sideways route into opening up an argument over inequality and I hope that he is right.

Enabling effective change will not be easy; there are many vested interested who will oppose a recalibration of the way that our economy works. The obvious attack on Miliband’s ambition is to decry it as statist and anti-business. Fraser Nelson writes in the Telegraph that a Labour government implementing this agenda would result in “companies refusing to invest, and wealth-creators leaving”. This argument ignores the fact that the notion of state vs. business is a false choice; neither can this choice be defined as socialism vs. capitalism. Instead it should be defined as shallow versus deep freedom.

Steve Davies from the Institute for Economic Affairs (on Radio 4’s The Longview) agrees that the cost of living is a real problem for those on low wages; in particular the cost of housing. But he also states that workers must increase their productivity to improve their wage-earning capacity, as if low wages are their fault for not working hard enough. Solving the problem of the cost of living will still leave people dependant on increasingly precarious employment.

A leader in The Economist recently made a very good case for the importance of skills and education in combating this phenomenon and why we should invest more in pre-school and adult learning. But also admits that this will still result in some people relying on a benevolent state to provide subsistence. These actions may mitigate the worst aspects of poverty but they will not ameliorate the effects of inequality.  Some inequality is an inevitable by-product of an organised society, but extreme levels of inequality are bad for everybody.

Those who would seek to maintain the status quo will offer a risible rise in wages and will continue to provide state-sponsored subsistence to bribe the voters. They will provide schemes to maintain the majority in machine-like jobs and will present mortgage debt as an aspiration for all. They will not attempt to increase opportunity and autonomy because to do so would threaten the interests of those who wield political influence. For them freedom means less regulation and redistribution. It means the absence of state interference in the business of multiplying wealth.

These political schemes of varying complexity and success may lead to some future prosperity and may guarantee future jobs, but the majority of individuals will still have very little influence on their personal future. People will still be bound to the will and caprice of employers. The majority of people will still subsist on wages that represent a small proportion of the value that their employment creates and the cost of living will continue to rise as the banks and other vested interests maintain the high cost of housing.

To challenge the system of inequality it is necessary to implement radical change to bring about greater personal and collective freedoms. To settle for anything less is to accept the existing institutional framework. The framework that offers varying combinations of state and market designed to ensure that the inequalities generated by the market are corrected by the redistributive and regulatory activity of the state. The very fact that people in their droves are fleeing the country and travelling to cities such as London in search of a job, any job, is proof enough that people don’t just want more equality. People want more consumption, more excitement, more of everything except equality. Deep freedom, the capability to make more of their own life, must be the objective of radical change.

Perhaps I am reading too much in to what Milband is trying to do; but it definitely seems to me that in his speeches on ‘predators’ and ‘pre-distribution’ he is pitching to represent the 99%. And that he is willing to take on the ‘Power Elite’. Blair and Mandelson famously shied away from challenging the ‘shadow cast on society by big business’, seeking merely to attenuate the effects. I hope that Miliband is brave enough to try and that we give him the opportunity to effect real and lasting structural change.

In order to be successful Miliband must first raise awareness that he alone represents the interests of the people. He must not just convince traditional Labour supporters but all the electorate that a vote for Labour is a vote in favour of the collective interests of the 99%.  He must convince the electorate that the status quo only serves the interests of the elite and that Labour will enact meaningful change.

Ed Miliband is certainly influenced by his father and by other notable socialists Tariq Ali and C. Wright Mills. The papers have recently been suggesting that he aims to be a 21st Century Teddy Roosevelt. I suspect that he has also been reading George Lakoff:

 “The liberal market economy maximizes overall freedom by serving public needs: providing needed products at reasonable prices for reasonable profits, paying workers fairly and treating them well, and serving the communities to which they belong. In short, “the people the economy is supposed to serve” are ordinary citizens.”

I think that all political parties have done the people a disservice by pretending that ‘we are all middle-class now’. Yes disposable incomes are higher; yes more people now work in offices rather than in manual occupations. But the availability of credit and the cultural incitement to home and car ownership means that just as many people are now wage-slaves, dependant on employment to pay for their ‘standard of living’, as they ever have been. As Ernest Bevin said “We must not confuse democracy with the maintenance of a particular form of economic or financial system…rather it is a condition which allows for change in the system itself”’

 Robin Thorpe is a consulting engineer for a small practice on the south coast

Tags: , , , ,

5 Responses to “Ed Miliband is the only politician talking about what really matters: inequality”

  1. Ex-Labour says:

    Like most on the left you talk about “inequality” yet rarely does anyone state what their definition of this is. You talk of “institutional frameworks” and “systems” which is the kind of academic speak I wrote in my MBA dissertation. So please define what you mean.

    What I read in the sub-text here is that inequality can only be addressed by redistribution or predistribution. Why dont you say what you mean as in reality you mean by taxation. Its nothing more that the bankrupt Labour thinking of old, shown to be a failure over decades. The paradox here is that you want any societal social structure dismantled, but your methods and appeal to action is nothing more than traditional class warfare.

    You talk of increasing opportunity and according to my university lecturer friend (a lefty by the way) his opinion is that the higher education system is the most open its ever been, particularly to those of poorer backgrounds, where fees are either paid or massively reduced. Those “machine like” jobs need doing in any society, but in your vision of “equality” does everyone have the capbilities to be say a surgeon ?

    Your target is clearly the so called 1%. But of course you fail to mention that the 1% accounts for 30% of our income tax take. So where would your equality initiatives be if they moved their assets ? In fact where would any Labour initiative be ?

    It was reported last year that 74% of the public saw themselves as middle class. I suspect Miliband knows this hence the change of language recently. What is also shows is that most the public are aspirational, something Im sure irks you and those of a like mind.

    The truth is that you can push for your vision of equality (whatever that may be) all you like, but individual attitudes and behaviours differ and not everyone is that exercised about it. Much of it is down to personal responsibility, ambition and aspiration and nobody in Labour really likes that, so its easy to blame instituations, organisations, goverments and the well paid.

  2. Robert says:

    A good article that describes well what left of centre politics should be about.

  3. aragon says:

    The Ed Miliband who’s policies are at best incremental, and who can’t make decisions and Ed Balls as the (shadow) Chancellor who wishes to stick to Tory spending plans.

    More like more of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, a change of tone, no significant changes in policy. George Osbourne seems more willing to increase the minimum wage than Ed Miliband who hoped to persuade employers to increase minimum wages and Ed Balls who wants all policies to be fiscally neutral.

    Raising expectations when that the two Ed’s will not fulfill just brings politics into further disrepute.

  4. Richard T says:

    The notion of “the collective interest of the 99%” is, on the face of it, utterly fatuous.

    What do you take it to mean?

  5. Mavern Jones says:

    A lot of nonsense and meaningless platitudes in that essay, very little of any actual substance in there. You can’t just talk about the “99%” and the “1%”, that’s just an empty statistic. What does that percentage figure specifically refer to?

    The elite are UK inhabitants as well. In fact, there isn’t one elite, there are elites in all walks of life. They are just another minority, by definition. A government has to represent everybody, it ill behoves the Labour party to pick on any minority. Getting 99% of people to gang up on any 1% is nothing more than morally questionable rabble-rousing.

    Then there’s this notion that Mr Milliband “alone” can do something, which is another unfounded speculation, it might be good tub-thumping rhetoric for party loyalists, but the public are sick of politicians being overhyped to almost messianic levels. Blair was bad enough – yes he won elections, but the knock-on effect was to belittle everyone else around him and make him look almost deranged, certainly untrustworthy. By claiming ONLY Ed Milliband has the answers, you’re on the verge of making it look like a fanboy crush, or building someone up who will only fail to deliver. It’s unfair on Ed, it’s unfair on Labour, and its unfair on the electorate to make such wild claims. It certainly doesn’t inspire trust among sceptical floating voters.

    The best kind of political party would be one that works for both the 1% and the 99%, in all areas, allowing those at the top to flourish and those at the bottom to strive to improve their lot in life. Until Labour stops trying to divide people and set people against each other, stops claiming on one man in the country (Mr Milliband) has all the answers, is a bit more inclusive, humble, less drawn to fatuous empty sermonising and undeliverable promises – it still has nothing serious to offer the country.

    Must try harder.

Leave a Reply