Search:

Last 3 Posts @ July 6, 2008 7:50:27 PM EDT

Field of Women (46 mins ago)

Wendy and I met other Labour women councillors and Maria Eagle MP today at Liverpool Cricket Club to take part in the creation of a giant woman called LUCY, created by...

Louise Baldock

Spinning Survey Data (55 mins ago)

As a short follow up to my recent review of the TUC's interesting pamphlet on democratising public services, I took a look at the CBI's press release demanding the pac...

Union Futures

A Little More Detail would be nice.. (59 mins ago)

I've got in a bit of a scrap defending Jill Saward over at Libcon, although the discussion has led me to raise a point about one of the pro Liberty arguments currently be...

Citizen Andreas

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Britain 2025 - 8 comments

Written by David Miliband, reproduced with permission from the original article published as part of the Euston Manifesto Group's Social Democratic Futures thread.

===============================================================

The successful countries of the future will be egalitarian in their ethos and structure, pluralistic in their systems of power, and globally linked at the level of the individual and the community as well as the nation. Modern social democrats must shape the 'empowered societies' of 2025, argues David Miliband.

The Labour Conference in Manchester clarified two things for many people.

First, that we need to do a better job at understanding and explaining the changes that have taken place in Britain over the last 10 years. Second, we need to engage positively and actively with the development of a new agenda for the future.

On the first count, the departure of the Prime Minister at some point in the next six to nine months, along with the 10 year anniversary of Labour's election in 1997, provides the basis for a sustained "reckoning" on the Blair years. This is a vital part of the political jigsaw — not because it is an opportunity for Labour Ministers and supports to reel off 'lists of achievements' (though a bit of that would not go amiss), but because across the country individuals, businesses, voluntary organisations, newspapers will draw up a balance sheet on the last ten years. Some will give a D-minus out of ideological or personal antipathy, providing an interesting counterpoint to those who argue that the government has been so pale blue it has failed to annoy the Right. But most will acknowledge significant economic, social and cultural change in the country, political change too, and many will recognise that while all this change is not the responsibility of the Government, a lot of it is.

The Reckoning is important; it provides the foundation for the second task, developing a new agenda for the future. My starting point for that task is the belief that Britain has changed a lot in the last twenty years, but will change more in the next twenty. That change can be reactionary or progressive. Our job is to understand the new world better than the Right, and respond better.

It seems evident that interdependence is the defining characteristic of the modern world — from traffic to terrorism, from the economy to the environment, we are dependent on others for our personal freedom.

I believe successful countries in 2025 will be egalitarian in their ethos and structure, pluralistic in their systems of power, and globally linked at the level of the individual and the community (think cities) as well as the nation. I have called these 'empowered societies'.

Those of us concerned with the success of this country need to engage with the demands of these requirements — demands that will require us to go far beyond the agenda set in 1997 and followed since then. The Blair era is not some kind of aberration — it is right and successful, more right and more successful than any Labour government since 1945. But it cannot be frozen in stone. The only way to preserve new labour is to change it in fundamental ways — not by moving to the right but by defining clearly what it means to be on the centre-left in the 21st century. In ideological terms this means fusing the traditional social democratic commitment to social justice through collective action with a liberal commitment to individual freedom in a market economy.

New Labour has been good at national leadership, but needs to do better at promoting strong community self-government; good at paying teachers and nurses and police more, but needs to do better at making them feel like real entrepreneurs with the power to reshape lives; good at creating new laws and expectations of social behaviour, but needs to do better at giving young people a sense of commitment to the country; good at keeping inflation and interest rates low, but needs to do better at making the most of the new knowledge economy; good at driving the international environmental agenda, but needs to do better at finding the game-changing drives that shift the country's carbon footprint (think the Congestion Charge); good at promoting rights and responsibility in the welfare state, but needs to do better at promoting rights and responsibilities across society; good at legislating for constitutional reform, but needs to do better at building a new political culture; good at shaping national policy, but needs to do better at defining the future for our regional alliance in the EU.

Finding the way to make good on these aspirations requires, in my view, first of all distinctive and insightful social and economic analysis, and second real imagination about how to shape social and economic (and political) change. This dialogue is part of that process. The attempt to lift our eyes to Britain 2025 is not an attempt to avoid controversy, but is an effort to get beyond the debate about the number of Academy schools that is optimal.

My interest is in the trends, ideas and ways of thinking that have the potential to shape Britain of 2025. What will the economy be like? What will be the international benchmark for educational effectiveness? How will the 'new old' (baby boomers) have redefined the culture of ageing? With 7-8 billion people on the planet, and significant greenhouse gas emissions from simply feeding them, where are the zero carbon solutions for energy and transport?

There is a lot to think about and a lot to do. We need to open the shutters and really understand what is going on, and who is thinking best about how to respond. I am all ears.

David Miliband is Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

===============================================================

Please leave comments here. Alternatively, to send a response for publication at Social Democratic Futures, please contact Alan Johnson, its Editor.

8 comments so far...

At 8:59 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fits in nicely with the recent Fabians Pamphlet on a similar topic.

It is good to see Mr Miliband questioning orthodoxies. It is hard to emphasise how much and how quickly Labour needs to change.

But there still remains a rather large question; Change in which direction?

The elephant in the corner...

Do we want our society be the society that we have to have, or one fashioned of our own will?

And if we want our society to look a certain way... what will it look like?

   
At 9:04 AM, October 20, 2006, Blogger Benjamin said...

This is the choice:


Global competitiveness ranking (World Economic Forum)
Sweden 3rd
UK 13th

Child poverty rate:
(UNICEF)
Sweden 2.6%
UK 19.8% (one of the worst rates in Europe.)

   
At 4:22 PM, October 20, 2006, Blogger Bloggers4Labour said...

I think it's a good piece. I don't think it's a case of "change in what direction?", and certainly not in the sense of a Labour-style ideological shift (though he does move a little away from managerialism, wrt empowering public servants and community activists), more of tackling the areas that need improving. Moreover he asks us to think about longer-term issues towards the end.

Benjy, there are some things Sweden is very good at. Creating jobs, however, is not one: private sector employment growth is static, youth u/e is circa 25%, and vast numbers are on benefits or in 'training'. They may be more 'generous' than the UK but in terms of having a better vision or model for the future, no, I think they're well behind.

   
At 8:10 AM, October 21, 2006, Blogger Benjamin said...

Well, the Swedish vision does not include tolerating a level of child poverty to disgrace a civilised society. Conservatives and Labour are united in their failure to tackle this problem in the UK.

   
At 1:31 PM, October 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrew, would you agreewith David Miliband that change can be progreesive or reactionary? If so, what do you reckon the difference is?

I must say I have always associated the idea of 'progress' with socialism and liberalism sa bodies of thought.

There is another interperetation, along the Giddens-lite lines of 'moving forward'... but how then can you 'move forward' in a reactionary fashion, as this thinking spliced with Mr Milibands would imply is possible.

I like his ideas, but how he would implement them, is, as often, a bit of an issue.. perhaps a question of emphasis that seeps over into substance...

Hence my anxiety of the way change should go... and how we would, within the bounds of sensible possibility, like our society to look.

What is 'progresive'? What are we progressing towards?

Rather predictably, I think Benji has the right idea here. If you think Sweden's emloyment rate sucks, just bare in mind that they get to claim 80% of their former salary for a year anyway, while still growing faster than the UK.

Their Gini rates make up for their unemployment rate (which is, if i remember correctly, only 1% higher than ours)many times over.

Labour shouldadapt it'ssolutions to making society more equal, far more radically than we peviously have, rather than only keeping up with global markets (indeed, often submitting our goal of equality to their dominance).

We have to do both of course, but we need a far more egalitarian balance. That mustbe Labour's future for Britain.

   
At 2:31 PM, October 21, 2006, Blogger Bloggers4Labour said...

... would you agree with David Miliband that change can be progressive or reactionary?

Well these terms do have their special meanings on our side of the fence, but the dictionary says that progressive represents support for social liberalisation and reform, and reactionary represents opposition to such reform. So, yes, change could be progressive or reactionary.

I wouldn't claim that our going for the Swedish Model would exactly be reactionary, given that there are no significant differences in terms of social liberalism, but economically speaking it would be odd, given that their voters have signalled a desire to move towards us. There are other egalitarian measures that can, and should, be taken (unfortunately they're not always to the taste of the traditional Labour left - probably worth a post in itself) that don't tightly regulate the economy, feather-bed the public sector, and shove people onto sickness benefits in order to keep the headline unemployment rate down. These are issues we've explicitly tried to tackle in the UK.

   
At 9:15 AM, October 23, 2006, Blogger Benjamin said...

Thank you for admitting that the Labour Party is a now a conservative neo-liberal party, since you equate the Swedish Moderate Party with New Labour, rather than the Social Democrats with New Labour.

However, sadly for Labour Party supporters, the Moderates had to water down all their policies (of destroying the Social Model) in order to get elected, and even then only did so by a wafer thin margin. The Social Democrats remain the largest single party in the Swedish parliament.

As I say, very disappointing for New Labourites.

   
At 1:37 PM, October 24, 2006, Blogger Bloggers4Labour said...

You shouldn't get sentimental about political parties. All the same, if the Social Democrats had reformed more (and sorted out their leader) they might still be in. If the Moderates can do something about dependency and employment (how is that conservative?), reinvigorated Social Democrats might be better placed next time.

   

Post a Comment

<< Home

B4L Running Costs

£1,909.77 spent so far this year, which could be met by a donation of £3.77 per blogger.




Join the Labour Party
Sign the Euston Manifesto


Wikispaces