Twenty years ago the idea of Britain hosting a dialogue on progressive
politics would have seemed like a joke: after all the British Labour were
the 20th-century experts in how to lose elections. The arrival today of 15
heads of government to Gordon Brown’s conference on progressive governance
is a major reversal in the terms of political trade.
Labour’s success has been built on the Blair/Brown mantra that “what counts is
what works”. From independence of the Bank of England to ASBOs to nuclear
power, Labour ditched dogma and embraced common sense. That common sense
remains essential, but it is not enough.
New Labour is learning the limits of pragmatism and Gordon Brown is driving
the Government forward better to define and defend its convictions. It is
one thing to ditch dogma; new Labour became expert at that before 1997. It
is another to build a coherent ideology that provides a clear sense of
direction for the country and speaks to people’s aspirations. That is our
challenge today.
Labour’s successes and failures have changed what citizens expect from
government. They continue to want better schools, hospitals, and policing; a
society where people rise on the back of talent and effort; a decent safety
net. But, at the same time, they want more power for themselves; more
responsibility from others; and more flexibility from government.
No 20th-century political ideology addresses this conundrum – state socialism
is dead; Conservatism was destroyed by Margaret Thatcher’s free-market
reforms. A successful ideology for the 21st century will do so. Its bones
can be found in two rich intellectual traditions that speak directly to this
challenge.
Social democrats started in the late 19th century asking what sort of society
they wanted. Their goal was the equal or just distribution of resources.
Their means were the state. Their mission led to more civilised Western
economies, including our own, notably through the creation of welfare states.
Radical liberals, originating in the late 19th century, started from the
individual not society. Their goal was the freedom and flourishing of the
individual. Their means were individual rights and collective action outside
the state. Their mission led to some of the great reforms of the 20th
century – from political rights and antidiscrimination legislation to the
growth of trade unions and the cooperative movement.
The challenge for new Labour is to forge these two progressive traditions into
a single narrative. The concern with individual freedom and power should be
one way in which we measure the drive for equality. And the diminution of
inequalities should be one way in which we assess the march of liberty. Here
are five ways in which we can square the circle.
First, the move to a low-carbon economy is as profound a shift as
nationalisation or privatisation. We will need state intervention to ration
carbon emissions. But the purpose of that regulation will be to create
markets, rather than stifle them. The vast majority of the economy will need
to come within a carbon trading scheme that enables the market to find the
most efficient sectors in which to promote innovation and cut emissions.
Second, an ageing society will require more investment, whether from
individuals or the state, on pensions, health services and long-term care.
But we need, wherever possible, money to be in the hands of citizens so that
professionals are accountable and responsive to them rather than to a
distant bureaucracy. That is why we must look at how direct payments,
personal budgets, and individual entitlements can be extended across social
care, health and other services.
Third, if we are to create a society where a person’s colour or background is
not an impediment to their progress, we need to deliver on our pledges to
eradicate child poverty and raise investment in education up to the levels
seen in the private sector. But we also need to allow more freedom and
flexibility for innovation.
The curriculum and the way we accredit achievements must encourage innovation
rather than stifle it. We should expect chains of schools and health
services to emerge so that this innovation can spread to scale. A
world-class headteacher should not be confined to managing one school. They
should lead change across a whole network. The mergers and acquisitions
market in private services injects new ideas, people and capital. We need
its equivalent in public services. The public, private and voluntary sector
can all play a role.
Fourth, we need to get state power in the right place. In the 19th century,
progress was driven by Britain’s main cities, by industry, and philanthropic
organisations. Cities developed their own distinctive identity, made
different trade-offs between taxation and the quality of local services and
the public realm. We need basic minimum standards to avoid deep disparities.
But unless we devolve greater powers to local government and local people to
choose their own priorities and influence the key services in their area,
from policing and skills to healthcare, we will not tackle the deeper causes
of disaffection with party politics.
Fifth, the reform of the state in Britain means more localisation of
responsibility. But just as individualism is not an answer to problems that
are collective, so localisation cannot be an answer to problems that are
global. The European Union may be less popular than ever; but it is more
necessary than ever. Not to take over people’s lives, but to do the things –
on climate change, on product standards, on migration – that cannot be done
locally. That is our opportunity as the Lisbon treaty puts to bed
institutional debates that have diverted us for too long.
The danger for both main parties in Britain is clear: New Labour 1997 is the
model of how to win, but new Labour 1997 is not right for today. It is the
absence of conviction not the absence of pragmatism that is the greatest
danger. It is only by drawing cleverly on its past that the Labour party
will ensure its future.
David Miliband is Foreign Secretary. The Progressive Governance conference
begins today in London
