Ed Miliband’s economy speech to Policy Network – “Labour’s New Agenda”

September 6, 2012 1:41 pm

On Predistribution, a new economy and why the next Labour government won’t be as able to redistribute as the last one:

I want to start by thanking the Stock Exchange for hosting us, and Policy Network for organising today.

Policy Network has long been committed to new thinking and building a progressive alternative.

And the speakers on today’s programme are a tribute to your influence.

I also want to thank Larry Summers.

He has always brought rigour and seriousness to the great problems of politics, the economy and society.

And he showed that again with his speech this morning.

My argument today is this.
In the 1990s most economic conferences of this type were held against the backdrop of a set of assumptions that had emerged from a decade earlier.
Three were particularly important:
- Low inflation was the key to growth.
- A rising tide would lift all boats and wealth would trickle down to all.
- And the rules governing our economy were unchangeable.

New Labour challenged some aspects of those assumptions, but also left others unchanged.

But as I will argue, all of them have been discredited by the events of the last five years.

And that is why today’s conference is so important.

Because it is a meeting of economists, business people and politicians who believe the old answers won’t work.

And who believe in the need for new ideas to rise to the challenges facing Britain today.

Events over the summer have simply reinforced how urgent this new thinking is.

Britain’s economy has now been shrinking for three quarters in a row.

This means young people across the country denied hope and opportunity.

It means families who are struggling to pay their bills each month.

And businesses struggling to keep their heads above water.

The Government made a bargain with Britain:
It said all this is a price worth paying to get our economy back on track and put the nation’s finances in order.
But it has failed.
Public borrowing, far from falling, is actually rising.

26 per cent higher than it was at the same point last year.

Alongside the Government’s economic failure, we have watched their political failure.

No longer able to say “we’re all in it together” after the Budget for millionaires, the failure of Lords reform and boundary changes, and a reshuffle which changed nothing but the faces.

Now there are some who believe that this economic failure means that all the Labour Party needs to do now is:

Attack the Government.
Sit back.
Wait for it to fail.
Wait for it to fall.

So that we can go back to governing as we did before.

But that would be the wrong strategy for my party and the wrong strategy for our country.

The lesson that Ed Balls and I take from this summer is the opposite:
We need more change, not less.

Because the scale of the challenges have become greater:
Restoring growth.
Tackling debt.
And building an economy that works for working people once again.

Just as the pre-war consensus could not solve the problems Britain faced in 1945.

Just as the postwar consensus could not solve the problems of the late 1970s.

So the ideas of the last three decades will not solve the central economic challenges we face.

Instead we need a new agenda.

An agenda sufficient to the scale of the challenge, and to the demand of the British people for change.

Today is part of building that agenda.

That is a task not just for politicians, but for all of us who want to see Britain rise to these challenges.

I said earlier that economic conferences of the 1990s were created in the context of the assumptions of the Thatcher era.

Our new agenda must be built around new assumptions.

So first, my starting point is an obvious one, and that is the immediate crisis.

It’s easy to forget now but the old assumption was that low inflation would guarantee stability and growth.

And at conferences like these in the 1990s there were debates about the role of Governments versus central banks in making low inflation happen.

But low inflation didn’t ensure growth and stability.

In future the lesson is that macroeconomics is much more complex and faces much more uncertainty than was believed.

And the challenges we face go much wider than simply securing low inflation.

They include proper financial regulation.

And there is a more immediate lesson for the crisis we are in.

A lesson this Government desperately needs to learn:
Growth does not happen automatically.
Demand matters.

Anyone working in construction over the last year knows that they just don’t have the orders.

Struggling small businesses know they have fewer people coming through the door.

The young people scouring the Jobcentre for work know that there aren’t enough vacancies.

In the aftermath of a financial crisis, monetary policy alone, leaving it to the Bank of England, cannot solve the growth crisis we face.

I’m afraid the Government believed its own propaganda – that they could cut as far and as fast as they liked and the private sector would pick up the slack.

And that this was a route map for every country to follow.
If ever greater austerity at home is a flawed philosophy, the rush to collective austerity – every country following this route – is the ultimate in misguided dogma.

Because it denies countries the export-led route out of the problems they face.

And we see the results in Britain and in much of the developed world.

Two and a half years on and the British economy has not grown at all in that time, and we are in a double dip recession.

So the evidence is in – everyone now knows that the Government’s approach was wrong.

But they are lashed to the mast of a plan A that has failed.

As a result, instead of a change of direction, we get increasingly complex schemes and initiatives.
We have more of them today.

Someone in New Labour said if you want to understand aspiration you need to understand conservatories.

They were right.

But a one-year holiday from the current rules on planning for a conservatory extension of up to eight metres into a garden does not represent an economic plan.

The problem with these schemes is that it is unclear that they will have any substantial effect, and crucially that they are too complex to restore the confidence we so badly need.

For the housebuilders, for the small business, for the young jobless, they have made no difference.

So the immediate priority for our new agenda is measures that will restore both demand and confidence.

That is what Labour is aiming to do with its Five Point Plan for growth and jobs.

If the Government really wanted to get infrastructure moving they would follow our advice.

Bring forward long-term investment projects like schools, roads and transport, not just tinker with the planning rules.

If they really wanted to make a difference to housing they would tax bankers’ bonuses and as we recommended, build tens of thousands of new homes.

Not simply fiddle with the social obligations of developers.
And as we face a crisis of youth unemployment, they should be offering young people a Real Jobs Guarantee.
That is the action our new agenda requires now.
It is the only way to start to turn things around.

But the answer is not simply to deal with our short-term crisis and then go back to business as usual.

The second of the old assumptions was that a rising tide would lift all boats.

And that cutting taxes at the top, trickle down economics, would eventually put income in the pockets of everyone else.

The last Labour Government challenged this by recognising that we needed redistribution to share the proceeds of growth.

We introduced tax credits which helped take around a million children out of poverty.

We should be proud of that achievement.

But today there are still 2.3 million children growing up in poverty.

And we have inequality that scars our country.

This shows that redistribution is necessary and will remain a key aim of the next Labour government.

But is not sufficient to achieve our goals.

So we need new ideas if we are to tackle the problems the economy faces.

What’s more, the Government’s economic failure means that whoever wins the next election will still face a deficit that needs to be reduced.

The redistribution of the last Labour government relied on revenue which the next Labour government will not enjoy.
The option of simply increasing tax credits in the way we did before will not be open to us.

Of course, redistribution will always remain necessary.
But we’ve learned that it is not sufficient.

And fiscal circumstances will make it harder not easier.
The new agenda is that we need to care about the model of the economy we have and the distribution of income it creates.

We need to care about predistribution as well as redistribution.

Predistribution is about saying:
We cannot allow ourselves to be stuck with permanently being a low-wage economy.

It is neither just, nor does it enable us to pay our way in the world.

Our aim must be to transform our economy so it is a much higher skill, higher wage economy.

Think about somebody working in a call centre, a supermarket, or in an old peoples’ home.

Redistribution offers a top-up to their wages.

Predistribution seeks to offer them more:
Higher skills.
With higher wages.
An economy that works for working people.

Centre-left governments of the past tried to make work pay better by spending more on transfer payments.

Centre-left governments of the future will have to also make work pay better by making work itself pay.

That is how we are going to build growth based not just on credit, but on real demand.

And that is how we are going to help the squeezed middle of this country and, build a better economy when there is less money around.

And how we do this takes me to the third part of our new agenda: the rules of the way our economy works.

In the 1990s New Labour rightly embraced markets, most famously in our change to Clause 4.

The party embraced the creativity of capitalism.

And demonstrated it didn’t want to nationalise the corner shop.

New Labour did challenge some of the Right’s assumptions, introducing a National Minimum Wage to prevent exploitation and enabling more young people to go to university.

But in general, it was too silent about the rules that shape the way markets work – the key to responsible capitalism.

New Labour saw its task as showing it understood the dynamism of capitalism.

As a result it was harder for it be the party to reform it.
Today, clear about the role of markets, we can more confidently be the people who set out how the rules need to change.

And it is urgent that we do so.

Urgent in the wake of the financial crisis.

Urgent if we are to tackle the challenge of predistribution that I have just talked about.

And urgent if we are going to compete as a country.

I appeal to everybody in this room to work with us on this agenda.

It is about changing the relationship between finance and the real economy.

That is why we have made proposals on changing the way our banking system works, and promoted a British Investment Bank.

We need fundamental change so that we have banks that serve the country not a country serving its banks.

We need to tackle the short-termism that has characterised Britain for so many decades.

That is why Sir George Cox, formerly Director General of the Institute of Directors, is leading our review on short-termism.

Because Labour is on the side of the business people who want to take the long-term decisions to make their business a success now and in the future.

Not the speculation that tries to make a fast buck out of it.

All of the issues, from quarterly reporting to takeovers, are on the agenda of this review.

We need proper competition in all sectors of the economy so that consumers get a fair deal.

That means not allowing cosy cartels to develop in any sector, from energy to our train network.

Especially those which are essential to the standard of living of millions.

We also need a proper industrial policy for the country: all Government departments working together, including through procurement, to support British business.

For too long we operated on the assumption that this meant a return to 1970s-style picking winners.

It doesn’t.

It’s about recognising the proper relationship between the private sector and government working together.

It’s what all major industrialised countries do.

And part of that industrial policy agenda is about recognising the importance of the green economy for the future.

Not posing the environment and the economy as alternatives as the current Chancellor does.

We need a skills system that doesn’t leave us as a country where the 50 percent of our young people who go to university have a career, but the other 50 per cent feel completely left out, hoping to be lucky and get an apprenticeship.

That means building a skills system that deals with the supply of skills and also drives up demand for those skills.

And we plan to build that new agenda with schools, young people, businesses and trade unions working together to fashion our new vocational training system.

And finally the new rules of the game must ensure responsibility from top to bottom in our society.

We need a welfare state that encourages people to work, and rewards those who do.

We also need companies that reflect the values of our society.

It was controversial at last years’ Labour Party Conference when I talked about predatory and productive behaviour.

But the move towards a more responsible capitalism is actually being led by many business people.

Firms who want to invest in their workforce, and who know that companies flourish best when rewards are fairly shared.

And those businesses should feel that the rules of the economy are on their side, not making their life harder.
And I believe creating this responsible capitalism will be better for our country.

A responsible capitalism is a resilient capitalism.

I recognise that this agenda is about long-term change in the economy and it will take time.

But I believe the British people know in their heart of hearts that our economy needs big change.

Not business as usual, let alone politics as usual.

They recognise the scale of the challenge. And they demand that we rise to it.

We’re not going to wait for this Government to fail.

That’s why I say the new agenda is so important.

It is essential, if we are to pay our way in the world, pay down the deficit, and build an economy that works for working people.

The task for my party, and for you, is to develop this new thinking that will allow us to build the new economy.
That is the shared challenge we face today.

I look forward to working with you on it in the months and years ahead.

  • http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

    Am I the only person to find the autocue versions of speeches now doled out by lazy press officers from all parties unreadable?

    Would it really be so hard for one of the eager little PPE graduates who flock around leaders  to spend 15 minutes editing a speech into actual paragraphs and sentences?

    Plus is it just me but is the mechanical means of reproduction here driving not just delivery but style and content?

    A speech which is actually written to be fed line by line onto a screen is almost invariably flat and dull to the degree that is is now becoming difficult to really blame TV news for only reporting the briefest soundbites.

    Having been laid up in bed I’ve been unfortunate enough to watch most of the US conventions and was amazed at the utter mediocrity of the speeches delivered by even the top of the bill keynote speakers – senators, congressmen,  governors, the mayors of great cities -  doing little other than read out their prepared lines robotically, which is why firstly Clint Eastwood’s haranguing of a chair and then the performances by Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton stood out so dramatically.

    How this contrasts to the political conventions and conferences I remember watching in my politically obsessive youth where real decisions could still be made by delegates and consequently speakers had no choice but to bring skill and passion to the stage.

    Plus speeches being important actually got reported by newspapers and even not so long ago were printed in extenso – so they were actually written to be read as well as heard.

    Now one might as well be back in any meeting room staring into space as a colleague recites bullet points from a powerpoint slide (or worse be doing it myself). 

    Except that on these bullet points hang real jobs and lives.

    • Brumanuensis

      It’s incredibly frustrating, Roger. I find it borderline unreadable as well.

      • http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy
        • Brumanuensis

          It might be that LFF goes that extra yard. Or it might just be Chuka.

          • ColinAdkins

            I think I am on a roll. Having predicted the end of Rooney at Utd after the signing of Van Persie which is now picked up by the Guardian. I now predict that if Ed stumbles Chuka will be the replacement as no one will want to elect another leader who has baggage from either Brown or Blair.

          • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

            Has Rooney been given the old heave-ho?

          • ColinAdkins

            Just idle speculation.

          • Chilbaldi

            An excellent prediction, other than the small obstacle of Chuka being in his early 30s which would therefore make him the youngest PM since Pitt the younger.

    • postageincluded

      So true. I’ve given up trying with them – old dog etc. I rely on third parties to interpret for me.

      The problem  is that when each sentence is a paragraph, each sentence has the same weight. It robs the speech of its movement and feeling.

      *

      Cultural note: Gertrude Stein said “A sentence is not emotional. A paragraph is”.  She was pretty bonkers but she was right about that.

    • CouncillorRuth

      I do so agree about the autocue presentation of speeches. I’ve been searching the internet for half-an-hour trying to find a readable version and finally had to steel myself to plough through this. There’s an opportunity for someone to set up a website just providing a proper grammatical version of this stuff. 

  • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

    Excellent speech from Ed. Unlike Mark I didn’t pick up on an over-academic style though delivery may make a difference. And we got at least a couple of rib-ticklers thrown in!

    I’m left with the feeling that, at last, the Labour Party is heading in the right direction. And now I am able to look at my membership card with deep contentment.

  • sdrpalmer

    I think the other Milliband has a better chance of being the next Labour PM.
    His time out of the spotlight will have helped break his links to the past failure and allow him to present a new option to the ellectorate.  But that will be after the next Tory-led term.  Ed Milliband (through his denial of Labour’s past mistakes) and Ed Balls (obviously) will be forever linked to the failures that got Labour voted out of office.
    Oddly enough, Alistair Darling still has some credit.  He is seen as one who had to try to clear up the mess left by others. 

  • sdrpalmer

    ‘Top-down responsibility in our society’ eh?
    That sounds good.
    Shall we start with clearing out the tax-dodgers and benefits cheats in parliament, then?
    No?
    Oh well.  That didn’t last long, did it?

  • Brumanuensis

    Well, with contemporary neophilia, that might not be obstacle.

Latest

  • News Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder

    Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder

    In a statement this evening, Ed Miliband said: “This is a truly appalling murder which will shock the entire country. “All of my thoughts are with the family and friends of the victim. “The British people will be horrified by what has happened in Woolwich. They will be united in believing that this terror on our streets cannot be allowed to stand. “The Labour Party will offer the Government our complete support in establishing the facts of what happened and [...]

    Read more →
  • News Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

    Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

    With much jubilation, the 3rd reading of the same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Commons last night, carried through on the weight of Labour votes, but how have individual MPs voted on this bill? In the 2nd reading of the equal marriage bill, Labour MP voting totals were: 217 – for 22 – against 14 – non-voters For the third reading 192 – for 14 – against 49 – non-voters —————————————————————- 192 Labour MPs who voted yes on 3rd reading (9 didn’t [...]

    Read more →
  • News Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Speaking at the Google Big Tent event Ed Miliband said (please note, Miliband spoke without notes, but this is the text released by the party): It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent. My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the “Killer Robots” and the “Captain of the Moonshots” at your sessions. I’d like to start by showing you [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Unions The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    Lord Mandelson, or Baron Mandelson of Foy, as he should be referred to since he was packed off to the House of Lords by a small cabal, recently accused the Unite union of ‘manipulating selection procedures’ in the Labour Party. He went on to warn Ed Miliband that this ‘stores up danger for a future Labour government’. Irony has always been in as short supply as sheer chutzpah has been plentiful with old Mandy – but since his faithful disciple [...]

    Read more →
  • News Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Cameron says no more EU-turns “After one of his most difficult weeks since becoming prime minister, David Cameron put in a polished and assured peformance on the Today programme this morning. The most notable line came on Europe, with Cameron [...]

    Read more →