In extreme social contexts it is possible to be both radical and conservative

November 12, 2012 9:00 am

It is now just over a month since Ed Miliband made his ‘One Nation’ conference speech. When a speech can be instantly recalled by a single phrase, it is usually a good indication of its effectiveness. And there can now be little doubt that it galvanised the party and stimulated thinking.

The speech gave the clearest and most powerful indication yet of the direction Ed is taking the party. It is perhaps best understood in the context of three of his prior interventions.

The ‘Squeezed Middle’ described the problem; that living standards are in decline and have been for some time. Between 2003 and 2008 disposable income fell in every UK region outside of London.

‘Responsible Capitalism’ provided the aspiration, outlining a vision of the fairer, more equal society we wish to build.

Finally, ‘predistribution’ outlined Ed’s political methodology, his process of creating change in a tough economic climate.

Yet until ‘One Nation’, it is fair to say these various strands had not exactly leapt of the page. No longer. With one phrase Ed was able to offer a critique of the existing social order under the Tories, whilst simultaneously offering the hope of a better one under Labour.

It is stolen, as Ed acknowledged at conference, from Benjamin Disraeli, perhaps the Conservative Party’s most celebrated champion of the working class. As an out-of-favour young politician and jobbing author, Disraeli first unveiled this philosophy in his 1845 manifesto-cum-novel Sybil, or the Two Nations.

As the political leader of the Tory ‘Young England’ movement, which argued for a return to the social conservatism and duty of pre-industrial England, Disraeli lambasted the greed and division of the great 19th century industrial cities, such as Manchester, Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent. There could now exist, he protested, within one city two entirely different nations, ‘between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets’. These two nations were ‘formed by different breeding’, fed by different food, and governed by different laws. They were ‘the rich and the Poor’.

The target of Disraeli’s ire was an equally skewered political economy. Disraeli’s target was the laissez-faire, night watchman state of the ‘Manchester School’ of neoliberal conservatives. Rather than the barren exchange of the cash-nexus, Disraeli stressed the ties that bind; he believed in a moral conception of society beyond the narrow confines of the marketplace. And he highlighted, amongst the condition of the urban poor of industrial England, the social costs of a failing model of capitalism.

Many may feel queasy about pilfering the ideas of a Conservative, even one such as Disraeli. But there is no need to recoil. A proper understanding of Disraeli shows that in extreme social contexts it is possible to be both radical and conservative. As we approach Victorian levels of inequity today, we are living through one such context.

Furthermore, as Cameron – who once postured as heir to Disraeli himself – continues to lose his rear-guard battle against the aggressively libertarian, free-marketeers in his party, there is a real opportunity for Labour to talk the traditionally conservative language of preserving our social fabric. From protecting the NHS, to preventing the sale of public assets such as forests, motorways and museums, this is the terrain that the ‘One Nation’ rhetoric boldly seeks to capture.

But more than this, it also offers a clear and renewed commitment to the party’s historic duty of lifting the life chances of the poor. Inequality matters: too great a distance between the two nations harms social cohesion and undermines our sense of solidarity, impoverishing us all.

Britain under the Tories is divided, particularly now that they have retreated into their traditional ‘divide and rule’ modus operandi. As they pit North v South, public v private and the unemployed v workers, the task of providing unity and offering a story of national renewal falls to Labour. And that is before we even consider potential divisions between Scotland, England and Wales.

Building an authentic story of national renewal in a time of fragmenting identities and where the political challenge – for Labour, bluntly, the South – diverges from the main public policy challenge of rebalancing the economy and spreading wealth more evenly (i.e. to the North) will be extremely difficult.  Particularly given the constraints of our new, more austere focus on predistribution. However, with the new Tech Bacc for vocational education, the British Investment Bank, and the amplified campaign for a Living Wage, we already have some strong signature ‘One Nation’ policies. And as this discussion demonstrates, we are certainly not short of collective ingenuity.

It is up to all of us now to go out and begin building a ‘One Nation’ Britain.

Tristram Hunt is MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central

This piece forms part of Jon Cruddas’s Guest Edit of LabourList

  • AlanGiles

    I rather thought that we would be in for one of “those” weeks!. The “squeezed middle”, and all that jazz. I look forward to articles from Liam Byrne, Jack Straw, James Purnell, David Blunkett and all the other ghastly old waxworks.

    I think, however, Mr Hunt is a bit desperate to be evoking the spirit of Disraeli. Historian he might be, but I think more recent examples might strike a chord with readers – how about Atleee or Harold Wilson for example?. Oh well, what’s it to be for the week? pseudo-intellectual waffle, becoming Director General of the BBC for a few days?. No ot’s a miserable day – at least “Bargain Hunt” is on at lunchtime.

  • AlanGiles

    I rather thought that we would be in for one of “those” weeks!. The “squeezed middle”, and all that jazz. I look forward to articles from Liam Byrne, Jack Straw, James Purnell, David Blunkett and all the other ghastly old waxworks.

    I think, however, Mr Hunt is a bit desperate to be evoking the spirit of Disraeli. Historian he might be, but I think more recent examples might strike a chord with readers – how about Atleee or Harold Wilson for example?. Oh well, what’s it to be for the week? pseudo-intellectual waffle, becoming Director General of the BBC for a few days?. No ot’s a miserable day – at least “Bargain Hunt” is on at lunchtime.

    • Dave Postles

      Should ‘Bargain Hunt’ be construed as a pun?

  • Dave Postles

    Tory and radical, as TH recognizes, are not mutually exclusive; in the 19th-century context, one needs only mention Oastler (accessibly, Ted Vallance, A Radical History of Britain (London, 2009), pp. 370-1 – no commission). Let’s not get carried away, however. Disraeli’s One Nation and the Tory radicalism of some of his successors, was still a limited concept, to confer entitlements on the ‘respectable’, male, working class, as in the 1867 electoral reform. By a similar token, the One Nation idea of Labour, as currently expounded, appears to have a similarly limited remit. One Nation, IMHO, involves the recognition of the social obligation from the privileged to the less privileged. Belatedly, I’m reading Avner Offer’s, The Challenge of Affluence. Self-control and Well-being in the United States and Britain since 1950 (Oxford, 2006; repr. 2011) which has some interesting context, although I’m not far into it.

  • http://twitter.com/LUCKYCUNARD MICHAEL KENNY

    Nationalise all land except reasonable owner-occupier freeholds. No compo

Latest

  • Comment Labour’s Lessons from a Sikh Wedding Season

    Labour’s Lessons from a Sikh Wedding Season

    There’s been a fair bit written about the Sikh community in the nationals in the last few days in relation to Cameron’s political appointments to the Lords and some criticism for Labour for not having any representation from the 700,000 strong Sikh community in its Westminster ranks. Personally I don’t think there’s anything to gain in attacking Cameron for making more diverse appointments, even if the guy may not be as entrenched in the Sikh community as was claimed and […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Where does Labour really stand on a “Health Tax”?

    Where does Labour really stand on a “Health Tax”?

    The front page of today’s FT suggests that the Labour leadership is considering a “Health Tax” as a means of paying for the NHS, reporting(£): “Ed Miliband is to put the NHS at the centre of Labour’s election campaign and is considering an earmarked “health tax” or exempting the health service from deficit reduction to prove that he can deliver a better service. Mr Miliband believes the NHS is rising up the list of voters’ concerns but wants to offer […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Miliband calls for “overarching inquiry into child abuse” – and repeats call for Shaun Wright to step down

    Miliband calls for “overarching inquiry into child abuse” – and repeats call for Shaun Wright to step down

    Ed Miliband has released a statement this morning on the Rotherham child abuse scandal, in which he re-iterates calls for Shaun Wright to resign as South Yorkshire PCC. However, Miliband has gone further today, calling for an “overarching inquiry into child abuse” to examine what went wrong not just in Rotherham, but “in different institutions, in different parts of the country and stretching across different decades”. Here’s the statement in full: This week’s report into the child abuse scandal in […]

    Read more →
  • Comment If a young person’s opinion falls into the political sphere, does it make a sound?

    If a young person’s opinion falls into the political sphere, does it make a sound?

    There’s a lot of talk around the Party at the moment about ‘Generation Y.’ I suppose I fit into that category, although I don’t think I’ve ever used it to describe myself. Gen Y or whatever, what’s become clear to me over the years is that I’m one of the weirder ones. I’ve worked since the age of 16, doing jobs from working behind a pharmacy counter to fundraising in a call centre to translating for a construction company. I’ve […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why rural areas need free buses

    Why rural areas need free buses

    To have a fully functioning society, bus services in rural areas should be free of charge. For young people seeking employment, education or entertainment, the unwell needing to visit and be visited in hospitals or the elderly wanting to break the loneliness of isolation, public transport is essential. If governments don’t want to spend money on services in rural areas, they should at least provide the means for people who live there to get to them in urban areas. Regular […]

    Read more →