One Nation of the left: Labour’s social patriotism

December 30, 2012 3:55 pm

While the interest of Ed Miliband’s One Nation Labour derives in part from the ground it appropriates from Benjamin Disraeli and the Conservative tradition, One Nation also draws on the language of social patriotism pioneered by progressive trailblazers like William Gladstone, Clement Attlee, William Beveridge and, across the pond, Franklin D Roosevelt. These great reformers often spoke in populist and patriotic terms, seeking to mobilise low and middle income citizens against irresponsible elites.

It is this second aspect of Miliband’s One Nation rhetoric that opens up the space for a serious debate about the responsibilities of those at the top, drawing on a Gladstonian contrast between ‘the masses and the classes’. This was a subject that New Labour famously found it very difficult to talk about. Many of the key figures involved in Labour’s electoral rebirth in the 1990s were nervous about associating the party with what they regarded as antediluvian rhetorical fireworks unsuited to the politics of the 21st century. So can this aspect of One Nation work today?

The re-election of Barack Obama provides an answer. Obama’s successful pitch to voters in the United States was grounded on economic populism and social patriotism. Starting with his powerful speech on inequality at Osawatomie, Kansas, at the end of 2011, Obama defined his agenda as a defence of the prosperity of the broad majority against special interests seeking to protect only the rich. The unfairness of the low taxes on the wealthy, as favoured by the Republicans, provided a striking illustration of what Obama said he was up against:

‘This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefit the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.’

The success of the United States, Obama argued, was greatest:

‘when everyone gets a fair shot, where everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values. These aren’t 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values.’

In the face of repeated accusations from the right that he disavowed American exceptionalism, Obama responded by administering a dose of social patriotism. American greatness, he said, rested on mutual obligation and a commitment to improving the life chances of the majority rather than an elite few.

Obama’s success with this line of attack suggests that the economic debate in the wake of the financial crisis can plausibly be led from a populist and patriotic direction. At a time of squeezed living standards, questions of distributional fairness have become more salient than in the boom years. In such circumstances, a right-wing agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest and increased economic insecurity for everyone else can, with the right rhetorical touch, be portrayed as elitist and even anti-aspirational.

But it is important not to apply too heavy a rhetorical touch. As Nick Pearce has pointed out, the danger of this line of argument is that, if it is expressed too coarsely, it can turn into (or be presented as) a more general attack on business rather than a specific charge about irresponsible behaviour at the top. It is therefore critical to calibrate precisely the use of populist language. Obama’s argument was that the same rules should apply to everyone and that the wealthy and corporate interests shouldn’t claim special privileges, not that business in general was at fault. His searing attacks on the Republicans for seeking to lower taxes on the wealthy were buttressed by encomiums about small businesses and important business leaders who agreed with Obama’s approach.

A well-calibrated populist and patriotic electoral appeal along these lines could play an important part in Labour’s argument in the run-up to the 2015 election. Whether the use of such rhetoric is politically successful, however, depends on how well it fits with the non-rhetorical constraints that circumscribe politicians’ room for manoeuvre. Gladstone’s ‘masses against the classes’ ultimately failed to hold together the fissiparous Liberal party in the struggle over Irish home rule (and was in any case not a message perfectly suited to an electoral era that predated universal suffrage). Roosevelt and Attlee’s Labour party, on the other hand, were more successful at making a populist argument that resonated at election time and could be translated into an agenda for government.

But rhetoric was only one part of the story here. Roosevelt and Attlee (like Obama) found themselves taking on opponents who could plausibly be described as vested interests; their rhetoric was supported by distinctive policies that illustrated the contrast between left and right; and, fundamentally, the most pressing economic concern of the time could be persuasively narrated as the protection of the average citizen from irresponsible economic elites. There are intriguing parallels between these conditions and British politics today. Labour’s policy development remains a work in progress, but stagnant living standards and the priorities of the Conservative leadership have furnished Miliband with a political context conducive to the revival of social patriotism.

The potential of One Nation Labour lies in its synthesis of Disraelian conservatism with Gladstonian populism, because it is in the combination of the two that a distinctive post-crisis Labour message can be discerned. The framing of the electoral contest as a Labour party seeking to govern in the national interest against a Conservative party which favours the better-off is now a real possibility, in part thanks to the unforced errors committed by Cameron and Osborne over the last nine months. There is still a long and punishing distance to travel, but Miliband’s conference speech has given Labour a rhetoric which, with further elaboration, could define the terms of political debate in Labour’s favour.

Ben Jackson is university lecturer in modern history at Oxford University and the editor of Renewal: A Journal of Social Democracy. This is an edited excerpt of an essay in IPPR’s journal Juncture

  • franwhi

    There is also a space for social patriotism in the nations of the UK. In Scottish politics for example the SNP have been very successful in selling better nation politics with a left of centre social democratic message to Scottish voters. Its textbook stuff for anacademic study Ben but unfortunately its not quite the one nation Ed has in mind.

  • Amber_Star

    Romney epitomized successful but selfish business practises. In playing the ball, President Obama was also playing the man.

    Ed Miliband doesn’t have such an opportunity with David Cameron because they have both been professional politicians for much of their working lives. David Cameron simply says he can’t help having been born into an affluent family who valued education enough to spend loads on his. And whilst I’m not au fait with the detail, Osborne’s family business seems to be the epitome of a small but well known British brand which is struggling to compete with global corporations.

    Ed Miliband’s new year speech hit the right note: No more sharing the proceeds of growth via trickle down crumbs & credits. Wealth is generated from the bottom of society as well as the top. Social patriotism, whether we like it or not, continues to be viewed through the prism of economics.

    “Let’s work together!” should be Labour’s message under-pinning One Nation. Not original, I grant you; but it references Osborne’s “We’re all in this together” without the negative connotations. It speaks to business & individuals alike; it also suggests that we control our destiny rather than being helpless spectators in a global race to the bottom. And it answers the Tory narrative that Labour is more in favour of scroungers than strivers.

Latest

  • News Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Labour have spoken out about complaints that Fiona Woolf QC, head of the public inquiry into historical sex abuse, has links with Leon Brittan. Brittan was the home secretary at the time when the dossier about alleged pedophiles went missing. And Woolf, who is also Lord Mayor of London, admitted yesterday that since 2008 she had dinner with Brittan and his family on five separate occasions but she has said she has “no close association” with him. A number of Labour MPs […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    Here we are again. Another week, another Wednesday, and another wrangle between Cameron and Miliband about the NHS. This is getting a bit old. Cameron attempted to get Miliband on the back foot – he kicked off PMQs by posing questions to the Labour leader about the Welsh NHS. Rather predictably, the rest of PMQs descended into the two party leaders arguing about who can be more trusted with the NHS. But, there was something a little more sinister about […]

    Read more →
  • Comment There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    A couple of weeks ago saw the UK elect for the first time a UKIP MP – Douglas Carswell, with a huge majority of 12,000 votes. UKIP made enormous strides in the safe Labour seat of Heywood & Middleton as well, reducing the Labour majority from 5,971 to 617. This rise in the ‘acceptable’ far right should be a cause of concern not just to the Tories but also to us. It is clear from these results there is no […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    The result in Heywood and Middleton may have shocked some people, but not all. Some warned this could happen after UKIP took or seriously challenged safe council seats in the north, topped the national vote at the Euros, and polled strongly in Labour areas. Their highest average share of the vote in the 2014 elections came in Labour areas like Rotherham, Mansfield and Hartlepool. We’re told if we campaign on the “issues” people will come back to Labour. This fails […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Last night Young Labour voted on whether or not to come out in support of the free education demonstration set to take place on the 19th November. Reports suggest, they voted against the motion. This result could easily be interpreted as another sign that the argument against tuition fees is dead in the water. In reality, it tells us that opposite is true. The very fact that this was a topic for discussion at Young Labour’s national committee, that there […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y