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

  • Comment We want to build relationships with Labour – but they need to take some bold steps

    We want to build relationships with Labour – but they need to take some bold steps

    First my credentials. I have supported Labour at every election since I was old enough to vote. I am a party member of some 30 years standing. Why then, as the General Secretary of the trade union for staff in further and higher education am I in such utter despair at the timidity of the policy offer made by Labour to the members I represent and their students? Let’s be clear, I believe the coalition’s policies have been a disaster […]

    Read more →
  • News I was “never ever complicit” in illegal rendition or torture, says Jack Straw

    I was “never ever complicit” in illegal rendition or torture, says Jack Straw

    Jack Straw has condemned the use of torture and denied being complicit in the torture of suspected terrorists, following the publication of a report in America concerning the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs). Straw was Labour’s Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006, during the foremost years of the “War on Terror” and the UK’s military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Questions have been raised concerning what members of the British government knew about the use of EITs, but […]

    Read more →
  • Comment How not to change the constitution

    How not to change the constitution

    In this Parliament AV was rejected, Lords reform stumbled and even the Tories attempt to ‘equalise’ constituencies fell. ‘The Implications of Devolution for England’ already looks unhealthily like these other failed constitutional reforms. Nonetheless, the issue holds real dangers for Labour. Hague’s partisan and divisive Commons statement showed the Tories’ more concerned to maximise difference than to bring people together for the good of England. Yet even this couldn’t disguise Conservative divisions. In three months his Cabinet Committee failed to […]

    Read more →
  • News “Our choice is the country’s choice” – Lisa Nandy’s LabourList Christmas Lecture

    “Our choice is the country’s choice” – Lisa Nandy’s LabourList Christmas Lecture

    On Monday evening Lisa Nandy MP gave the LabourList Christmas Lecture to launch her pamphlet “Our Labour Our Communities” – you can download the pamphlet here. Here’s the text of that lecture: We’ve got five months to go until the most important General Election in a generation. And over the last year, as I’ve spent time with Labour candidates meeting and listening to people in communities as diverse as Brighton, Norwich and Calder Valley it seems to me the overwhelming […]

    Read more →
  • News Polling New Ashcroft polls shows the point where the Labour gains stop coming

    New Ashcroft polls shows the point where the Labour gains stop coming

    The latest batch of marginals polling carried out by Lord Ashcroft has been published today, and it does not bring many glad tidings for Labour. The polling covers four Labour seats: Dudley North, Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View and Rother Valley; eight Conservative seats: Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire, Ealing Central & Acton, Elmet & Rothwell, Harrow East, Pendle, South Swindon, Stevenage, and Warwick & Leamington; and one Green Party seat: Brighton Pavilion. All of the Conservative held seats, bar Warwick & […]

    Read more →