The Miliband legacy

By Alex White / @iamalexwhite

I have not been too kind to Ed Miliband recently. Life in opposition – already naturally difficult – is becoming increasingly frustrating under what feels like a disjointed leadership. The Tories have drawn level with us in the polls, underlining how vital this conference season is. But what is also increasingly clear is what Ed’s legacy will be – whether he leads us to an election victory or not.

What that legacy consists of suits society at the moment. That is not a coincidence, however; it is an obvious sign of Miliband being in touch – as much as he can be – with the public. It is more in touch than Nick Clegg and certainly more in touch than David Cameron. The legacy is ‘responsibility’.

It is an impressive yet subtle message. Alone it won’t bring us electoral success, but it is the first step which the party could take to regaining credibility and the public’s trust. Responsibility is something which Ed and the party can push as an agenda to tackle, undermine and even trump David Cameron’s Big Society.

The logic behind that is simple. The Big Society takes what should essentially be a Labour creed of community and putting ‘power in people’s hands’. Because of that, it means it is our responsibility to the public to improve the idea to make it more than a marketing term. The Big Society can be more than a clever ploy to encourage what many of us see as a diversion from austerity measures. But we cannot accept the Conservative view of it – we must encourage our own agenda on the subject.

That means responsibility – from those on benefits, those in work and those collecting the big bonuses. It also means responsibility on the part of those involved in politics; leaders included.

It serves the party well on two levels. Politically, and perhaps selfishly, it appeases both sides of the current ideology debate. For those wanting a return to traditional Labour, it encourages the image of a party standing up for those who work hard. For those on the right of the party, who would prefer a New Labour stance, it encourages that individualism away from the state which epitomised the Blair/Brown governments. On another level it serves those who we should be serving, particularly whilst under the thumb of a Tory-led coalition pushing extreme cuts – the electorate. It is easy to become too wrapped up in internal debate, hiding away from the main issue of winning trust back. We do owe the public a party which stands up for them and protects public services. That is something which we can achieve through taking responsibility for our own decisions and asking others to set a good example.

Obviously it must be translated into policy; else it becomes just as laughable as the flogged-to-death Big Society. There are plenty of potential ideas floating around which fit under the umbrella of responsibility. Encouraging free schools might be a step too far away from statism for some in the party, but that sort of organisation at public level – for the public, by the public – that epitomises what responsibility is about. We can encourage that in other areas – a mansion tax used to build affordable houses for those at the bottom of the property ladder. A tax on bank bonuses to bail out those who have nothing to pay into their bank accounts. A truly open offer to the public to shape our manifesto – as we’ve seen the building blocks of with Refounding Labour.

It is about making the best of the worst things of society. Some ideas will include tax rises, but not ones which hit the majority of the public. Instead, they help the majority of the public. This can be a new type of welfare – state-run, yes, but also funded by the private-sector.

A responsible welfare, in an age of responsibility, from a responsible Labour party.