What could a post-Miliband policy agenda look like?

Labour’s electoral disaster is rightly leading to a difficult discussion about what went wrong, the future of the party, and the future of progressive politics more widely.

Already we are seeing the leadership candidates abandoning key planks of Labour’s manifesto to backing Cameron’s EU referendum, ending the commitment to a 50p top rate of tax and hinting towards accepting the “Any Qualified Provider” model of health commissioning.

Many of Ed Miliband’s political themes seem destined for the chop too. The “predators vs producers” speech now seems ill-advised, and “One-Nation Labour” never developed into a coherent narrative with a set of policies to back it up.

Another theme – pre-distribution – quickly lost momentum and was more or less dropped by the time of the election. Many said the term itself was too ugly, but unlike many of the other themes, it is capable of being built into a strong platform, and should be re-examined by the leadership contenders.

Pre-distribution, very simply, is the attempt to reduce economic inequality outside of the tax and benefits system. Under Miliband, this perhaps too often morphed into an attack on executive pay and “irresponsible” businesses, and was quickly overshadowed by headline tax increases for the richest in society.

So what could a post-Miliband, pre-distributive policy agenda look like? Without doubt, it would involve investment in education and skills, from early years to further education and apprenticeships, which Liz Kendall and Tristram Hunt were keen to talk up at last month’s Progress Conference.

Bringing more high-paying jobs to Britain undoubtedly means ensuring the next generation have the skills to do them. We would also need an active industrial policy that promotes the sectors that produce good jobs, where Britain could have a competitive advantage if the right physical, financial and human infrastructure were in place to support them.

A serious house-building policy could also fit well into a pre-distributionist narrative. It’s not crazy socialist economics to present an alternative to the status quo, which has allowed the rental market effectively to fail, propped up at taxpayers’ expense through housing benefit which ends up in the hands of landlords. This only exacerbates inequality between the asset-rich and the asset-poor.

Finally, it would involve re-thinking the old antagonistic relationship between capital and labour. The party of labour should be at the forefront of re-thinking the model to bring about a more consensual approach that ensures decent pay and conditions, but recognises that workers need successful businesses, just as much as businesses need skilled and motivated workers. Bringing employee representatives onto executive boards is one idea that could help to square the circle.

You won’t find the term being used but the idea is worth keeping hold of. It might still be something that all wings of the Labour Party – as well as the electorate the electorate – could agree upon.

For the Blairite wing of the party, it’s an end to perceived business-bashing and punitive taxes on success. It offers better paying private sector jobs to both working- and middle-class voters, and a return to “education, education, education”. Moreover, such an agenda could drastically bring down the welfare bill, allowing Labour to become the fiscal hawks they may need to be to win back economic credibility.

On the other hand, it rejects the old Third Way approach to “let markets be markets”, and use redistribution through tax-credits as an after-thought. This should please the Left, as would safeguarding worker representation for the long-term, and maintaining a focus on inequality. Employee representation on boards might lead to a moderation of executive pay and big bonuses, but it would be happening within the workplace with the consent of industry leaders, not as a result of a perceived top-down, big-state, aspiration-hating, Labour Government.

A new pre-distribution agenda such as this would owe much to Blue Labour, particularly on worker representation. The Party is right to fear a UKIP advance in 2020, who have cemented their position as the main opposition to Labour in many Northern constituencies. Voters concerned about downward pressure on wages from immigration should welcome this new focus on bringing more good jobs to the UK, and ensuring British workers have the skills to fill them. Those who feel resentment at those on benefits at their expense should welcome the potential of the pre-distribution platform to bring down the welfare bill through housing benefit as well as in- and out-of-work benefits.

There is much from Miliband’s time as Leader of the Opposition that will be consigned to the scrapheap. Pre-distribution is one that should firmly be held on to, albeit with a better name.

Charlie Cadywould is a researcher a Demos