David Miliband writing in the Telegraph today, setting out his political beliefs.
His theory can be summarised thus:
- In the years after 1945, the people of Great Britain said ‘I need’, and the Labour Government stepped forward to meet that need (NHS, education etc).
- In the 1980s, people said ‘I want’, and the Thatcher Government, in trying to meet those aspirations, ended up leaving behind the weaker citizens.
- Since 1997, the people have been saying ‘I can’, so it is now up to the Government to empower citizens, by devolving power to the people etc.
In summary, we have passed through three phases in the last 60 years, I need, I want, and I can.
A bit seductive at first glance, but under proper scrutiny, the whole thing falls apart.
David Miliband’s first error is to assume that society is speaking with one voice, and it is saying only one thing at a time, ’I need’, ‘I want’ or ‘I can’. I put it to him that it is not. During what he termed the ‘I need’ generation (ie post-1945), does he really believe that there were not as many ‘I want’ or ‘I can’ voices even then?
There have always been people with needs (I need), aspirations (I want), and ambition and ability (I can); the only difference is that at different times in the political life of this nation, one group of people was being listened to more than the others. I submit that it is not, as Miliband would put it, a question of citizens changing their status (from ‘I want’ to ‘I can’, for example). Rather, it is a question of politicians changing their focus. It is the politicians who have switched their focus from one group of people to another, depending on their own interests.
Perhaps in 1945, the Labour Government was more attuned to the desires of its natural constituency (ie the ‘I needs’). Similarly, by furthering conservative ideals of personal responsibility, individual enterprise, and limited State control, the Conservative Government of the 1980s was suited to the ‘I want’ group. It is therefore not a question of different time phases, rather it is a question of political focus. These three groups have been with us from time immemorial, and to pretend otherwise is simply naive. The ‘I needs’ and ‘I wants’ were there in 1945, and they are still here today. Similarly, there has been a clamour by the ‘I cans’ ever since 1945. Why is David Miliband only hearing them today?
There are reasons why one particular group’s voice may be louder than the others at any given time. These reasons could be socio-economic, cultural, etc. Politicians simply respond to the loudest voice they hear.
This puts me in mind of Perelman’s concept of justice. Perelman was a philosopher of law who contributed much to the theory of justice. He believed that there were six criteria for determining justice, and that once a society has decided on which criterion to use, it must ‘treat like with like’ within that criterion. His six criteria were as follows:
- to each according to his works
- to each according to his needs
- to each according to his merits
- to each according to his rank
- to each according to his legal entitlement
- to each the same thing
To analyse Miliband’s theory using Perelman (loosely), I would submit that the 1940s concept of justice was as in (2) above. The Labour Government focussed on distributing social goods etc according to the needs of the people. That was their definition of justice for that time. In the same way (and note, I am doing no more than extending Miliband’s theory), the Conservative Government of the 1980s would have chosen (1) or (3) above as their starting-point. Far, therefore, from being a phase, ie a shift among the citizens in their status or priority, it is instead a shift in political focus. As far as the ‘I can’ generation of the 1990s is concerned, what has now happened is that politicians have sensed the urgency coming from the hardworking, aspirational part of society, and have conveniently changed their language (if not their acts) to garner the support of that constituency.
At this point, I should note another weakness in his theory. By Miliband’s reasoning, we have come out of the ’I want’ phase and are now in the ’I can’ phase. I submit that ‘I can’ cannot possibly be a phase, in the sense that he says. Far from being a phase on its own, it is no more than a means by which one satisfies either a ‘want’ or a ‘need’. For example, ’I want’ alludes to desire to acquire, but says nothing about how to meet this desire. It could be by private enterprise (’I can’), or even just as valid, it could be by social security payments. I think it is therefore misleading to claim, even if his theory stood up by other means, that there is a valid ‘I can’ phase.
But even if I were to accept wholesale every word in his article, I have difficulty seeing what this Government (with which Miliband dines at high table) has done to address the desires of the so-called ‘I can’ generation. Is it the torrent of legislation pouring out daily from the pen of our ministers, or the acres upon acres of red tape? Is it the high tax burden that has stifled private enterprise, and led to the fall in disposable income? Is it the attempts to control what we say and think, and to regulate our every move? Or perhaps it’s the growing information-gathering powers that this Government accords to itself at every stage.
Whichever way I look at it, the message from this Government is clear and unambiguous: ‘you can’t’.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Ahhh, but Bel, things change.
Miliband will stand.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Tyger, he better.
We want a contest, just for entertainment sake.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Pure Newspeak.The man IS more Blairite than Blair. He has developed it into a consistent ideology. It’s still funamentally flawed, however, as it assumes that that the factors guiding electoral results are those that represent popular feeling Yes popular moods do cause social transformations, whereas electoral results tend to be about competence and the standard of life…
March 30th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Yeeeees I read this in the new Statesman today and the way their left writers see it is quite interesting . They feel he is only angling for a Cabinet Post and it is startling to see to what extent the Blairites soi-disant are regarded as isolated and powerless. I don`t think Bel that this was intended as a philosophy per se it was a piece of political positioning and an attempt to redefine the left in such a way as to make them electable. In other words they are saying that post 1945 the Labour Party responded to need and tried to make a land fit for heroes then with a snide and twisted nod they appreciate that The Thatcher period responded to a change in society then he resolves by saying we have evolved ( by the good offices of Brown) into a society than no longer strives to be the sum of individual wills …( and what a bird shit moon -bat brained remark that is ). The suggestion is that this is because we are richer and kindlier thanks to Blair.. ……( despite Blair is the truth)
The first two stages are the supposed opposites and the last stage is supposed to be the resolution of the dialectic . The first two are retelling the past and last tells us how the innocence of the Labour Party( 1945 ..the last bit that is not despised) and the experience of Thatcher can now be resolved . This overly formal structure as a piece of Literature reminds me a of Shakespearian characters who talk in plodding allegory Ladty Capulet ,,,but I digress. The effect is of an insufferable apple for teacher trite weasel which is what he is .
“Can do” means nothing and in this phase he admits one thing that the Labour Party have been over controlling .It is a move into Liberal territory and an attempt to connect that to the history of the Labour party. It fails of course because the Labour party is a Socialist party or it is nothing.
Clarke is more to the point when he talks of an alliance of the Old Labour heartland and the Middle England “Public sector “Professional…..well we know what they all have in common don`t we. They live from taxes. Millipand doesnot have the depth you credit him with Bel .
Gosh that sounds a bit critical doesn1t it .I don’t mean to be you have taken it at face value and shown it doesn’t work. Perfectly valid.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Intersting point, Newmania.
You imply, by his use of the Hegelian dialectic as a political sense, Miliband is, in theoretical terms, by his theory of history, a Marxist.
But I would say Blairism is the very antithesis of Marxism.
It is simply the caring face of capitalism, creating an equal opportunities capitalism, rather than preparing for the transition to a non-capitalist economic phase. Which Marxist theory implies is inevitable.
Doesn’t that show that the there is no theoretical substance to Blairism?
March 30th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Joe you are crediting me with a great deal more depth than I merit . Bel sees this piece in philosophical terms but I was suggesting it is only comprehensible as rhetoric . He uses the formula of theses and anti these and resolution to suggest that the history of the Labour Party and the country have lead to the magnificent possibility of “Can Do”.It is a stage device a clap-trap in the original meaning of the word .
The political interest is the admission that the Labour Party have been overly centralist and anti individual but he tries to suggest that socialism in some ways implies its reverse.It does not and in practice , you might say . “There is no third way”
Its a vile smug slithering and poorly written gobbet of propoganda . My wife watcched the millipede for a few minutes on Question time and commented that he was so slimy he was going to slip off his chair. She is a woman of great insight
March 30th, 2007 at 9:44 am
newmania, I agree he doesn’t have the depth. However, I was fed up with the Telegraph, in particular, labelling him a ‘philosopher’. I wrote the piece to say, in other words, ‘if that is what you think passes for philosophy these days, think again’. In order to take apart his ‘philosophy’ I had to treat it fleetingly as a serious piece of work.
I would not have been satisfied until I had proved to myself that his theories were nothing more than empty rantings.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Yes Bel it is I who have missed the joke really …sadly I am quite thick and this often happens.
In my snivelling defence I did say
“Gosh that sounds a bit critical doesn`t it .I don’t mean to be you have taken it at face value and shown it doesn’t work. Perfectly valid.”
Good work Bel aces all the way
March 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I agree with Newmania. It was a little gobbet of propaganda to position himself as a serious thinker and a team player.
I also agree with Newmania’s wife, although I have never seen Miliband in action. But his photos all have a chilling, creepy look. His smile is like Tony Blair’s. Not quite normal. A smiloid,not a smile.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
…a smiloid !! ho ho