Jonathan Todd

Ed Miliband talks a lot about responsibility and a responsible capitalism. Given reports in the Observer, I have a feeling that David Cameron will take up similar themes on the Andrew Marr show this morning. This illustrates a dimension of the responsibility theme identified by Robert Saunders in the current edition of Renewal.

“Like Thatcher, Miliband has sought to identify a unifying theme to which all Britain’s problems can be related. Where Thatcher chose ‘socialism’, Miliband has opted for ‘responsibility’. The theme has obvious merits … The problem is that it is inherently non-partisan. When Thatcher railed against ‘socialism’, it was obvious that she was talking about Labour. No one on the Conservative benches self-identifies as ‘irresponsible’, and that limits its power as a political weapon. ‘Responsibility’ has no political hook; indeed, if it were to ‘take’ as a theme, there would be nothing to prevent David Cameron from simply co-opting it.”

I had this on Labour Uncut last week.

It is acknowledged that people do not join the Labour party simply to deliver leaflets or attend uninspiring meetings. This tends to go along with support for giving members more say on policy. But parties are vehicles of change, not forums for mass therapy. Party debate is a means to the end of building the world that Labour exists to create.

As our policy review continues, it’s worth reflecting on the “built to last” exercise undertaken by David Cameron after becoming the Tory leader. His government’s programme now appears anything but. His health policy is fudged, his police promises are broken, his public service reforms are rehashed and events have rapidly exposed his defence policy.

The biggest global economic crisis since the 1930s has left almost four in ten voters able to say: “I can’t imagine I’ll ever have the money I want to meet my needs.” Notwithstanding the conflation of wants and needs in this statement, this indicts Cameron’s ability to generate any feel good factor.

Running through many of the government’s failings is a refusal or inability to acknowledge the reality of Britain’s place in the world. They will not place the economic crisis of recent years in its proper global context for fear of distorting their framing of these events as entirely Labour’s fault (and the enduring strength of this frame is one of the government’s trump cards). They will not adapt their defence review to events that the foreign secretary has compared with the fall of the Berlin wall. They will not engage in a meaningful debate about the future of our continent because they are bored by Brussels, contemptuous of Athens and scared of Bill Cash. They will not concede that the UK’s position within global labour markets makes nonsense of their commitment to reduce annual immigration to the UK from “hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands”. This will, as all realities do, catch up with them.

Their immigration policy is just one instance of their being economical with the actualité. Their welfare policy is meant to be about getting people into work. Try telling that to women and council tenants who face perverse work incentives because of policy on tax credits and council housing. And, of course, we were promised “no more top down reform of the NHS” and we were given Andrew Lansley’s earthquake. Michael Gove’s schools reform has proceeded more smoothly than Lansley’s revolution. Could Gove’s relative success be because, as David Aaronovitch recently asked, “he has done pretty much what he told people before the election he would do?”

The implosion of his policy programme matters less to Cameron than it would do to Ed Miliband as prime minister. Cameron believes in nothing, but it is his nothing. It is his occupancy of number 10. It’s not about any bigger purpose. Ironically, gutting himself of principle makes his wholly pragmatic goal of remaining prime minister harder to secure. It makes his government more vulnerable to events. Pragmatism without principle isn’t pragmatic. It’s a ship without a compass. Margaret Thatcher u-turned as prime minister but by never lacking for direction these u-turns didn’t bring into question her fundamental purpose.

Miliband’s purpose is quite different, obviously. He should, nonetheless, ask: What lessons for our policy review can be learnt from the period between “built to last” and now?

The policy review should arrive at a programme that we’d be prepared to defend during the election and be capable of implementing in government. We would be reaping a whirlwind to indulge in any Lansley-like sleights of hand or to promise more than is deliverable, as the government has done on immigration.

Lansley’s reforms have jarred with Cameron’s personal identification with the NHS, which was central to his attempted Tory detoxification. Cameron was right to address negative perceptions attaching to his party, but health policy in government shows that this attempt lacked ballast. This cannot be absent as we tackle the negativity that attaches to us in various policy areas: welfare, immigration, the economy, taxation and “big government” in all its forms.

Not only do we need to show that we get it, but that we require genuinely effective and workable answers. We need also to decisively move beyond the little Englanderism of Cameron – explaining how we will prosper in the post crisis global economy, what kind of Europe should emerge post Eurozone calamity and what our role in the world ought to be post Arab spring.

Yes, robust, inclusive party debate is vital, but so much more so is having this process conclude with a programme that could meet these complex challenges and is genuinely built to last.

I had this on Labour Uncut a few weeks ago:

“We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality”.

Denis MacShane sought to console speaker Martin by writing to him with the words of Thomas Babington Macaulay at the height of the expenses scandal. But was this quotation really appropriate?

Weren’t the British people right to be aggrieved by elected representatives defrauding them? Aren’t they also legitimately angry with, as Ed Miliband put it, “bankers who caused the global financial crisis” and “those on benefits who were abusing the system because they could work – but didn’t”? And can there be any doubt that the revulsion of the public against the News of the World is justified?

The spikes in outrage against fiddling politicians and phone-hacking journalists, as well as the slower burning resentment at welfare cheats and fat cat financiers, makes a nonsense of Macaulay. The people he mocks instinctively know right from wrong. And in this intuitive grasp we see ourselves for what we are: communitarians.

The philosopher Julian Baggini foreswore ivory towers and spent six months with the people of Rotherham before concluding that this is the philosophy of the English. It was, incidentally, in the same town that Gerry Robinson tried to “fix the NHS” and Jamie Oliver “taught the poor to cook”. This is a worldview that stresses the responsibilities of the individual to the community. Membership of the community entitles rights and privileges but responsibility demands that these be reciprocated.

We are a nation that wants to see itself made up of; hard working families who play by the rules. We want those who play by the rules to be supported and to get on. We want those who don’t to be punished. The ascendency of Thatcherism, with its win-at-whatever-cost individualism, has obscured the extent to which we see ourselves as members of social groups to which we owe allegiance and the execution of responsibility.

Those who can work have a responsibility to do so. Those who can work but don’t should be penalised. Law makers have a responsibility not to be law breakers. Just like everyone else, including journalists and bankers. And they should feel the full force of the law when in breach of it. These professions are, however, held to more exacting standards of responsibility than legal compliance alone. Their integrity demands more than this. The irresponsibility of hacking the phones of grieving families is about much more than breaking the law.

As Ed Miliband’s advisor Greg Beales tweeted last Wednesday: “Today Ed Miliband spoke for the country because David Cameron can’t. Very important moment”. Tony Blair drew applause from a Progress audience last Friday by saying: “Ed Miliband has shown real leadership this week”.

Cameron’s “catastrophic error of judgement in hiring Andy Coulson” ties him to the violators of the communitarian rulebook. Miliband, in contrast, has made himself a tributary for these rules. And followed this through to demands for the requisite punishments: the resignation of Rebekah Brooks, the referral of News International’s takeover of BSkyB to the competition commission. In doing so, he gave his leadership its biggest turbo-charge to date.

He had previously enjoyed one of his best days with a speech on responsibility that placed him on the right side of the rulebook on welfare and bankers. By throwing everything he could at News International Miliband generated a much bigger impact than that speech had. But he also took a bigger risk.

Because, beyond the fierce urgency of now, a risk is what being sanguine about schmoozing Murdoch – who will more than likely still be a major media player at the next election – amounts to. But smart politics is about calculated risk-taking – and, in a country of communitarians, respecting the rulebook. If the power of newspapers is as diminished as we are sometimes told and if the public standing of News International continues to decline, Murdoch’s bite shouldn’t be as feared as it has been. If Cameron keeps being on the wrong side of the rulebook, he won’t be the winner that Murdoch always looks to back.

The possibility, although still slim, that Murdoch is a busted flush and Cameron a loser suddenly appears real. If Miliband can maintain his forceful leadership on the issue, capturing the public mood then this will increase. It will require much more than a win in today’s Commons vote called by Labour or in the wider debate opened up by the News International revelations.

This debate threatens a rupture between Cameron and the people – and demonstrates that when Ed connects with popular instincts for right and wrong he can lead.

I wrote this recently for Labour Uncut.

“Pause, listen, reflect and improve”. That’s what David Cameron and Nick Clegg said they were going to do on the NHS bill. Most people know what these words mean. Cameron and Clegg don’t seem to, though.

The only thing that Clegg now reflects upon is how he can shore up his position as Liberal Democrat leader. With Chris Huhne and Tim Farron, two would-be assassins, both playing to his party’s gallery, he has reason to be worried. He sees the NHS as he now sees everything else: through the prism of his anxiety. For the NHS to relieve this, he needs to come to be seen as the man who saved it. The restorer of sanity subsequent to the Andrew Lansley-induced madness.

He wants “substantial, significant changes” to Lansley’s proposals. But the extraction of compromises is the least of the barriers standing in the way of him being re-born as Mr. NHS. He needs to explain away no Liberal Democrat MP voting against the bill at either first or second reading. Perhaps his MPs followed their whip because they thought the whole thing a Liberal Democrat idea. After all, that’s what Clegg argued not so long ago and, as John Redwood reminded Today listeners, the proposals are consistent with the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

Having broken promises on tuition fees and the depth and speed of cuts, Clegg’s attempt to reposition himself on the NHS bill is supremely opportunistic. Labour needs to expose this manoeuvre for the shallow gesture that it is. Only we have consistently opposed this bill and advocated workable reform in the NHS. The Liberal Democrats must not be allowed to steal our clothes.

Such theft would not be without risk for the prime minister. No government u-turn of such proportions can be without risk for its leader. It is indicative of the pickle into which he has allowed things to descend that Cameron now seems set to open this opportunity up to Clegg, particularly when his personal empathy with the NHS was central to his attempted detoxification of the Tories. Cameron may no longer be the man who loves the NHS if Clegg becomes the man who saved the NHS. It may make the “Thatcherite” label start to stick better on this somewhat Teflon prime minister.

We cannot allow the NHS debate to play out in terms of the politics between the governing parties. We need to make ourselves central to it. Ed Miliband’s speech to the RSA was helpful in this regard. It confirmed that we favour reform that works, not sticking our heads in the sand of the status quo. Our use of Commons debates can further assist.

Miliband is fond of saying “I get it”. The public needs to know that he gets the need to raise NHS productivity to maintain service standards in the context of the cost increases associated with society’s ageing. Obviously, real people don’t speak like this. But they don’t take NHS spending commitments alone to be virility symbols for the extent of a politician’s love for the NHS. They know that what is done with the money matters as much as the amount of money. And they also know that the country isn’t sitting on a bottomless pit of resources to devote to public services, and that tough choices, therefore, have to be made.

People are also worried about their own care and that of relatives, particularly the elderly and young. They want politicians to speak to these worries. But in ways that they consider realistic, given what they understand about the pressures on public expenditure.

The NHS in Cumbria shows that Labour reform works. It now shows that the facts on the ground are changing, even as the Lansley reform is supposedly paused. North Cumbria university hospitals NHS trust is to be taken over by or merged with another trust. This is because the current management has concluded that it cannot meet the strict financial criteria set to achieve the foundation status that the NHS bill requires it meet by 2014. This could well remove control of Cumberland infirmary in Carlisle and West Cumberland Hospital in Whitehaven from Cumbria – a curious form of localism. Try telling the 9,000 signatories on a petition organised by Labour MPs Tony Cunningham and Jamie Reed to maintain services at West Cumberland that the NHS Bill is paused.

Cumbria isn’t an isolated case. At PMQs recently, Labour’s Debbie Abrahams pointed out that the inception of cluster PCTs, which precede the GP consortia, including the Greater Manchester cluster PCT, was brought forward from 1 June to 3 May. The perception that significant swathes of the Lansley reforms are proceeding apace, irrespective of the pause that is meant to be in place, is encouraged by reports that the 50-strong “listening panel” set up to review them is stuffed with “yes men and women”. And, as the focus of the NHS is distracted, waiting times are rising.

Labour’s ground battle is to resist local changes brought about by the non-pause of the Lansley reforms. Labour’s air battle is to stop Clegg becoming the man who saved the NHS and Cameron being someone who gets the NHS. The war will be won when our policy review shows that not only does the government not have the right reforms, but that we do.

I had this on Labour Uncut on the day of the Budget.

The current Spectator cover story claims that Conservatives are as struck by panic as they were in the autumn of 2007 when Gordon Brown seemed set to crush them by calling an election. George Osborne saved their bacon then and they look to him to revive them now. Everyone else is looking at Libya. Hence, the impact of the budget will be dimmed. But Osborne will try to pull a big enough rabbit out of his hat to wrest attention away from the middle east.

Osborne doesn’t begrudge Libya coverage, obviously; particularly not if it leads to his boss being seen as a competent and brave war leader. If – and clearly this is a massive if – a stable post-Gaddafi Libya emerges, then the earlier shambles will be largely forgotten and David Cameron will gain kudos, which will make him harder to dislodge from Downing Street. The resignation of Lord Carrington did little to dent the boost that the Falklands war gave Margaret Thatcher at the 1983 general election.

Osborne’s rabbit isn’t intended to divert eyes from Libya or the spotlight from Cameron. It will seek to disorientate Labour and have our leaders confuse tactics with strategy. Fiscal constraints limit the cards in play, but the cards available are all held by Osborne. He knows that he can use them to establish dividing lines that will set the terms of debate. He was as keen a student of Gordon Brown as either Ed Balls or Ed Miliband.

Both of whom will know that the biggest sting is likely to come in the tail of Osborne’s delivery. That’s how Brown used to do it. This way the respondent has least time to calibrate his rebuttal. Osborne pulled this trick last October when his concluding remarks on the spending review contained these words:

“The average saving in departmental budgets will be lower than the previous Government implied in its March budget. Instead of cuts of 20 per cent there will be cuts of 19 per cent over four years”.

This is an eye-catching claim. David Cameron subsequently went on a similar manoeuvre at PMQs. Both were too clever by half.

First, it undermines the strongest Tory attack line: Labour created the deficit and has no plan for addressing it. Labour must have a plan if Osborne is cutting departmental budgets by less than our plan. Shadow ministers should jump at the chance to forcefully make this point whenever ministers afford them the opportunity.

Second, like many eye-catching claims, it is too good to be true. “Gord bless him” was the response immediately after the 2007 budget. But the more the details were picked through, especially the abolition of the 10p tax rate, the less this was the case. The lesson: play it straight. Don’t let your rhetoric outpace the reality. Be open about the trade-offs and the reasoning driving how they have been approached. All of this is especially true in our post-expenses, hyper-cynical times. And it is as important for oppositions as it is for governments.

Cameron has already stupidly supersized his rhetoric: “the most pro-growth budget in a generation”. Such bluster from a prime minister is as much use to a chancellor as Ricky Hatton’s mum shouting “hit him, Ricky” at the ringside. “I never thought of that, Mum”, Ricky later reflected. Osborne may now think similar of Cameron and ruefully so, given that his ability to impact growth is closer to that shown by Hatton when knocked out by Manny Pacquiao than in securing a famous victory against Kostya Tszyu.

Balls might have out-boxed the Hatton beaten by Pacquiao, but we shouldn’t mistake Osborne for such a reduced opponent. Osborne is a smarter operator than Michael Gove, whom Balls so pummelled as shadow education secretary. There will be no missteps. Only precision targeted hits. Irrespective of the current Spectator cover story, the next edition, along with much of the rest of the press, will eulogise him. The rabbit will entice.

The trick for Labour will be to not let it distract. Chasing the rabbit is mere tactics. We should be all strategy. Both Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy define our strategic objectives as a draw on the deficit and a win on growth. I would go further: securing a draw on the deficit is a precondition of avoiding defeat on growth.

Osborne thinks he has won the deficit debate, wants to close it and shift the focus to growth. He declares his actions last year a “rescue mission”, which necessitate no further cuts or tax rises this year. Yet the cuts largely haven’t hit. And it will be more redundancy than rescue when they do.

We can’t let Osborne have a win on the deficit. He pretends that the only choice is his approach to tackling the deficit or not tackling the deficit at all. We only defeat this by having a credible alternative. This demands unflinching straight-forwardness from us that, while they can be better managed than they are being by Osborne, cuts are unavoidable.

Effectively neutralising the deficit debate requires that we don’t go into the growth debate pushing more government as the answer. We need something more nuanced. This might mean a national investment bank or other carefully argued reforms. But it has to be about good Labour reform versus bad Tory reform, not unaffordable Labour spending versus Tory reform.