Yesterday’s parliamentary debate on the Welfare Uprating Bill was never going to stop the legislation from passing. With Liberal Democrats largely showing remarkable ease in supporting draconian benefits and tax credits cuts, and the Conservatives itching to impose regressive measures, Labour would always lack the numbers to block it. However, the debate was important, for it gave us a rare, crystal clear view into the political souls of MPs who made speeches. Some of what we can learn is obvious: Harriet Harman cares about the poor, IDS (the Work and Pensions Secretary) loathes people on low incomes, and Nick Clegg is useless.
But amongst the Labour members, there was a wide and significant difference in the choice of arguments made by those on the party’s center and left, and those on the party’s right. An example of the latter is David Miliband, the failed leadership contender, former Foreign Secretary and leading Blairite. Whilst his speech made clear his lack of support for what he described as a “rancid Bill”, it struck me as disturbingly centre-right in outlook:
Mr Speaker, it should be common ground that all Western economies need to reshape their social contract to meet the challenges of economic competition and demographic change. Expanding childcare versus higher child benefit; Housing Benefit versus housebuilding; long term care versus reliefs and benefits for old age. In each case, we need to choose.
These few sentences have reminded me why I am so glad that Labour elected a genuine, if moderate, progressive as its leader. If you recall, the leadership election (which was held under the Alternative Vote system) resulted in a victory for Miliband the Younger over Miliband the Elder by a margin of just 0.35%. The last similarly close election in Labour was that in which Tony Benn was defeated in his deputy leadership bid in 1982.
Returning to the 21st century, we saw the rejection of a leader who would have lacked ideological commitment to progressive values that are crucial to the party’s definition of purpose post-Blair. Would a DM controlled opposition have fought against higher tuition fees? In a “redesigned social contact”, we would see workfare schemes, lesser support for those on low incomes, and a flawed safety net. In short, I think David would have a Tory-lite welfare policy.
Yes, the nation faces changing demographics. True, global competition will have some effect on our economy. But I reject the idea that this means we must shrink the state as DM hints, for all that will do is individualise the massive costs that could be reduced if socialised. What’s the point of a social democrat who would cling to outdated neo-liberalism? We picked the right Miliband, people.
