Miliband’s ‘One Nation’: stealing the emperor’s clothes?
Philip Begley |
Ed Miliband's well received speech to the 2012 Labour Party conference was most notable for his repeated use of the phrase 'One Nation', for so long associated with the Conservatives. No doubt One Nation was chosen to evoke a sense of political moderation, and of bringing people together with a shared experience, which Miliband accuses the government of failing to do. But he was also trying to achieve something more meaningful. One Nation was chosen precisely because it has traditionally been a Conservative concept. There were a number of explicit references to Benjamin Disraeli and the 'spirit' that his original idea was thought to encapsulate; at one point Miliband even said 'he was a Tory, but don't let that put you off'; though observers were quick to point out that it was actually Stanley Baldwin who had coined the phrase. Disraeli had spoken of 'Two Nations' in his 1845 novel Sybil, demonstrating concern about the divide between rich and poor and its consequences for society. From this perspective, those at the top had some responsibility to help improve the lives of those at the bottom. This long-running thread was picked up again by Baldwin in 1924 who, whilst praising the virtues of service and character, had talked of bringing those 'Two Nations' together. In more recent years One Nation has come to refer (at times quite self consciously) to more pragmatic and centrist Conservatives, as opposed to those on the Right.
Nonetheless, Miliband's underlying tactic was relatively transparent. By constructing a version of the past, or in this case a particular version of the Conservative's past and one of its preeminent political traditions, he was able to imply that the current party has abandoned many of its former principles and no longer best represents that tradition. Many of its decisions in government could be viewed as ideological or divisive. Unsurprisingly, so the argument goes, it is the Labour Party which is now the heir to One Nation ideas.
In this regard, Miliband's thinking is reminiscent of that of Margaret Thatcher and some of her advisors during the late 1970s, when she was Leader of the Opposition. At a similarly testing time, facing a government buffeted by economic events, but still unsure of victory at the next general election, they sought to appeal to disenchanted Labour supporters. Their choice of language was interesting. Alfred Sherman, often seen as Thatcher's early 'intellectual guru', argued that certain figures in Labour history might now find themselves closer to the Conservatives than their own party. In particular, he looked to Attlee, Morrison and Gaitskell, who were seen to represent a time when Labour had been a truly national party. By the late 1970s the Conservatives were convinced that Labour had moved decisively to the Left and abandoned much of its moderate past. For Sherman and Thatcher it was the tradition of 'Social Democracy' that the Conservatives now claimed to represent better than Labour. As Sherman wrote in a draft speech, now available in the Thatcher Papers, 'We Conservatives are becoming the rightful heirs to what is best in social democracy. We are the social democrats now'.
What did this new common ground between the Conservatives and traditional Labour supporters amount to? In simple terms, it was thought that they shared some basic aims: a return to prosperity, improved standards of living, and individuals having greater control over their own lives. If 'Social Democracy' was understood to include moderate voices on the right of the Labour Party, and many of its traditional supporters, then in the late 1970s there were also common concerns about the extent of trade union power and Britain's economic decline. However, there were limits to the reality of this crossover. As a political concept 'Social Democracy' has meant different things at different times. At the end of the nineteenth century it still meant Marxist, but this is clearly not what Sherman had in mind. For many it has also been a convenient rhetorical device. Here there are echoes in Miliband's speech. Much of his message was designed to appeal to Conservative voters and he attempted to speak to those who had supported David Cameron in 2010; as he put it, 'I understand why you voted for him, I understand why you turned away from the last Labour government'. But there was little policy detail; here too, One Nation was largely a rhetorical device.
Sherman's ideas about Social Democracy are evident only from the archives, they did not make it into the public sphere, but there appears to be a link with Miliband. Some commentators were quick to see his references to One Nation as less revolutionary than they might have first appeared. Nick Clegg had referred to One Nation just six months before and Tony Blair and Thatcher had been more than happy to use the phrase. However, while each of these leaders was clearly attempting to demonstrate their party's moderate credentials, they used the phrase very occasionally, in one or two speeches. Miliband referred to One Nation 46 times in his conference speech. Few other leaders appear to have deliberately taken a label or concept that is so strongly associated with their political opponents and tried to appropriate it so audaciously. Thatcher considered this with Social Democracy but Miliband has attempted it with One Nation.
Please note: Views expressed are those of the author.About the author
