Ed Miliband MP Speaks to the Inequality Trust on Trump, Brexit, and the Causes of Inequality
This loose dictation (I’d estimate 85% accurate) is taken from his speech from the tetconf2016 ( Inequality Trust’s conference on 3rd Dec 2016. My comments are in bold. Please note to get the full 100%, you would have had to have listened to it directly and not be reading the 85% version here. Links to resources and some references are underlined, and provided where I was interested.. There is some switching between first and third person... for which I do not apologise.
...
Ed will discuss the causes of Brexit and Trump, and that they do prove the ‘Spirit Level’ right (the book by Inequality Trust founders. He wants to explain today why those campaigns have been able to capitalise on the deep discontent in the 2 countries, and present thoughts on how to rethink our response.
Firstly let’s understand how we got here. I think there is a present danger from Brexit and Trump (I wish to coin the phrase TrumpXit) and it is not just the danger of what they mean for the UK and the word. Also a different danger, that we misunderstand and stigmatise those that voted for them. It is essential that we must, if we want to rethink things, to separate the Brexit and Trump (TrumpXit) voters/supporters from those that ran the campaigns. He argues that the roots of these events lie in Class and the Economic system of the past 40 years, that this presents a rejection of a particular economic settlement where inequality is rife, wages are stuck for ordinary people, and the next generation does worse than the last. These aren't the only reasons, but an important part.
He plays this video ( this isn't the correct one actually but I cannot find it) of Trump. The video he played is longer and more detailed, and frankly, incredibly persuasive, and effective. An extraordinary video and one that highlights Millibands statement seconds before that people voted for him because he was agreeing with them that (.. they did not vote just because they ‘thought’) the economic system of the last 40 years had failed - Millibands words. So there is a political reluctance to praise Trump and Brexit for highlighting the issue. But, in truth, it is just relative, and point scoring. Trump doesn't exactly name any names in this speech, or ever. He goes about as far as he needs to, to win power. Clearly his tactic was to say only what was necessary to get him in to power, and avoid saying too much, things that he could not later retract, policy wise ( i doubt he would care anyway about policies ). But the main point here is that he does not say anything that would ultimately and seriously jeopardise the neoliberal status quo even though he seems to be attacking it here. In fact, he is not attacking it, he is merely highlighting it, again, Bernie Sanders has already done this work for him. Sanders voters are becoming attracted to him now ( in a similar way that Labour supporters became attracted to Brexit..) Trump ONLY wanted to win. At all costs. To become the Emperor. The attraction of it all is too hard to resist when you know you can do it.
Milliband mentions that the video picks on Jews ( they are not on this video) and quotes lines in the quote, saying they could have been written by left wingers like Corbyn. True. Clinton won more lower income voters than trump, but there was a shift of white and non white working class voters in specific states to him. On Brexit, some stats from Miliband that those with incomes over 60k voted to stay in large margins, incomes below 20k, voted to leave in large margins. This highlights class, age and regional divides/spectrums..
Back to Trump: he quotes an unnamed American journalist : “The journalists took him literally but not seriously, whilst voters took him seriously , but not literally”. This was saying that there was sentiment of political change where 60% of people thought the country was going in the wrong direction. RE brexit, some people did vote because of the £350m for the NHS, but it was the sentiment that got the Brexit campaign close and the vast majority of the solid support.
The campaigns and messages offered were reprehensible. We should reject the temptation to dismiss these voters as duped or prejudiced: 1. prejudiced... there are simply not that number of ‘racist’ people in the UK or America! There has clearly been a large amount of stigmatisation of Brexit voters and Trump voters as racists, across the board. But the fact that we even consider this, we can see the reactions of people and some press, shows how divided as societies we are, who don’t understand that we live different lives from us, and what motivates people and their circumstances . I can see the anger amongst the Brexit voters on Question Time recently, they can see things being eroded away, (the high court, difficulties, concessions, confusion) they hear people calling them stupid, or lied to, their pride and character is being attacked. When what they voted for was equality and fairness. They were promised they would have a shot at a fairer society, autonomy over their own fate. They are going to fight, or they have to surrender, or they have to change their minds. In this post truth phase. What will happen? His argument is not that race and identity are irrelevant but it is that Class and Life Chances are at least as important in explaining these events. I agree, i believe the fairness anti NeoLiberal issue to be absolutely core, but that for me and so many it is not easy to articulate. The Neol’s are ghosts. Also race and identity don't stand alone, they sit in a context, and that is they are feeling the system is not working for them and they are more susceptible to others being the cause for these symptoms.
TrumpXit speak to deep forces of inequality, de-industrialisation and the falling chances of the next generation, and that the real danger of the alternative explanation is where it lays the responsibility for these events. The real danger of saying people were duped, or were prejudiced, is that it is sort of an abdication of responsibility, but it sort of says the fault is with the voters, not society. Its often accompanied by messages that ‘things have never been better’ ‘ what are you complaining about’.. so a lot of the commentary is that the voters are wrong. miliband disagrees with that. People compare their circumstances with those of people around them: their wages, their kids chances of future; pervasive sense of insecurity about their jobs and what the future holds. We should start with this assessment of voters being correct.
What do we do to cease all the causes of what we want to change:
1. The narrative we employ needs to speak more directly to people and their issues
2 Our actions need to be bold and match our analysis of the problems.
3 The Coalitions we build are key as is
4 The action we take on the ground.
1. The Narrative. Brexit and Trump were clear about who they were targeting, and how, but not with any intention to do anything about it (i.e. solely to gain power). Think of the Brext Slogan: “Take Back Control”. This did not just refer to taking back control from Europe, but also taking back control from the Government, form Corporates, Global Corps, Elites, as they don't have much control when compared to these guys! Trump talked about a ‘sense of loss’ to China/Mexico, and to ‘make America great again’. He says we should not emulate either campaigns, but we should share people’s sense of outrage at how they have been left out.
Why are people suffering? How all of us are poorer as a result of this and inequality.. Putting the blame firmly at the door of a type of Economics that has been prevalent. Can we offer solutions directly. People feel the system is rigged against them.
2. We are big and persuasive about the scale of the problem, but there is so much work to do to create policy and solutions that are up to the task. Miliband admit. Trump and Brexit has MASSIVE solutions: the Wall, exporting 15m illegal immigrants, leaving the EU... have to admit this even if we don't like the solutions. The centre left doesn't work.
Where does the crux of the solution lie? He talks about his constituency in Doncaster and the coal mines. No one wants the mines to come back- they were bad for health, people died - but people did give economic security. That people have a right to security, and that is part of living in a civilised society. e.g. Living Wage, a decent living wage. If you work full time, you should not be in poverty ( not that anyone should be in poverty). People are insecure about work and they cannot plan for the future. It goes beyond zero hours contracts. Be much clearer with people so they look forward one week to the next. He mentions Seattle’s Secure Scheduling. Need to change the balance of power between employers and unions in the workplace. Ed cites Sir Tony Atkinson briefly but doesn't say much more. Decline in power of unions underlies inequality, and needs to be part of the future solution - does it? I am pro union, but I feel the law protects companies, especially limited companies. Would this not be a bold solution - to legislate in favour of employees to unions don't have to support employment tribunals?
What are the bold solutions, and what are the ones that are vaguely workable?
He quotes Roberto Unger, that radical ideas are dismissed either as trivial or utopian and unachievable.
Biggest idea around is the Universal Basic Income - it is relevant and important - it gets to the meanness and stigma of the welfare system, it also gets at the balance of power in the workplace and how to change it, and also the onset of technology ( the raging a debate at the moment?). Google say they want driverless cars on US roads by 2020. (Washington Post article on tech here) Is it not the case that if our social model does not keep pace and stay ahead of technological advances, that is, if the vulnerable, those mentioned above that feel the system has left them behind, that these technological advance will leave them further behind and further excluded from the benefits of technology. It is wonderful to see huge Yachts breaking water for .. oh Billionaires. Whilst billions lavish in oh, poverty. Are we not forgetting our anchor of Inequality here and how recent events have proven that the current (economic) system is making things worse not better. We totally have the technology to make people energy self sufficient, and the BoE has the mechanism to fund it. So why don't we? Neoliberalism. Because are the Shells, the BPs not currently trying to get there first and CAPITALISE the resources and turn independent people in to consumers, to rebrand themselves, to ‘have their cake that they baked already (current oil reserves) but use the revenues and control they have in government to try and retain energy power in the future.
He continues.. How do we give people back power of their lives ( a la Theresa May on her first speech into downing St. ). He feels the left is too worried about technology, and too focussed on the Ubers. He feels it is possible to get rid of jobs that are unpleasant, and finally that a shorter working week is a possibility, coming back on the agenda. Link to description of the gig Economy.
He asks What are the things that are going to be big enough to fight income inequality? They are Income, Wealth Taxation, CEO Pay, these have to be targeted. For a long time I have felt that a consequence of higher taxes at 45 - 50% is that it simply means CEOs pay themselves more? Would a single across the board tax rate for all, not be the single most sustainable and FAIR tax rate possible? This should lead to greater equality of pay inside the workplace. Pre tax Pay inequality is a result of a tax rate inequality.
How do we create the conditions of success? Grow, broaden co-alitions. For example 1 in 5 workers are self employed. Soon to be more self employed than in the public sector. Traditionally they have not felt they are part of the lefts account of what matters, yet they have been hit hardest by issues of inequality, squeeze on living standards. Yet Cameron government wants to describe these people as hi tech entrepreneurs, however others (Ed) might argue they are merely workers being exploited by their companies (e.g. Uber i think he means). If you pay someone for a certain number of hours a week, you shouldn't be able to get away from giving them certain benefits and rights. Getting business to be part of this is necessary, but tricky, and he didn't manage it in 2015. There are progressive businesses in the US arguing for a 15$ minimum wage. The voices in the UK are less loud. Business in the UK was not interested in Miliband’s incremental ideas, preferring Cameron’s, but ultimately they got Brexit. Miliband is implying here that Brexit was a vote against employers. This was far more damaging. Cameron promised Competence verses Chaos - this hasn't worked out! When they (labour) proposed a new top rate of income tax, a high business figure said he cannot support the proposals, but he does believe, for capitalism to survive, there needs to be fairness. questioning this, Miliband now feels this person was forewarning about this very disruptive events Brexit and Trump.
Lastly, politics and how we go about changing things. It is so hard. National politics is so important. This has to provide a narrative and a solution to match the discontent. But he supposes two more things: 1 at a national level we need to be more open to change, changing the electoral system, devolving power. The current electoral system is clearly not fair. But are you inside the system and defending the system, or outside and recognising the system is bust. Indeed the Blair government -i don’t recall them discussing PR after being elected, they had such a huge majority. He says constituents never ask him to change to PR. He continues, he went on a Community Training course with Citizens UK, who campaign on the living wage. They talk about a different model of change : street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood. Opportunity is there to use the 600,000 to do more and be a part of the neighbourhood and making things happen. Got to be about what can we do ourselves to make things happen. This is how I feel about my own business ideas.
Conclusions.
He has been irritated about the argument that the future of politics is being discussed as being between Open and Closed politics, as opposed to being between Left and Right. Equality and Justice are MORE important than ever before , not less. Miliband disagrees with Farages idea of a closed future, but he also disagrees with Osbourne’s Open Unequal Britain. The notion that somehow Brexit might make it seem, that there is a new coalition, that are about Openness in of itself.. perhaps the Left has been too focussed on Opennes in the past 25 years... not understanding that you can only have Opennes if you have FAIRNESS as part of it. People aren't going to want an open country, if they don't feel they are part of it and that it is a fair country. This comes back to the earlier Brexit point. 2. Let’s not fall for the idea that the populism of the right is like the populism of the left. It has been said we need to fight against the two populisms. They are totally different: Populism of the right is narrow-minded, xenophobic and will not address the deep issues of inequality, whereas the populism of the left is all about a fairer society, more equal, sustainable, more open society. Leftist populism is therefore not a badge of insults. No but there are some other badges of insults that could be highlighted here and do need to be addressed full on, in a way that these comments, effectively leave the door open to e.g.. tree hugging, overly passive on defense. Being anti nuclear, is a clear vote loser for the greens. Massively. Because the narrative is owned by a warring History and not a peaceful future. Going back to the mood, there are lots of reasons to be gloomy which he doesn't want to deny, but there are reasons to positive. He feels we are witnessing the breakdown of the existing 1970s plus Thatcher Regan order. Is he referring to a lot of what you might find here on this superb Adam Curtis documentary from c.2000, especially 13th minute (President FD Roosevelt and design of the Corporation, speech text here also very interesting as the 13th minute i quoted is the 3rd last sentence in a big campaign speech) So Miliband thinks its breaking down, the order has not yet been born, and in between you get Donald Trump. He doesn't think Ttrupm represent a new order because he has no intention of dealing with the issues that he spoke about in the election. Therefore there is a huge opportunity to write the script for the future, and the next 5-10, deep re-thinking deep re-invention and renewal, and to recognise that we have sort of been here before, 1945 and FDR New Deal.. those were dark times, but we came out of them very strongly. Actually it seems we did but the decline started in the 60s: Vietnam, banks, stock markets.. Miliband talks anectodatlly about being in America aged 22 in 1989, someone asks him, perhaps on some campaign trail or seminar. “Why is it that young people are turning to old fashioned ideas like Socialism, ( he seemed broadly sympathetic), but Ed got interrupted by an intern saying, that it most certainly did not seem old fashioned to her, it was new. It is important to be fresh new, buoyant about the future, and to not be weighed down by the past. (THE END)
Other Notes
Miliband spoke about the economic security of his constituents in Doncaster, that they had coal jobs, and that gave security. It sounds as though they do not know what is coming next. There should be a bond between the people and the government ( yet we have no written constitution in the 21st century, despite USA, EU, post colonialism etc etc i.e. we are a dinosaur and getting our come uppance daily). This is because the Tories do not believe in any such thing, they do not want to provide support to the vulnerable or commit. Yet this is the mark of a civilised society. Is the state, not best placed to provide support to those who fall on hard times. Is the state not at least equally well placed to business to fund and invest in jobs, education and infrastructure, to coordinate research.
At some point Miliband also says ..World Bank and IMF are hardly at the forefront of the campaign against inequality, and they admit that Inequality is bad for our Economy.
There remains absolutely no doubt in my mind that with Energy Self Sufficiency and Materials Sustainability ( through recycling, up cycling and reduced consumerism), we can produce the food we need and the technologies, machines and facilities we need to prevent further climate change. What would need to follow would be a recalibration of the Education system to support the future, naturally. When you have Energy self sufficiency, and Material Sustainability, then this makes a universal income palatable, and a move to shorter working weeks, spending more time with family and friends. Much more work needs to be done on recycling of building waste, cars.
A radical idea I’m sure a green must have had, I will write it here before I google it. We should replace or amend our currency, or monetary exchange system ( i.e. Money), to include the energy cost, or a coefficient to describe the energy balance of a product. Therefore rather than earning money, you could earn Energy, and that way, you could earn the right to fly to Egypt or go heliskiing (in a hopefully electric helicopter)