By Last night I spoke at a fundraiser in support of Jim Fitzpatrick MP, who is fighting the new Poplar and Limehouse seat against George Galloway. Beating George Galloway is a cause in itself, but there is a bigger lesson from East London. From George Lansbury and Clement Attlee onwards – both of whom cut their teeth in Poplar before going on to national fame – the constituency shows that the causes of social justice, mutual responsibility and internationalism are the way to change lives for the better.
Today’s causes are not hard to list. Wherever there is inequality, injustice, instability or unsustainability, progressive politics is needed. In our own country the history even of the last 12 years shows our collective power to change lives – at home and abroad. But anyone looking around the country or the world knows that there is a lot left to do. Some things we have not yet comprehensively addressed: transport, social housing, social care. Others are just very difficult: from social mobility at home to terrorism abroad.
But there is a greater cause at stake now. That cause is the very idea of politics and public service; the idea that democratic engagement is worth the effort. In Britain this has added weight (and danger) because of the row about MPs’ expenses.
But it is a wider phenomenon. Across the world the wave of democratic advance after the end of the Cold War has slowed down. In advanced industrialised countries there is declining confidence in the political class. I don’t buy the argument that this just reflects the ‘end of ideology’, or the end of idealism. Anyone who thinks about political commitment to international development or the fight against climate change can see that there is a lot to play for. I think the cause is a disconnect between the way people see the problems and opportunities in their lives and the way politics works.
In Britain, the case of democratic discontent feels especially harsh. Not just because of expenses. There has been half a political revolution in Britain (ok, maybe a quarter). Scotland has its Parliament, Wales its Assembly, London a Mayor. But the cause of democratic reform has not gone far enough. Our political structures – over centralised and therefore overburdened, unitary rather than pluralist – need an overhaul.
The great causes of progressive politics have always been, first, to offer all people protection from risks beyond their control, and second, to offer all people power and control over their own lives to a standard assumed by those in positions of privilege. Today, those causes define our political mission, from the economic crisis from which no one can opt out to education which is the greatest source of empowerment of all.
But unless we attend to the need to defend politics – and reform it – then we will lack the tools to make change. It’s actually the last resort of reactionaries to say “all politicians are the same” and “politics doesn’t matter”. We aren’t, and it does, because we believe different things about our country and our world.
David Miliband is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
can achieve for yourself and the nation!
Yes, totally agree. Why raise beating GG as a cause? Of all the things to emphasise at this time. Ludicrous.
Good on George re Gaza - a man of action for sure and deserving of respect for his conviction.
Take note, David.
At least he has some original thoughts.
And to think that Mr Milliband could be a Labour leader?
Danny
I dont know who you are calling a charlatan Mr Milliband or Mr Galloway , But i respect Mr Galloway and have always listened to his speeches in the house of commons (specily over Iraq) , I hate to say this but he has the same elequnce as Mr hauge ( Yes i know hes a tory but his speech on the lisbon treaty had me laughing ).
Danny
You do not need to apologise for listening to William Hague. It does not matter if you are left or right, feel free to acknowledge the experience, intellect and oratory ability. All you are doing is stating a fact and we need more of that. You must at all times listen to everybody. Look for new information that you may learn from and also to understand their motivation. It will help you with the conclusions you reach. Only tribal fools do otherwise and make themselves look silly. Politics is littered with ill-informed people with big mouths.
Mr Galloway with his idiosyncrasies has to his credit managed to form a new party, created a following and done something. The fact that he is trying to deliver food to those who need it is excellent! He and I probably will disagree on many things but we agree that the Presidential New Labour party is a disgrace to its history.
I agree with your post there 100%
Danny
Of all the things in all the world that's wrong! Miliband wants to fight against George Galloway?.(the mans a charlatan)
It's just a shame G. Galloway wasn't fighting in Miliband ward?.
to speak about Galloway as a cause to fight against.
Why doesn't he just take that rubber face and his nonsense over to the conservative party. That's Miliband Ricki.
Well! David, you certainly ended a few lifes in Iraq and wasted countless opportunities for people at home.
For every action there is a reaction David, your reactionist theories are part of the problem! you've had 12 years to give distribute more powers. Just how many people believe what you have too say.Do us all a favour and resign.
Hey Miliband of the David kind, stop making it up as you go along
I tend to ignore these releases now. I focus more on the thoughtful articles written by LL users.
You know you will always get a response then and a good debate
There is no point addressing your comments to the author - as per usual, they spout their lot, and then they will fade into the background - if you think that Bananaman Miliband will come back and answer these comments, than I am a monkey's uncle!
I fear you're correct, but by not addressing them to him, merely gives the impression that nobody cares if he doesn't answer.
The chance of you needing a monkey suit just yet is probably remote.
I think they've spent too much time thinking it unnecessary to deal with voters, members, or anybody else.
This way he can't say 'I didn't answer because nobody seemed to want me to'.
The reason people are currently saying all politicians are the same and politics doesn't matter is because of articles like yours.
The power of privilege exercised over peoples lives by an elite cutoff in Westminster who will never admit to a mistake they've made, any degree of falibility, or randomly insert the word progressive into statements is a terminal problem. It appears you don't recognise the problem, so how do you intend to persuade a more critical audience you can actually deal with it.
Mr Thomson's contribution below once more identifies the nails being used to hammer shut the lid on the New Labour coffin. Complaining it's not dead yet, doesn't carry much weight, when there's clearly a stake sticking through the heart. It merely serves as an excuse to get a better fastening for the lid.
So privilege is bad, unless exercised by an overweeningly arrogant executive. Can you see why that might be a difficult thing for people to buy into?
Yesterday, there was the statement of contrition over the phalidomide scandal. However, anyone who heard Mike O'Brien on Radio 5 last night knows that arrogance and contempt for the electorate can seize defeat from the jaws of victory every time.
The best that can be said was that he is a very stupid person. But I've seen this same attitude coming from civil servants in the Dept BIS. This is a canker that pervades government.
Come up with a solution to this problem and you might achieve something useful. (The West Lothian question will be easy for someone who can deal with this successfully.)
Ok thanks
Danny
I would have thought Mr milliband would be busy at the moment? , The reason voters say "politics doesnt matter" or they are all the same is because , the front benches spin , most backbenchers spin and some voters would say that some mps onlu care about power .
Lets take Mr Millibands brief over Europe , He claimed in the commons that the 2 treatys were not the same dispite all the evidence , Does Mr Milliband think voters are thick and stupid? Or does he think that somehow he knows best? He wonders why our party are so low in the polls , In one its trust , Voters dont belive a word our leadership say , Mr Brown a classic example , Labour investment v tory cuts , then mr Brown admitted at confrance( I think ) there would be cuts , Then he went back to saying there would be no cuts , Meanwhile most voters know there will be cuts whoever wins ( the pre budget suggestted so) .
So my message to all mps and our leadership stop treating voters as idiots , You only turn voters of or make them say "they are all the same " .
Danny
Ps alex has Mr Milliband indicated if he will reply to comments?
Of course he won't reply to comments. That would require a spine.
The reality is a large amount of legislation processed by Westminster is England only. The majority of Scots accept this is no longer acceptable which is why 56% of Scots want fiscal autonomy for Scotland, a position that Brown has basically said - over his dead body. If you add in the 28% that want independence - 84% of Scots support fiscal independence.
The problem for Westminster is that the House of Commons would no longer be 'primus interpares' and 'Prime Minister of England' just does not have that 'ring' to it. The House of Lords would have to go meaning (to allow an over arching, elected, unicameral body to act in the UK's interest) that future English Prime Ministers would no longer have 'life peerages' as part of their bag of goodies to pay off the great and the good for favours rendered.
The fight over Westminster, to me, is about political privilege and not what is actually now the reality of UK politics in the 21st century.
Now if David Milliband would only address this rather than pretending it is not important maybe he could start to go some where.
But, on this I completely agree:
"But the cause of democratic reform has not gone far enough. Our political structures – over centralised and therefore overburdened, unitary rather than pluralist – need an overhaul."
Perhaps, though, what I'd like to see isn't exactly what you were hoping: I'd like to see the power of the executive restrained; this will require a huge overhaul in the way the Government currently works. I want 'whipping' to be almost totally redundant, for MP's to vote according to their conscience and not their party, and for there to be another route to recognition (both within and without parliament) then blindly following the executives diktats. I want MP's to me more independent within broader party affiliations, for the press to stop banging on about 'cracks and divisions' when an MP (or even a member of the Cabinet) deviates from the party leader's agenda.
I like the idea of Select Committee Chairmen (or is it Chairpeople now?) being selected by secret ballot. I also think they should be given more power; the power to introduce legislation for instance - at present it is only the executive (with the exception of a few private members bills) that can. This should not be the case.
I think that the use of SI's to introduce legislation is completely morally reprehensible. Some of the shoddiest and most morally restrictive pieces of legislation passed by the Labour Government have been introduced by SI's, and so haven't been properly debated or overseen.
I want people to be able to freely discourse without being labelled as a racist or a bigot; whilst discrimination should not be allowed, the fall of racism in this country is the natural progression that follows from having constant contact with 'different' people and not because of the 2000 Race Relations Act.
I hate the fact that our government takes responsibility for everything good and shifts the blame when they are clearly at fault. I'm astonished that our Prime Minister cannot see the power of simply saying 'I'm sorry' in a heartfelt and timely manner. I'm even more shocked that he even seems pathologically incapable of apologising.
I want English Laws to be debated by English politicians - call me a Little Englander if you like, but why should Scots MP's be able to debate the NHS in England when English MP's cannot debate the same in Scotland?
I want public services to be determined at an appropriate, local level, and for them to be distributed locally. I want a certain element of taxation to be sourced locally in a progressive (in terms of taxation, not the inane catch-all that all politicians spray around so thoughtlessly these days) manner.
I want the traditions of our government and our country to remain; whilst I appreciate the different cultures that have arrived due to this governments opening of our borders to all and sundry, I do not want to be swamped out of my country. Netiher do I want different sectors of society having different laws. (Hmm. I'll have to think that one through just a little more)
Phew. This seems to have turned into a rant. I may have to stop there before I make myself too angry.
http://www.labourlist.org/power-2010-strengthen-select-committes-jessica-asato
Never mind. Have a banana!
He was very positive about Brown and the Labour programme recently, so I remain hopeful about his future and that of Labour, whilst both are on probation for me.