Ed Miliband instead sought to ‘change the conversation’. Yet in doing so, he was hampered consistently by the accusation that he did not take seriously the need to tackle the budget deficit. (In his 2014 conference speech, delivered from memory, Miliband forgot to deliver a passage on the deficit and budget responsibility (BBC News, 2014)). Miliband introduced the notion of ‘responsible capitalism’ in 2011, arguing principally that the private sector practices should be more heavily regulated, but also making the case for corporate governance reform (Miliband, 2011). He introduced the odd concept of ‘predistribution’ in 2012, in order to make the rather mundane argument that governments can and should shape how markets function – —rather than
…show more content…
The latter hints at acquiescence to austerity, insofar as a more redistributive agenda would have more direct implications for fiscal policy, yet essentially both seek to reshape the intellectual territory upon which Labour sought to oppose the coalition government. In 2013, Miliband sought to challenge the Conservative agenda more directly, including public expenditure cuts, through highlighting what he called ‘a cost of living crisis’. The associated promises included a higher minimum wage and more support for childcare (both of which the Conservative Party have appropriated to some extent), stronger controls on zero-hours contracts, and the repeal of some benefit cuts, most notably the bedroom tax (BBC News, 2013).
Miliband was clearly comfortable in this territory, highlighting some of the daily struggles for ordinary people that coalition policy had caused or exacerbated. However, as suggested above, Miliband’s attempt to address the consequences of austerity was not accompanied by any particular attempt to challenge austerity in a more fundamental sense. While he argued, quite persuasively, for change within the economy more generally, he was unable to confront directly the ultimate aim of the austerity agenda, that is, the retrenchment of the state’s conventional fiscal role. As
The latter hints at acquiescence to austerity, insofar as a more redistributive agenda would have more direct implications for fiscal policy, yet essentially both seek to reshape the intellectual territory upon which Labour sought to oppose the coalition government. In 2013, Miliband sought to challenge the Conservative agenda more directly, including public expenditure cuts, through highlighting what he called ‘a cost of living crisis’. The associated promises included a higher minimum wage and more support for childcare (both of which the Conservative Party have appropriated to some extent), stronger controls on zero-hours contracts, and the repeal of some benefit cuts, most notably the bedroom tax (BBC News, 2013).
Miliband was clearly comfortable in this territory, highlighting some of the daily struggles for ordinary people that coalition policy had caused or exacerbated. However, as suggested above, Miliband’s attempt to address the consequences of austerity was not accompanied by any particular attempt to challenge austerity in a more fundamental sense. While he argued, quite persuasively, for change within the economy more generally, he was unable to confront directly the ultimate aim of the austerity agenda, that is, the retrenchment of the state’s conventional fiscal role. As