Poverty of aspiration?

I have a confession to make. I was never present around the Miliband’s dinner table nor present at any of their semi-legendary political meetings. However, certain comments made by Ed Miliband in his interview for the Daily Telegraph today make me question whether he was present either:

“My Dad was sceptical of all the Thatcher aspirational stuff,” he says. “But I felt you sort of had to recognise that what she was talking about struck a chord. I want to save capitalism from itself.”

It is hard to know where to start with this. Firstly, it should be said that the late Ralph Miliband was entirely correct to be skeptical. Mrs Thatcher had a narrow and essentially ideological definition of what aspiration was and indeed is. Her definition was focused on individuals ‘getting-ahead’ but this is an aspect of aspiration. A more fully rounded definition is not just aspiration for oneself but also the deep-seated desire to better your own lot and also the lot of your surrounding environment and indeed those around you. Secondly, and this flows from the first point, her policies were deeply flawed and may have held superficial appeal in the short-term but in the longer term have directly contributed to the current malaise Britain finds itself in. She did ‘strike a chord’ but hit the wrong note.

For somebody whose reputation is as a thinker is quite prestigious, Mr Miliband’s interview is a veritable Swiss cheese of contradictory ideas. He makes the mistake of seeing just the creative side of capitalism while failing totally to grasp that it also has a wildly destructive and chaotic side. He makes the mistake of assuming, rather oddly, that capitalism is aspirational and can fulfill peoples aspirations. Anybody with experience of working within a capitalist context will grasp the basic truth of the point that capitalism is anti-aspiration, under it, the aspirations of the vast majority of people remain unfulfilled. It is like the way wealth is the province of the few, ability to rise through the ranks is restricted to a tiny minority and they are usually those who have some kind of inbuilt advantage in any case. Capitalism, as a system, simply cannot fulfil the aspirations of the many, it is dependent on opportunity being restricted to the few. It cannot even now fulfil the aspirations of the sons and daughters of the middle classes, let alone the poor. If you don’t believe me ask the graduate who is leaden with debt and also propping up their local dole que and this is why the middle classes are becoming increasingly radicalised.

Moving on, his attitude to being rich is unclear. I have noticed that when Ed is in trouble at Prime Ministers Questions he reverts to a standard line of attack – attacking the ‘tax cut for millionaires’ – and we hear that Labour may well propose a new wealth tax, yet the Labour leader tells the Telegraph he does not want to make ‘moral judgments’ on the rich. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Saying the rich should pay a greater amount of tax, have a greater social responsibility (because their riches come from accrued social wealth), is a moral judgment. Mr Miliband seems to be blissfully unaware of this contradiction in both his thinking and practice though. You are left with the rather unappealing impression that his spoken word depend not on what he actually thinks but which newspaper he happens to be speaking to at any given moment. Either that or he genuinely doesn’t know what he thinks, neither of these inevitable impressions are that helpful.

Speaking frankly, it befoules the legacy of both his father and this Party to have the man speak in such plainly ignorant, broad-brush terms. Indeed, it makes me queasy about his entire character when I remember the Ed Miliband who spoke so proudly of his father and family heritage during the Labour leadership contest and now see him speaking of his fathers entirely correct ‘skepticism’ in such a disdainful manner. Is this what it has come too Ed? I sincerely hope not, not just for the sake of the Party but also your own personal sake.

About these ads

Tags: , ,

2 responses to “Poverty of aspiration?”

  1. Robert says :

    Hell of a bloke to have as a leader of a middle class political party battling the Tories for the swing voters.

    I hate saying this I’d preferred Blair at least I knew what he was about, all you get with Miliband is a posh voice middle upper class bloke who lives off the reputation of his parents.

  2. syzygysue says :

    Great post … I rather suspect the answer lies more in the blairite composition of the Shadow Cabinet and collective responsibility than with the boy who ate supper with Ralph Miliband. As you correctly point out this speech is at odds with much/most of his statements… but it is totally consistent with his brother’s and the other New Labour remnants’ views.

    The reality is that the PLP is considerably to the right of the grassroots LP … and the PLP must become more representative. I was delighted to hear at the CLPD meeting at the TUC conference that the unions are taking steps to facilitate ordinary working people to stand for parliament. As Jim Kennedy, National Political Officer of UCATT, said how can Westminster be reflective of society when 34% of MPs went to fee paying schools?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,620 other followers

%d bloggers like this: