I used to have some respect for Mr Cruddas and the way he presented himself during his campaign for the position of Labour deputy leader, but this article makes be doubt him.

Firstly we listen to ‘liberalisation abandoning people to events beyond their control’, then this article goes on to talk about enlarging individual freedom by giving more power to local government – I am confused that the authors don’t see this blatant contradiction and make even the slightest attempt to resolve it.

Their hearts might be in the right place, but this is a shoddy piece of argument.

Thomas:

Read ‘liberalisation’ as ‘economic liberalisation’ and the contradiction disappears. It’s not that they’re incoherent its more that ‘liberal’ has somewhat different meanings in different contexts.

They’re really only saying what I was saying yesterday albeit with rather more in the way of preconceived ideas about the way forward – social democracy and collective action – than I’ve been thinking of.

Jon Cruddas:

He writes: “A society of equality …enlarging individual freedom…”

He votes for 42 days.

Says it all for me.

I think it’s worth repeating what I said on my post connected with this:

The only point on which I disagree with Rutherford and Cruddas is that they suggest the future is for the left to lose. On the contrary, the left has already lost. The Labour party has shifted so far to the right, and indeed, is controlled by those on the centre-right that it is simply impossible to believe that it could ever readjust to the policies which Cruddas and Rutherford propose in response to the new Conservatives. The sooner that the left realises that the Labour party is dead the sooner it will be able to challenge the new consensus which exists between the old new Labour and the new Blairite Conservatives.

The sooner that the left realises that the Labour party is dead the sooner it will be able to challenge the new consensus which exists between the old new Labour and the new Blairite Conservatives.

Well…. this is a different argument. There’s a different argument playing here.

Jonathan and Jon Cruddas rightly say that the old line – ‘There are the same nasty old Tories’ – will not wash any more. I agree with that completely. This is an ideological fight within the party because their opponents say that if they just manage to convinced the electorate that the Tories are wolves in sheep’s clothings, then Labour will win. I think they don’t realise the extent to which people are pissed off with Labour.

“we need a new kind of democratic settlement between the individual and a democratic state”

So how about we start improving our democracy by introducing single transferable vote proportional representation?

The mongrel party-list top-up system we have here in Scotland is badly flawed, but the only party who don’t seem to have learned to work with the improved proportionality it offers are, (surprise, surprise), Labour, who’ve long regarded Scotland as their own private fiefdom. All they’ve done since last year’s election is sulk, leaving the Conservatives to become the most effective opposition, in spite of their small numbers…

I’ve never understood the entrenched resistance from those on “the left” to removing the iniquities of “first-past-the-post”…maybe a few more of them will come to their senses if Cameron scores a Blair-style “landslide” with only 40% of the vote?

Andy: What’s the point of them coming to their senses if they’re not in power? This is the main issue with electoral reform and why it needs someone with integrity to actually take it through. Blair, Brown and co. would rather hide behind Lords reform as if an unelected chamber is more of an affront to British politics than a government in power with a less than majority vote, under some delusion it would seem that despite promising change to do so would be to weaken their standing. Of course what’s even more annoying is that the above ignores the parliament act and Labour’s willingness to use it, completely thwarting their own arguments of the Lords being a priority at all…who is more dangerous, an unelected chamber that question too many things, or a government that uses insane law to bypass the democratic systems?

I have to Ian H’s views too, though I won’t dwell on them…this kind of statement is more than welcome but it does seem as all these MPs simply want us to forget the one incident in history that turns these speeches in to hypocritical musings.

I also think that while Speticisle is right, so is Sunny, there needs to first be the victory in this fight within the party…and probably the liberal/left in general…to stop resting on laurels that the Tories are just useless toffs parading as the new shit. Even if they are, that doesn’t matter if the people hate YOU more than them.

– “Our capacity to manage the recession is threatened by the decades of liberalisation, depleted government reserves and unprecedented levels of personal debt.–“

So how is this going to be ch`anged in a global economy-

Depleted Government Reserves are due to the massive and right investments by the Government of his party — and that has yielded good results for society.

“This will mean a more active and democratic state engaging with economic development and regulation. The redistribution of wealth and resources will be essential in rebalancing a dysfunctional economy“. – Worked very well for the UK in the 60s and 70s.

We do need to relook at things and empower individuals but putting Government in charge of deciding things rather than as an enabling force would be sheer stupidity and would cost the UK greatly. What makes anyone think that the Government would be any more efficient and effective than it is already in administering this great state driven economy.

For a political party to make any changes or improve lives they need to be in power. These ideas if adopted by the Labour Party would ensue its electoral demise – because while the country wants direction and stability — it really does not want the Government actively working on redistribution of wealth.

Look at America in the 1990s, the rich paid higher taxes (not that much) and the Government enabled creative forces to unleash and that created massive economic growth at all levels of society including the very poor. The Welfare reform which many said wont work or would be harmful to the poorest section actually worked much better. The Government is supposed to enable and equip citizens and businesses to be successful in a global knowledge based economy and thats exactly what the Government of the US did in the 90`s -i worked and this happened despite massive partisan battles.

Another flawed argument is equity among citizens — equal in what terms — if its health care, opportunities, protection of the law and so forth — I am all for it but hard work, talent and success have to be rewarded. There is this grudge against rich people — but self made millionaires and billionaires are far effective and more influential philanthropists who give a lot more back to society. We have some excellent examples in Scotland for that matter…

May be its not clear to me or the details are hazy but this article is just another pot shot at Cameron and Blairites — And maybe one of the reasons Labour find themselves in this crap is because some Blair haters in the Party built up Gordon Brown to be this messiah and only if tony would go -Gordon would come and solve it all. Guess what it backfired and so now they are in a meltdown. And party because of people like Jon Cruddas who want to go back to the politics of the past.

I know this is simplistic and I seem to be concentrating on shooting the messenger but

JUDGE PEOPLE BY WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY…

Theyworkforyou stats:

How Jon Cruddas voted on key issues since 2001:

* ** Has never voted on a transparent Parliament.
Voted a mixture of for and against introducing a smoking ban.
* **Voted moderately for introducing ID cards.
Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
Voted moderately against introducing student top-up fees.
* **Voted strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
* **Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
* **Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly against replacing Trident.
Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.
Voted moderately for equal gay rights.

I think Cruddas is more concerned with retaining power than actually effecting change that benefits the mass of ordinary people.

(I am against bloodsports myself but it never ceases to amaze me how many Labour MPs think a few foxes are worth more than 500,000 Iraqis)

“(I am against bloodsports myself but it never ceases to amaze me how many Labour MPs think a few foxes are worth more than 500,000 Iraqis)”

I totally get what you’re saying, but I think this is a very simplistic and “hindsight” based view.

Very interesting piece on Jon Cruddas and others in today’s Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4743740.ece) in a piece entitled – “Jon Cruddas heads young blades”. A focus group of 20 voters was shown clips of Mr Brown and then the six candidates most likely to replace him, and asked to register their reactions by sliding an on-screen pointer. Cruddas came out way on top:
“In the clip shown, Mr Cruddas — who once worked in No 10 as Tony Blair’s link with the unions — was interviewed about whether pupils are tested too much. Although the group appreciated his independence — registering strong agreement when he said that British students were the most tested in the world — they continued to warm to him even as he put the other side of the case. His graph shows a steady climb and ends with the most positive scores in the exercise.
“He spoke my language. I understood everything he said,” said one man. “Honest straight from the start,” agreed a woman. Another said that he was an “average person, middle of the road” but also “more interesting” than the others. “He was owning up to things. I actually listened to him,” said one elderly man. “It wasn’t, ‘this is how it is, this is how I want it’; he was open to discussion.”
This is surely a significant piece?

Interesting, indeed, but without knowing what was shown for all and given the sample size it’s not a lot to go on. I don’t think anyone denies that Cruddas would be a step in the right direction for the party…but I don’t know what the man really stands for and I doubt anyone looking at his record would either. He seems to have principles in line with what left and some liberal people would support, but he dashes them up against the wall when it comes to his actual record.

One initial step in fighting the Tories would be to refer to them as the “Old Tories”, reinforcing the idea that they haven’t changed and whilst Labour is at present unfit to govern, voting Tory would be akin to cutting your nose off to spite your face. As a member of the Green Party, I’d like to see some unity in calling for progressive alliances to back Green candidates in winnable seats. Also, I would turn a blind eye to the Lib Dems actually achieving their goal of doubling their seats as it would make a hung parliament more likely and usher in PR, which would force Labour out of its political living death. With their current leadership and direction, however, I don’t see this happening.

I would definitely volunteer to work with progressives from other parties on anti-Tory attack ads.

“Speaking at the start of his party’s annual conference, [Nick Clegg] added that Gordon Brown’s government meant nothing to “the vast majority of British people”. ”

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Tiny party calling small party.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Like the Greens say, all politicians are to be mistrusted, even (or maybe especially) themselves.

Of course Cruddas is going to suppose that the way to bring left politics back to life is through the Labour Party. Just because he has a huge emotional investment in that proposition, though, is no reason for anyone else to.

At the next election Labour will poll one vote for every two the Tories do, and will be reduced to a rump of 150 MPs or so (and Mr Cruddas will do very well in his own seat to be one of them – I expect it to go Tory). Amongst the majority of voters who are neither members of ethnic minorities nor employed in the public sector Labour’s support is actually down to about 10%. These voters have not gone to the Greens or the Liberal Democrats – they have chosen right-wing parties, at least in England.

Cruddas seems to think that “social democracy” is an unproblematic political ideology which just needs a little polishing up to regain its mass appeal. Nothing could be further from the truth – it was a creature of a particular set of political circumstances (the aftermath of World War II) which no longer apply. Social democratic nostrums have been applied to inequality – apart from the high summer of Thatcherism in the 1980s – for sixty years, and it stubbornly persists. And no government can be trusted with the protection of liberty – the best we can hope for is that they respect judicial independence.

Where Labour has failed most grievously is in supposing that State and market exhaust the public space. This is all the more ironic since one would have expected the Third Sector (economic activity neither undertaken by the State nor driven by the profit motive, such as that performed by charities and co-ops) to have appealed to the apologists of the Third Way. But Blair never understood, or cared to understand, anything about economics and Brown thought that what you couldn’t do with the tax régime you couldn’t do at all.

When Cruddas shows any sign of understanding this, and its implication for party politics, he’ll be worth listening to. Perhaps, on reflection – and since the difference between 150 Labour MPs and 149 is irrelevant – it might be better if the voters of Dagenham and Rainham did kick him out next time.