This blog will be backing Jon Cruddas
Finally, I have the luxury of sitting down and blogging about Jon Cruddas’ visit to Oxford last Friday.
Jon spoke to our CLP joint meeting, alongside Nick Lowles, the editor of Searchlight, about race, class, New Labour and the far right. He is, of course, the MP for Dagenham, in a London borough with 12 BNP councillors, so has a little experience of this.
The speech was fascinating. Jon started by talking about the demographic changes that Dagenham has undergone in the last few years. Unbelieveably, the in the 1991 census, the BME population of Barking and Dagenham borough was recorded at 1%; it’s now at 27%. He talked about some of the people that come to his surgeries: people bringing concerns about the shed opposite which is home to eight eastern European immigrants “hotbedding”, a roofer who has seen his hourly rate drop £2 in six months. The problem with this pace of change is that government spending, so often determined by a census taken five years ago, just hasn’t kept pace with the new needs of the area, leading to controversy and the racialisation of all resource allocations. Combine this with the party’s focus on those swing seats, and the relentless triangulation; the end of manufacturing in lots of areas, and the decline in the social wage; the total unachieveability of the private house market, and the impossibility of getting social housing: and you begin to understand why there is room for a far right party claiming to be “more Labour than Labour”.
Jon Cruddas talked about the need for Labour politicians to begin to tackle these public policy issues - prioritising building more social housing, delivering excellent and much more responsive public services, meeting the insecurities of the working class head on, recognising that the free market doesn’t have all the solutions - whilst at the same time rejecting the politics of race dividing lines, closing borders and becoming protectionist.
In a section that appealed particularly, he talked about refitting old Labour prescriptions for current circumstances (and anyone who’s read the statistic in the previous paragraph about the rate of change in one London borough in 15 years will understand why the language of “repeal the Thatcherite xyz” doesn’t quite cut it). I’ve never been happy to describe myself as either old or new Labour: I can’t be old because I like equality for women and gays, having a set of policies around childcare and families, and not passing on parliamentary seats from favoured son to favoured son, despite appreciating many of the policies; I can’t be new - well, do I need to explain that one? - despite liking modern communications methods and winning elections. So Jon Cruddas’ words were welcome. He was careful to make the distinction between old Labour solutions, and the ones that are needed now: “Our policies can’t just be a hangover from old Labour, but a new and vibrant response to a modern problem.” He talked about the trade union freedom bill, which he supports despite its silly name as a good response to the challenges of contracting out and cheap immigrant labour, calling it “an illustration of whether you can render intelligible for a modern world some of the old solutions without just hitting the rewind button”, and praised trade unions for beginnning to work out how to organise in the growing migrant agricultural sector.
I had a chance to chat to him briefly after the event, and he struck me as down-to-earth, engaged with rebuilding the Labour party and activism within the Labour party, and - despite his recent co-authoring of a paper for Compass - more leaflet Labour than pamphlet Labour, uncompromising on the importance of getting out there and banging on doors. Just on his advocacy for council housing alone, he probably would have got my vote; as it was I was very impressed with the range of policies he advocated, and can confidently say that I will be voting for him as deputy leader.
Superb! Jon will be delighted that he has such a fantastic councillor (and blogger!) like you supporting him.
Excellent - really enjoyed reading the discussion of the talk which I, for obvious reasons, could not attend. Its a shame more people/organisations don’t take this route; or, if they do, fail to publish a decent account of what was discussed.
But am I a leaflet or a pamphlet Labourite? I have a degree in politics and philosophy and have written a fair few articles and pamphlets over the past few years. But I do have a very strong campaigning record in LVP, LDN, Southampton and Oxford. This shall, of course, continue.
Nice one antonia.
How about one of those nice purple buttons then?
;o)
Okay that’s the Jon Cruddas bit, but just what purpose does the Deputy Leadership actually serve?
“BME population increased to 27%”
Migration-watch speak that isn’t really informative.Which ethnic groups?
I think the question of what purpose the Deputy Leadership actually serves is precisely what Jon Cruddas is trying to answer in his campaign.
Another pro-Cruddas blogger. Brilliant.
“am I a leaflet or a pamphlet Labourite?”
I think that Antonia uses ‘pamphlet Labour’ as an insult to mean people who don’t do any campaigning, so in that sense you are ‘leaflet Labour’. In my opinion, people can be both leaflet and pamphlet Labour, and it is better to be interested in both leaflets and pamphlets than in just one of the two (though now and for the foreseeable future we are short of people delivering leaflets and have a surfeit of people interested only in pamphlets, so if people only have time to do one or the other, leaflet Labour is preferable).
politicalcorrespondent - So basically Cruddas is seeking to justify the existance of the job he’s appling for? So why is this the one everyone’s going for? It’s like having an unopposed race for US President (or nominee) and everyone scrapping about for the useless job.
I’ve never been happy to describe myself as either old or new Labour: I can’t be old because I like equality for women and gays, having a set of policies around childcare and families, and not passing on parliamentary seats from favoured son to favoured son,
I don’t see how your stance on any of those issues rules you out from being “old Labour”.
Gregg… sorry to say that the Labour Party, like most other institutions in Britain, had its fair share of sexist/racist/homophobic members in the past, and therefore those characteristics are much more likely to be associated with ‘old’ Labour.
Personally I think the ‘New’ labour tag was just another gimmick, something designed to ’sell a label or New brand’. As far as I, andmost other members I speak to are concerned, the debate and discussion should be around policies, not labels or personalities.
Gregg… sorry to say that the Labour Party, like most other institutions in Britain, had its fair share of sexist/racist/homophobic members in the past, and therefore those characteristics are much more likely to be associated with ‘old’ Labour.
I’m sure I’ve had this dicussion in the comments on your blog, Bob. There were indiviuals who held those attitudes. But they are not defining characteristics by any scope of the imagination; and I can’t think of any notable politician who would be mentioned as an example of “Old” Labour (especially in contrast to New “Labour”) who held or holds such attitudes. OTOH, New Labour has been resistant to equality in some areas (fighting the EU over gays in the miliary, for instance), has pandered to racists over immigration, began its period in power by obliterating child benefit, parachutes favoured candidates into open seats, etc., etc.
I have always wondered what its like to actually be a member (and active in) today’s modern Labour Party. One hears reports. Antonia’s post is interesting, but its perhaps a reflection of the slightly paranoid internal politics of the Party (I have heard reports from members) that again there is this seemingly incessant talk about Old v. New Labour.
I can understand this; this was a quite deliberate device introduced by the leadership to narrow and control debate, and stereotype opponents. But such a device, such a dichotomy, is utterly ludicrous and self defeating. Perhaps one day the Labour Party can do away with such nonsense and conduct more sensible debates.
As I say a good post but one further point: Antonia’s snipe at the Compass pamphlet seems cheap; as if activists (heroic “Leaflet Labour”) can’t conmtribute ideas?! Cruddas is proof that you can. Compass is part of the democratic debate in the party, one way of developing ideas.
If I had vote I would vote for Cruddas - with fingers crossed that he really represents hope for a revival of the dying grassroots. Certainly the other declared candidates for deputy leader are truly hopeless in that regard.
Just a side-note on Cruddas: He poked his nose round the door of the Nye Bevan memorial lecture, given by John Monks at Portcullis House on Tuesday, but did not come in. I suspect this was performance art, symbolising his relationship with the left.
What about Peter4Leader? See “Will the real Peter Hain please stand up?” posted today on my blog
“As I say a good post but one further point: Antonia’s snipe at the Compass pamphlet seems cheap; as if activists (heroic ‘Leaflet Labour’) can’t conmtribute ideas?! Cruddas is proof that you can. Compass is part of the democratic debate in the party, one way of developing ideas.”
Isn’t it more that pamphlet labour types often don’t actually do very much to advance the cause, whereas people who leaflet do and often have a better understanding of what things are really like?
Thinking about issues like housing, community, anti-social behaviour, local transport, localism in health and so on in particular…
Gregg, it is not too late for you to join the party and actually turn that “I would” vote for Jon Cruudas into “I will”!
Jo, I think you meant to address that to Benjamin - I am a member of the party, and may well vote for Cruddas (depending on who else enters the race, and what Cruddas says and does between now and the election).
Britblog Roundup #92…
We seem to be getting closer to that century mark with our little roundups of your nominations of what you think the rest of us should see.You can add to next week’s set by simply emailing the URL to britblog…
Interesting post on Cruddas- I think there is something more to the rise of the BNP than just the economic dislocation- I wonder if there is a social problem as well in that lots of the sources of social capitol in traditional working class communities have begun to disappear- Unions, Working Mens Clubs, even football clubs- there was an article about it here http://www.bitsofnews.com/content/view/4350/43/ which makes the point but I wonder if there is something like this at work as well as the explanations that you rightly support Cruddas in providing above. Good post though really liked some of the examples you provided from his speech.
Why do people assume that building more “social housing” is the answer?
A buyer will pay as little as they can, and a seller will pay for as much as they can.
If a house is selling for £250,000 instead of £150,000, that’s because it’s what the market will bear. Buyers won’t pay much more than they think someone else will pay.
Someone is buying at these high prices, or they wouldn’t stay that high. This may mean that poorer people are priced out, and that richer people are priced in. But it doesn’t make a whole load of difference to how many people are housed.
The real problem is that we simply don’t have enough property to go around. The answer is to either build more property in the South, or to find a way to reduce demand for property in the South (e.g. cut the amount of government spending in London).
Fantastic to hear that you’re supporting Cruddas. It’s a shame I didn’t get to hear him speak, I would have loved to hear a Labour MP say what you’ve reported!
Antonia,
On LabourHome.com you currently have 20% support in the 2022 Labour Deputy Leadership contest. http://www.labourhome.org/poll/1164031515_iSjjCIqd
I voted for you!
Ignore Benjamin. He lives in Hong Kong, supports the Lib Dems and has a nice paranoid sideline in how “authoritarian” dastardly new Labour types are. If Benjamin were a member of the Labour Party, he would be the archetypal “pamphlet Labour” figure.
Is it really necessary for you to raise your dully ubiquitous head here as well as at HP, “old boy”?
I might vote for Cruddas. Seems like a sensible guy. But I shall certainly not vote for McDonnell. Wild horses wouldn’t drag me. I’d be interested to see if any moderate candidates emerge to challenge Brown - something that I think would be good for the party, especially in the face of consistent polls which show Brown as less popular than the incumbent. I would find it quite difficult to cast a positive vote for a candidate who, for the moment, it seems may be an electoral liability.
Well, actually, I don’t support the Lib Dems.
Judging by the smear tactics, I presume that’s Mr. Harris, who’s got a bit of a “my gang” mentality to politics, a bit tribal.
I, on the other hand, am most reluctant to support anyone who voted for the war, as John Cruddas did.
And if I am not allowed to vote for John McDonnell, my feeling will be that the election is a sham, like the ludicrous ballot for Labour’s candidates for the European Parliament and I will conclude that the only effect of taking part is to legitimise it.