Jon Cruddas MP

20 July 2009

What is it about your political beliefs that put you on the Left rather than the Right?
The most important philosophical insight that defines the left is the recognition that real freedom requires not just the absence of constraint but also the opportunity and capacity to act. This is not so much the dividing line between socialists and non-socialists as the dividing line within the liberal tradition. It is the distinction between Manchester School liberalism and the more developed strands of liberal thought articulated by Hobhouse, Keynes and Beveridge in Britain and FDR in America.

Along with social democrats and socialists, progressive liberals understand that equal liberty cannot co-exist with high levels of poverty and wide inequalities of wealth. This is because the capacities required to take part in society on an equal basis are socially defined and relative rather than abstract and fixed. Broadly speaking, the left appreciates that the pursuit of meaningful equality of opportunity cannot be detached from considerations of wealth distribution.

What do you consider made you Left wing?
I was brought up to believe in the biblical command that we should love others as we love ourselves. At a more empirical level, it seems demonstrably true that more equal societies are healthier and happier.

How would you describe the sort of society you want Britain to be?
The kind of Britain I want is one in which inequalities of opportunity arising from social circumstance are eliminated to the greatest possible extent. In many cases this will require us to reduce inequalities of social circumstance themselves. But this is not an end in itself. The good society cannot be built by levelling the playing field for acquisitiveness and selfishness. Greater material equality must be the foundation of a moral community built around the principles of fellowship and equality of respect. The Britain I want is compassionate and public spirited.

What one or two changes would make the biggest difference to bringing that about?
First of all, we need a policy of tax fairness. It is scandalous that the poorest twenty percent pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest twenty percent. It isn’t envy to demand that the wealthy pay their share. Secondly, free, high quality nursery care should be provided as a universal right. We know from the experience of Scandinavia that nothing is more effective in breaking the link between social inheritance and life chances.

What most makes you angry about the way Britain is now?
The disconnect between merit and reward that is one of the most unpleasant consequences of our financialised economic model. The left accepts that talent and hard work should be rewarded on the basis of ‘rent of ability’. But when we look at the performance of the City in recent years we are entitled to ask ‘what ability?’ The incompetence of our financial sector has inflicted serious damage on our economy and had to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Yet it seems to think that it can return to business as usual. A truly progressive government would make it clear that Britain after the crash will demand greater accountability. We cannot go back to the days when the financial tail was allowed to wag the economic dog. Anger at the culture of City excess isn’t a frivolous concern. It has wrecked lives of many innocent people and debased the values of our society as a whole.

Which person, event, era or movement from the past should we look to for inspiration now?
In the current economic climate, FDR’s call for “bold, persistent experimentation” in the face of the depression is something the left should take inspiration from. He was talking not only about the measures needed to fight the economic crisis, but the policies and institutions needed to reconstruct society on a new and fairer basis. In doing so he was willing to face down the determined opposition of wealth and privilege. With exception of President Obama and his push on health care reform, it is hard to see any other progressive leader who is tackling the economic crisis in the same spirit. The British tradition of ethical socialism is also something we should look to. In contrast to the cold doctrines of liberal utilitarianism and scientific socialism, this strand of progressive thought emphasised moral progress as the true goal of politics. Labour needs new policies and a stronger organisation, but none of it will amount to anything unless it first confronts the challenge of moral renewal.

20 Comments

20 Responses to “Jon Cruddas MP”

tim
July 20th, 2009 @ 2:33 am

Spot on Jon
jamesmackenzie
July 20th, 2009 @ 10:55 am

Having read a little about Open Left, and going on the name, I thought this would be a place for discussion amongst those generally to the left of the Tories. Some of the Liberals, most of Labour, almost all the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, all the Greens, and the miscellaneous socialist groups, plus the non-aligned left.

So far, it's Open Labour. Open up, or be doomed to fail
bencarver
July 20th, 2009 @ 10:58 am

John Cruddas is clearly a member of the articulate 'left' – but strategic blindness makes any appeal to principles of equality on his part difficult to take seriously. Most clearly demonstrated here:

“The incompetence of our financial sector has inflicted serious damage on our economy and had to be bailed out by the taxpayer.”

No, the serious damage on the collective economy (the economic subsistence of the population) was inflicted by the government's decision to purchase vast sections of bank shares and assets at shares well above their real (market) value; and to multiply the risk by also taking on the insurance of those assets. In short, to reproduce the dynamics of the economic crisis: acquisition and leverage on public borrowing at precisely the time and precisely because the system was seen to be rotten.

“Yet it seems to think that it can return to business as usual.”

No, it's the government that is making possible the wishful return to business as usual – for failing to let financial adventurers (and their shareholders) take on responsibility for their gambling; and by failing to introduce straightforward regulation (enforcing a holdings to investment ratio).

“A truly progressive government would make it clear that Britain after the crash will demand greater accountability.”

A truly un-progressive government, for which you are an MP, has absolutely failed to demand accountability through the simple measure of letting banks lose money and protected savings rather than toxic assets / shareholders.

Anyone who doesn't insulate themselves by limiting association to the very rich will have seen many of their friends, family, colleagues and associates struggling to continue financially: funding for artists dries up, contracts are temporary and precarious, jobseekers are working for free to gain experience that might get them employment. We have been systematically stripped of OUR assets; our children will not grow up with anything like the services and security that we took for granted and which were rightfully seen as the best achievements of post-war democracy (worker organisations, health provision, childcare, education). The effect of public borrowing to protect private profits has yet to be fully felt. Resistance did not take place out of principled outrage, but it may yet happen as a result of refusal to pay, repudiation of the debt that we have been saddled with. That will be the future of the Left.

************

Cruddas, like many serving politicians, does not know what a principle is. Which does not mean he does not talk about them – just as the proliferation of vision statements from politicians and institutions signals only an absence of vision. When he refers to the principles of 'fellowship' and 'equality of respect', we should respond with the questions: 'What is a principle?' These are values over which the government has no governance and with which it has no wish to become involved. We could also ask 'What political principles should we expect and demand?' Citizens' privacy – that's been sacrificed on the stone of necessity. Political transparency – don't make us laugh. Come on John, tell us about your principles.
David B
July 20th, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

It is a mark of how far our country has changed in 30 years, when desperate times invoke a sense of individual protectionism instead of collective accountability and compassion. Consumerism has driven the individualist elements in each of us to the fore. It is a sad fact that this addiction will not be easily diminished. This change is a clear example of how liberty should always be secondary to equality.

Looking for past inspiration is all well and good, but there has never been (in modern times) a western society based on equality. Make no mistake: equality is fully against the grain in a world dominated by material wealth consolidation and power.

I believe fully in what Jon has written. But we need to understand the context of our wider society, the wider global determinants that shape individual lives and expectations, if we are to successfully implement such ideas and enable a ‘moral renewal’.

The political left needs to find a way to unite the many and varied elements of leftwing belief, under the common goal of living in a just society. Labour has unfortunately implemented many unjust policies over the last 12 years, and is not well placed to do this. A party which represents the left would stand for an equality that is true to every individual and that is fully sustainable. It would unite the left among environmentalists, socialists, nationalists, liberals and others under the ability to achieve a common good.
Graeme_Cooke
July 20th, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

Hi – we want to engage with people from right across the family of the Left, whether they engage with a political party or not. That's why we want as many people as possible to respond to our questions so we can collect together a real diversity of views. So it would be great if you could contribute!
stuart
July 20th, 2009 @ 7:34 pm

I remain deeply suspicious of anyone motivated by a religious faith who cites christian socialist politicians and asks us to beware of liberalism. Those like Dr Cruddas who cite biblical commandments and criticise utilitarian values tend to also be the ones who want to cut back our right to healthcare, deny certain groups in society equal rights and hold back scientific progress. Be very wary of those who build their politics on faith.
David Vinter
July 20th, 2009 @ 9:17 pm

Well Mr Cruddas, you should have talked to my workaholic father,missed WW1 by 2 weeks, went self employed at 19, regularily worked a 7 day week, after Sunday tea he would clear the kitchen table, and would be working on a car cylinder head till 11pm.
He made a living through the 20s and 30s, no smoking no drinking, he only knew how to save money, never wasted anything.But in my experience the
'LEFT' don't like the self employed—-too difficult to control.
Chris
July 20th, 2009 @ 10:41 pm

“The good society cannot be built by levelling the playing field for acquisitiveness and selfishness.”

But doesn't the overriding emphasis on material equality presuppose the primacy of material goals? Historically the left cared about tackling the poverty of the working classes. This sentiment was certainly not about the promotion of acquisitiveness but about providing decent living standards. But what does “greater equality” mean to the average modern voter who is now comfortably off? A chance to be a little better off at the expense of those a little richer than him? So you haven't gone beyond acquisitiveness and selfishness competition at all.

“Greater material equality must be the foundation of a moral community built around the principles of fellowship and equality of respect.”

That seems wrong way round to me. How do we build feelings of fellowship simply by redistributing money? Why is it necessary that people have comparable material wealth before they can respect each other? However, if we had a society where ideas of fellowship and community were valued then maybe the desire to amass wealth for its own sake would be less prevalent?

The consumer society tells us that our worth as human beings is the same as our worth financially. We must not tacitly accept this by insisting that any differentials in income constitute some kind of affront to human dignity.
michael_green
July 20th, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

“First of all, we need a policy of tax fairness. It is scandalous that the poorest twenty percent pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest twenty percent.”

Is that actually true? Someone earning £11000 a year pays about £1000 in tax (10%). Someone earning £11000000 a year pays about £5500000 in tax (50%) (as of next year).
jamesmackenzie
July 20th, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

Michael, you do know there are plenty of other taxes the poor pay, right, like VAT? If you can find a single person who earns £11m per annum and who pays 50% income tax on it I'll be so impressed I'll buy you and them a bun.

Also, Purnell was rubbish on Newsnight. His refusal to answer entirely reasonable “process questions” meant his thin centrist gruel sounded less credible than even he deserved.
treborc
July 20th, 2009 @ 10:55 pm

The left or the ideal of the left has changed a bit in my day, we thought about helping the poor , making sure the sick the disabled are looked after, single mothers are not blamed for the lack of money within this government. Mr Cruddas and Mr Trickett came to Compass mouthed off about the 42 days we should fight them on the beaches, and then voted for it. Then Mr Cruddas mouthed off about welfare reforms lets get behind it, then he did not even bother turning up to vote for it or against it.

I'm sorry but what people say and what they do counts if you tell me your going to fight for something and you preach about it you better sick with it not cow down when the pressure is placed on you.

I'm severely disabled the pressure Mr Purnell has placed on me over the past few years is beyond belief, if now these pair think I'm going to fall for the old lefty trick your joking.
michael_green
July 20th, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

It's time for a wealth tax then… except the fat cats would move abroad to where taxes are lower.

Globalisation is going to be a long, arduous and painful process until we reach world government.
briangould
July 21st, 2009 @ 1:07 am

“Greater material equality”

Just equality nothing else! becuause if we had that equality the material would not matter anymore..
annabellelever
July 21st, 2009 @ 7:24 am

All if favour of more and better childcare. But what about equalising pay rates and benefits for full and part-time workers? These differences reflect and exacerbate sexual and racial inequalities and have no justification when people who need or want to work part-time may be as skilled as those who work full-time and as willing and able to commit to long-term projects within their place of work. I would like to see recent EU developments along these lines extended. I can't think of anything else that would so improve the lives of women – or of men struggling with problems of work-life balance – or that might begin to help us deal with the catastrophic inequalities in women's incomes over a life time compared to men, and their impact on pensions and entitlements.
pauldeemer
July 21st, 2009 @ 7:33 am

The one word that I think is missing from this debate is choice. Equality cannot be imposed from the centre. True equality requires empowerment – empowerment involves choice. And choice involves risk. But it is a risk that politicians need to take – and I'm not sure that many of them are ready to do that. But unless people can be made to feel that they are really in control of the process and that they have the power to make (or at least genuinely influence) the decisions that are affecting their lives, they will not feel as if they are exercsing choice – and therefore will not engage.
radicalpete
July 21st, 2009 @ 10:28 am

Hi John, being a long time atheist I never quote from any fictitious book or text to make a point. You are a union MP(Unite the Union) which I am a retired member of.Can you as a member of the union ask Derick Simpson why the doors are being shut in the face of left wing members of the union?, The new web site will not let me(and probably countless others logging in) or even changing our pass words,WHY?. When it was just Amicus I wrote 117 articles on their web site with over 26k hits on my work.I have complained so many times but they don't want left wing views on the site(so it seems) Mind you Del Boy can shout, he was once a member of the communist party
radicalpete
July 21st, 2009 @ 11:02 am

Just one more observation on this article written by John Cruddas, most of what you write has come from recent history books(yes?) well John, I am your history, at 72 I have lived what you and others get from books as factual accounts, let me tell you friend, most are total bollocks and it depends who wants to brain wash who, so here is a little snippet of the truth…..

On Reflection

On reflection as I cast my mind back
Life in my youth was no bed of roses
In fact one could say we were dirt poor
‘Twas a time in our history, a time of war
When for five years of warfare took its toll?
On the nation, its people, it’s very soul
But was it worth it, as I look around today
I fear this is a nation feeble greedy people
Who care little for the sacrifices others gave
The cup of kindness is seen as being soft
Hard faced , the stuff you jack, spin on this
Is the norm for this materialistic County
Who gives a SHIT any more about our soldiers?
They and their kids go hungry to keep you safe
Rat infested houses from Victorian times
And who gives a FUCK about the dead
Coming home in body bags and buried without honour
Yes, on reflection I am glad I was born dirt poor
And suffered along with millions in those dark days
We found the meaning of many words lacking today
Compassion for others, and comradeship on a scale
That will never be seen in this selfish land of Britain
‘Tis a sad reflection I bring to these pages my friends
But the human beings of yesteryear would shout out
“Stop, you greedy bastards, think of others for once”

radicalpete
SaltaireSam
July 21st, 2009 @ 6:44 pm

Yes but you are forgetting a) few of the top earners pay all their tax – they can afford accountants to get them out of it; b) their perks (cf MPs and their tax free allowances) are worth a lot of money and largely untaxed; and c) most importantly the mass of indirect taxation hits the poor hardest. The duty and VAT on petrol as percentage of the person earning £11,000 is massively more than your guy on over a million, who probably gets it paid by his company anyway.

There is only one fair tax – income tax but modern politicians are terrified of saying say.
davecole.org » blog » Blog Archive » OpenLeft: a response
July 23rd, 2009 @ 1:18 am

[...] Cruddas Original The most important philosophical insight that defines the left is the recognition that real freedom [...]
brianbarder
July 24th, 2009 @ 6:47 am

50% will be the *marginal* rate, levied only on income above (whatever it is going to be — £150,000 a year?): it won't be applied to tjhe whole of anyone's income. I suspect that it's a function of any tax system that the relatively less well off always pay a higher proportion of their income than the more well off, especially if you take into account taxes such as VAT and National Insurance, TV licence fees, Council tax, etc., as well as income tax.