Nobody, outside the ivory tower of professional party politics, think tanks, academia or journalism, seriously believes that the Milibands or Ed Balls will go down well with the public at large.Jon Cruddas is a popular backbench Labour MP who doesn't come from a posh background, who went to a comprehensive, who speaks like a fairly ordinary human being and who never served in any New Labour government.
He just published the most enlightening and progressive article in a national newspaper.
Refreshingly, it was a far cry from the hollow, uninspiring stuff laid out by the two Milibands in the past few days (see here and here), showing empathy with the masses of 21st century low and low/middle classes: manual workers, people on low pay, people plagued by job insecurity.
Can you believe it, here's an MP actually publicly accusing Labour's high ranks of taking the "decision not to better regulate for agency workers, and to not introduce living wage agreements".
Cruddas also mentioned the great ghost of the election campaign, the housing crisis ("but it hasn't been the crisis of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, where one's biggest problem is achieving a dream sale price. It has been a crisis of cramped living conditions where family life is undermined. It has been a crisis of waiting lists that suck the hope from a young couple looking for stability"), and the fact that "[i]mmigration has been used as a 21st-century incomes policy" for the benefit of "rogue employers looking to shave costs to make a bigger buck".
But here comes the bad news. His article could have been the best platform to launch a leadership bid.
Unfortunately, instead, in the same article Cruddas stated clearly that he's not going to run ("Hand on heart I do not want to be Labour leader"), which is a massive disappointment for Labour and the left in general.
For the life of me, I can't understand how anybody outside the ivory tower of professional party politics, think tanks, academia or journalism, could seriously believe that any of the Milibands or Ed Balls may actually go down well with the public at large.
It's a sad indictment of the state of Labour that those three are the best the party can offer after 13 years in power.
11 comments:
Interesting to see Cruddas talking left now when he didn't act left in office. Someone reminded me recently: “Cruddas voted FOR the war. FOR oppressive terrorism laws. FOR persecution of asylum seekers. FOR ID cards. AGAINST enquiry into Iraq war.”
Someone else reminded me that he was a supporter of James "Workhouse" Purnell.
Looks to me like John McDonnell is the best hope for progressive politics if only he'd get his act together.
To be honest, I'd be more than happy with David Milliband, I think he's a sound enough bloke and the key is a break with the past...as long as it is not Ed Balls.
Daniel,
a break with the past? You're having me on?!
A break with the past 11 days, more like.
He was Tony Blair's Head of Policy from 1994 on and at the very core of New Labour ever since, top Cabinet posts, toeing the party line like a robot.
Madam Miaow,
I know...I'm aware of his voting record, though there are also some good bits like his opposition to tuition fees, his support for LGBT rights and the foxhunting ban.
And he acknowledged Iraq was wrong, which is no mean feat amongst politicians.
I like McDonnell. But, call me defeatist, there's no chance he would ever make it as PM.
No, not at all and I was going to say that, with what happened with the Lib Dems, you're railing against the light slightly here, I mean options are limited aren't they? Cruddas has no bloody chance, he does not hold enough of the party.
I by a break with the past I mean that he is not Brown or Blair and neither is he of that generation, anyone who was involved with Labour of late will have contact with the big two, finding someone who hasn't is impossible but Milliband has enough distance from them to be effective.
There is little else to go for.
...Mmm...not convinced...
It's true that the LibDems have left a massive void. Devastating, in fact.
But partly this is also why getting another person from a (fairly) similar background to Cameron and Clegg is not, in my opinion, good judgement.
At least if Cruddas had run, there'd have been more of a debate taking place at the highest level. He was a backbench MP (yet with huge backing from the Unions) and that's enough of a gulf between him and the New Labourite inner circle.
I think I'm giving up on politics altogether.
"But partly this is also why getting another person from a (fairly) similar background to Cameron and Clegg is not, in my opinion, good judgement."
Cruddas and Miliband(s) have very similar backgrounds - comprehensive school followed by Oxford followed by working for the Labour Party, and then into parliament. Neither are millionaires (unlike Clegg and Cameron) and they are part of the same social circle (Cruddas' wife is Harriet Harman's chief of staff).
I think that Cruddas will end up being influential on Labour's future direction, no reason to despair just yet. I also think that who ends up being leader isn't the most important thing - after all, we've seen about what happens when we pin our hopes on the charismatic Great Leader. Much more important is whether Labour can rebuild itself as a mass, grassroots movement rather than a small elite.
donpaskini,
not entirely true.
Cruddas was the son of a sailor. Miliband of a world-famous Marxist theorist who published a series of acclaimed academic works. Nothing wrong with it. Also Cruddas didn't go to Oxford. He went to Warwick. Again, nothing especially important. But I'm just saying their background isn't entirely similar.
However, I acknoweldge that their career is similar (straight from academia to research and professional politics) and, also, that the Milibands don't come from millionaire families.
"Much more important is whether Labour can rebuild itself as a mass, grassroots movement rather than a small elite."
And how do you do that, given that the group that presided over the Labour Party over the past few years -and within which the Milibands and Balls were active and prominent figures- are still entirely at the helm?
Good spot - got that wrong about Cruddas. I think the point still stands, though, both Cruddas and the Milibands have a background in policy wonkery inside the Westminster bubble. This means that their instincts and values are actually pretty similar (though Cruddas is better informed at the moment as he has done a lot more talking to ordinary people over the last few years).
Just on "And how do you do that, given that the group that presided over the Labour Party over the past few years -and within which the Milibands and Balls were active and prominent figures- are still entirely at the helm?"
I've got lots to write (and do!) on this subject, but I think the site labourvalues.org is a good start. In some parts of the country, Labour has made a start on this, and it is something which can only be created from the bottom up, irrespective of who the next leader is.
oops, labourvalues.org.uk is correct url
donpaskini,
I really appreciate your intent and passion. Also, as you know, as fellow Liberal Conspiracy collaborator I agree with most of what you write indeed.
And in fact I agree with the importance of making the process a "bottom up" one.
But here's the thing.
Those at the helm do matter. You're not telling me they don't.
Like when the membership overwhelmingly favoured Ken Livingstone as Mayor and see what Blair and his henchmen did (remember?).
Or when the grass-roots were mainly opposed to the Iraq War and Blair simply wiped his arse with all the protests and pleas.
The membership were opposed to tuition fees; they wanted the railway re-nationalised; etc. And?
Unfortunately with the double blow of 13 years of New Labour and the LibDems' about face, a lot of leftist voters like myself are sick of being taken for a ride.
I'll be brutally honest. If one of the two Milibands (or Ed Bollocks) become leader, I'm afraid there's no way I can subject myself to the masochism of supporting (or getting involved with) a party which would look very very similar, disarmingly similar, to that we've witnessed over the past 13 years.
Look at what Miliband said (and here too) as recently as two months ago on the subject of Iraq.
The two brothers and Ed Balls will never understand what happened to the country's levels of inequality; job insecurity; debt; apathy. They presided all over that. The way they handled the agency work bill was shambolic.
And now they have the cheek to yakk away about "aspirations", "progressive mission" and "change" with glazed eyes.
I would happily join Labour if there was a new face coming in. With the three I mentioned...no chance.
Soz if you may not like this but I came to the conclusion a while ago that the Labour Party is beyond reforming.
Post a Comment