The identity crisis of Jon Cruddas.
| Author | Katwala, Sunder |
| Position | Features - Essay |
Jon Cruddas may have been asked to lead the Labour opposition's policy review but the Dagenham MP is not, truth be told, especially interested in policy. 'What interests me is not policy as such; rather the search for political sentiment, voice and language; of general definition within a national story. Less The Spirit Level, more what is England', he said, speaking on 'the good society' at the University of East Anglia (Cruddas, 2012).
The public lecture series was entitled 'Philosopher kings? How philosophy informs real politics today', making contributions from Cruddas and Conservative David Willetts perhaps inevitable. But the utility of philosophy in political battle is not universally acknowledged. 'Perhaps when they find out what is England they will let us all have the answer', said Chancellor George Osborne, deploying this Cruddas passage for a little partisan political knockabout. The mockery will have chimed with Labour MPs who worry about whether their new policy chief leading Ed Miliband on an elusive quest for the essence of national identity will prove a particularly direct route to a winning agenda on the deficit, growth, jobs and housing.
Ed Miliband has placed a significant political bet on Cruddas as Labour's philosopher king. It was not just a bet on the man himself, and his ability to somehow cajole the disparate actors within the byzantine, opaque, and dysfunctional Labour policy review and manifesto-making process into some sort of coherence. It was also a significant endorsement of the Cruddasite disposition about what matters most in politics, a view with which his leader has increasingly come to empathise.
That Cruddas world-view is well captured by his contrasting the state of England, an allusion to his political hero, the 1930s Labour leader George Lansbury, with The Spirit Level (2009), Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's influential best-seller which was hailed by many on the left as the most important book for a generation. It tells a story through comparative data, painting its picture by amassing graphs demonstrating correlations of various social harms associated with increased inequality. This enabled Guardian and New Statesman columnists and leftish wonks to declare that they had found the Holy Grail: knock-down proof so that, surely, anybody could now see why the left was right and the right was wrong about inequality all along (Hattersley, 2009) (1). Mysteriously, these factual proofs seemed altogether less convincing for Telegraph or Spectator writers, and wonks on the right proved curiously stubborn in refusing to concede the argument (Saunders and Evans, 2010). This fierce partisan battle over the book's merits demonstrated what the emerging application of brain science to political psychology would predict: that very few political arguments can ever be settled by appeals to 'the facts'. Rather, evidence tends to be used as ammunition to reinforce existing views, while even contrary counter-evidence will very often reinforce long-held views too, once the motivation behind its production is brought into play. Every quarter's economic statistics on growth, jobs, and unemployment shows us much the same phenomenon. Any expert analyses of the evident need for austerity measures, or their evident futility, will usually repolarise and rehash the existing debate, rarely bringing rivals together in the disinterested pursuit of evidence-based policy-making. If the facts don't fit the frame, it is the facts that get rejected, not the frame.
Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain (2007), has characterised much liberal progressive advocacy as demonstrating an 'irrational commitment to rationality' in seeking political support through policy arguments, based on a belief that appeals to the evidence are a political trump card. Jon Cruddas would see these research conclusions from political psychology as providing further ammunition to reinforce what had long been his own gut instinct, that for Labour to connect, it needs less of the spirit of the LSE and rather more of that of Lansbury. As Cruddas put it in the UEA lecture:
Politics for me is not a variant of rational choice theory. It is about base, visceral connections, sentiment, themes and language that grip people; stories and allegories that render intelligible the world around them. (Cruddas, 2012) This demands that his party understands politics as being driven by questions of identity as much as interests; to see persuasion as depending more often on stories than facts, and to put policy in its proper place, by understanding that the policy manifesto pledges which provide a necessary route-map of priorities for government will not resonate unless they fulfill a vital symbolic purpose too, speak to 'political sentiment, voice and language', so as to explain what motivates a political party and how that is reflected in what it wants to say about the nature of the country which it seeks to govern, and what its ambitions to change it are.
This is the Cruddas starting point: identity matters. And it matters for party and country alike. He sees the 2008 economic crash and 2010 election drubbing as creating Labour's third 'great identity crisis' in not much more than a century of existence, comparable to its lost decades in the 1930s and 1980s. There is a crisis of belonging in society, with a particular concern for the sense of social and political dislocation arising from the loss of traditional class identities among those who were once solidly Labour. In response to the dizzying changes of the global era, there is a foundational question about national identity, and how the form that it takes may shape the possibilities and contours of partisan political competition.
If Dr Cruddas has diagnosed the identity crisis facing Labour, he feels it much more viscerally and directly than that. His own personal political journey can be seen to represent a living out and working through of the strands, tensions, and contradictions of the Labour tradition in an attempt to discover, or to forge, its contemporary meaning and mission.
Who is Jon Cruddas?
So there is another identity question: who is Jon Cruddas? No other leading politician is so ill-captured by the convenient shorthand labels which newspaper reports apply to Cruddas, as a 'left-winger' or an independent 'maverick' voice, or as offering a 'lurch' to the trade union left. (The official Conservative HQ response to Cruddas's appointment attacked him as a 'former union man', though that was quickly challenged by centre-right commentators (Forsyth, 2012), and MPs like Robert Halfon, elected for Harlow in 2010, who has argued that the right damages itself through a kneejerk allergy to trade unionism (Halfon, 2012)).
For Cruddas is, at once, the 'maverick' 'left-wing' outsider who cut his teeth as a party staffer and as a Downing Street aide to Tony Blair; the critic of academic abstraction who holds a PhD in political sociology; a foundational defender of the party's links with the unions who believes that Labour's insular internal party culture risks suffocating its ability to be a living and breathing political movement, so making him at once the most plural of Labour's tribalists and the most tribal of its pluralists; the egalitarian who believes that Labour must rediscover the conservative traditions of the British left; and the somewhat eurosceptical advocate of an authentic voice of English Labour, who draws on his deep sense of his own Irish Catholic roots.
It says rather more about the sociological narrowing of the Westminster parliament, on both sides of the aisle, that Cruddas tends to be presented as the working-class tribune of his Labour tribe, in some sort of working-class apostolic succession as 'keeper of the cloth cap' in a party history from Keir Hardie to John Prescott. Cruddas is not an heir to Prescott. There are few politicians who Cruddas resembles less than the former Deputy Prime Minister. Prescott was the deputy as loyalist, projecting a fierce 'my party right or wrong' partisan certainty where unity and loyalty are the principal political virtues, staying around the table to secure whatever is the best deal on offer. It is a view sceptical about internal debate and pluralism, advocating less pointless think tank...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
