You are here: Home » News »

Quote of the day: Jon Cruddas’s life sentence

May 18, 2012 3:33 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Labour’s new policy chief on his relationship with the Labour Party:

“Labour, for me, is also a tribal thing; it is my team. To back through thin and thin; a life sentence. A source of an ongoing tension, between both hope and despair. The later tends to dominate the former.”

I think, at times, all of us can sympathise with that sentiment Jon…

Related posts:

  1. Is there life beyond the crisis?
  2. A new life
  3. My statement on standards in public life
  4. But what does a better life mean?
  5. Life in the slow lane?
  • treborc1

    Easy said when your on expenses and £65,000 a year

    • http://twitter.com/johnringer John Ringer

      What the heck does that have to do with what he said?

      • treborc1

        Being tribal in a party is easy when your earning a living,from the tribe, not so easy when your in the party because it’s supposed to protect  the people at the bottom, I could be tribal if Labour paid me a living wage of £65,000 maybe then I’d have to vote for wars

    • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

      Yes, that does help assuage despair but Cruddas doesn’t seem to be in it for the money otherwise, like many before him, he would have sold himself himself to lobbyist/corporate interests.

      • PaulHalsall

        I agree with you on Cruddas, Dave, but his flirtation with Blue Labour really worries me.

        • treborc1

           The blue labour forum is now closed, the blue labour blog has been removed, I suspect the engineers of Blue labour have left the ship ss it slowly sinks

          • PaulHalsall

            Yep, I checked that on Wikipedia.

            I was really sad to see that Cruddas is a “close friend” of that enemy of disabled people, James Purnell.

            And sad to recall than Chuck Umana stained his name by being associated with it.

          • treborc1

            Well Purnell is of those people who would I suspect kill his own mother if the leader asked him, he is a follower not a leader although some still think he might return to lead.

            Labour are now full of career politicians who will do what they are asked to get that extra step up.

            I suspect Brown who was a bloody awful leader of labour was one of those people who used people, sadly Purnell was ripe, I do not think for a minute Purnell did anything he was not ordered to do, after all Brown could have said no at anytime

          • derek

            Brown did say no and Purnell spat the dummy and the rest plotted against him. DavidM waved the banana and Hewit and Hoon  tried to flog the wooden horse.

          • treborc1

            Goes deeper then that, after Purnell had gone, Brown then came out with his own ideas on welfare, saying he was going to end DLA , when labour and Tory MP’s said no, he changed it to pensioners, when the same MP’s said no, he stated that people in care homes disabled children whos only benefit was DLA would have it stopped, MP’s said no, but he went with it demanding they follow, labour then went out of power and the Tories kicked into the grass.

            I think over the last thirteen years who ever had Welfare had a problem they were putting forward the leaders ideals.

          • derek

            2005, the change maker Blair wanted the welfare reforms, Brown opposed, Tony bought Gordon an ice cream and thought he’d won the day but behind the scenes the war of words had exploded and Blair was forced to leave, Purnell and co continued to pressure Brown to follow the great leader and implement welfare reform and all types of silly hour suggestions where appearing, truth is labour was in the midst of civil war from daily leaks and documents being left on public transport, the Blairites where driving all manners of attacks to replace Brown, finally Brown was forced to bow to the return of the dark one Mandelson, oddly enough things did quiet down but when Mandelson emerged from the sunshine manifesto release he quickly hailed it as uber Blairite.Time will judge Gordon treborc! the law is already judging the wicked ways of new labour/Murdoch.  

          • treborc1

            I do not believe that Blair could have sacked Brown at anytime, why not he was going to leave anyway, Bush was soon to step down so to leave when he did means the promises given to Blair for war could be kept.

            Nope Brown and Blair may be different ideology the problem with Brown he was bloody hopeless

        • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

          Though it is as yet an incompletely formed body of opinion, I think there’s some useful stuff coming from the Blue Labour direction.

          Here’s a piece by Glasman, responding to criticism from Billy Bragg. I can’t find anything in it to disagree with.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/08/blue-labour-maurice-glasman

          • PaulHalsall

            Dave,

            I can’t see much of a problem in that piece either.

            But then why the friendship with Purnell, who first allowed the now Tory Freud to unleash his attacks on the disabled?

            Also, while I am quite fond of guild socialism, there has to be in modern progressive politics an offer of inclusion to those who do not have 2000, or 800, or 200, or 100 years of ethnic presence here in the UK. Unionism by itself in the USA after all, with its rejection of Black workers, support of Chinese exclusion acts, and so on proved to be a dead end.  

            There were some decent elements in Blue Labour’s background thinking about the abuse of working class people by capital, but progressive politics has to include green, feminist, LGBT, and anti-racist elements also.

          • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

            “in modern progressive politics an offer of inclusion to those who do not have 2000, or 800, or 200, or 100 years of ethnic presence here in the UK. ”

            “ progressive politics has to include green, feminist, LGBT, and anti-racist elements ”

            Totally with you on those. And to me it seemsI feel Glasman’s aberration (as I see it) re immigration could be consequent to academic ivory towerism – theoretical positions taking leave of actuality.

      • treborc1

        Give them a chance.

  • derek

    Just read the attached relationship with labour article, Jeez! what a hard read. It is said that a rolling stone gathers no moss, in this case the stone is completely shrouded in moss with several layers of hidden tact.I think Jon got a problem here? and most of his despair is self evident from his soft roundhead thinking, a balance of light weight blue mindedness grappling with his stronger side as a pure cavalier. Champagne Cruddas! puts some ice on it! eh.

  • LaurenceB

    It will be interesting to see, finally, what Cruddas makes of himself now that he has finally been given a chance, although personally I’m not expecting much based on his previous form and the friends he keeps…

  • Cari_esky

    I like him and hope he helps along with others to put Labour back in power where the people around like voting Labour again.  I think he help do it.  

  • TomFairfax

    Does this sticking with the team through thick and thin explain why Liam Smith is still leading  Barking & Dagenham council?

    Whilst the sentiment sounds fine, it shouldn’t mean defending the indefensible.

    A council where the leader seems to magically jump the council waiting list and where any questions about it are treated as an attack on the council and the Labour group, even when it was members of that group trying to find out what was going on.

    • Taffy Owen

      Brother Tom, no talking out of turn please, were to busy fighting the oppressors of the working classes to be worrying about tittle tattle like like that.

      • AlanGiles

        Tom is right: You cannot just overlook wrongdoing, whatever it is because the man concerned is wearing a red rosette.

        The same thing with the expenses scandal – Grayling and McNulty  were as bad as each other, nobody involved deserves to be excused – especially when so many of the guilty, regardless of party, were so concerned about “benefit scroungers” – they were hypocrites as well as scroungers themselves.

        ———-

        All my links today were of guitarists. I’ll find somehing else for tomorrow, with no strings attached.

        • Dave Postles

          Wes Montgomery, Smokin’ at the Half Note

          • AlanGiles

            With the Wynton Kelly Trio. Norman Granz would be furious, but one of the Italian companies have recently reissued these 1965 recordings unofficially, Dave,

        • TomFairfax

           Is it possible to add a Don’t Like flag based purely on that pun at the end?

          • AlanGiles

            Hi Tom: You’re lucky I didn’t use the one I was thinking of for the trombonists the other day – I was going to let things slide! :-(

            * Buck Clayton (1911-1991)

            Todays link is not they all played the same instrument but there is a very specific link to them all.

        • Brumanuensis

          Quite right Alan. Liked the pun, by the way.

      • TomFairfax

        LOL. That would assume I don’t know any of the people involved, and that they weren’t validated later by being proven correct in their original suspicions.

        Solidarity, yes, it’s one of our main strengths. Willful blindness? No thanks, that helps no one in the long term.

  • Daniel Speight

    If you read this Jon, I ask one thing as a fellow tribalist. I ask because I still some glimpses of the roots of Labour in you. So the one thing:

    Please put the word equality back into the party’s hymn sheet. It’s such a small thing. We know it’s an impossible aim, but just to always move along that path is better for our human race. When you look at possible party policies, just give them a little equality test, does it help or hinder a move to more equality?

  • David Pavett

    Many people seem to think that tribal loyalty is admirable. I think that such loyalty is a misplaced sentiment – like clinging to a religion just because one was brought to think it was the right one. It is a deeply unattractive approach to politics in general and Labour politics in particular – both of which are sadly lacking in a willingness to think as carefully, rationally and objectively as possible.

    Having said which, I believe Jon Cruddas, has a genuine commitment to democracy and debate and that is two things you cannot accuse Liam Byrne of. I was very pleased to hear about his appointment.

    • Daniel Speight

       I think the reason some dislike this tribal loyalty is that it’s very much a class loyalty which itself was part of the foundation of the Labour Party. I have no idea in your case, but it did seem like many in New Labour were not fond of this idea of class loyalty. This would be no bad thing except they still wanted the core vote to propel them into power. This core vote came about just because of class loyalty.

      Now at least the Gang of Four had the honesty to leave the party to get away from these class issues unlike the New Labour careerists.

      • John Reid

        Two members of the gang of four had been deselected when Trots had used the reselection process to oust them in 1980 and after the Leave the EEC group lead by Barbara castle and Jim Callaghan lost their vote  in the ’75 referendum they said ” the public want to stay in we’ve got to accept that opinion” 4 years later Tony Benn decided that the public’s opinion was wrong and that even though the party had agreed to put that issue to one side they voted to again leave the EEC (this time without a referendum) Shirley feeling she could have no part of this first said she wouldn’t stand for reselection then in feb 1981 left Labour, A month before the sdp formed, I hardly call Blair joining labour in 1982 a career move, And considering the heckling at the 87 conference when for a third time Tony Benn said labour los the election as it wasn’t left wing enough, (the public actually feeling labour were more A extremist party in `987 than 83 ,Due to the Loony left)
        when the likes of Luke akehurst, Dan Hodges Hopi sen, sunder katwaal joined labour in 1988, tried to persuade us to drop Unilateralism, support for the closed shop, there were those at the labour party that felt changing these policies were mad ,as we’d win with them despite being rejected 3 times already,

        • Daniel Speight

           As usual John I have trouble wading through your comments. Could you please say exactly what you think of tribalism, whether as party or class loyalty?

          • John Reid

            don’t think much of triblaism as Class,to Misquote Paul Boateng I’m not any class, Look at When Dave Nellist and Terry field were found to be in Militant expelled they stood as Independents, I don’t recall The blairites ever tryi ng to deselect Jeremy Corbyn or Marshall andrews, even though  in the latters consituency ,there were blairites, I recall Lord Cox was deslelcted as A M.P by those who wanted Dawn Primlico becuase he said Labour was obsessed by gays in 1987, I recall that Boateng got  lab0ur M.P deslecte din 1983, So that M.P went to another seat last minute and Won and Baoteng stood and loss, this was in his days before his transition from Militant to Uncle tom figure.

            Regarding Blears it was Illegal what she did but Immoral, I don’t care for her myself but her constituency local aprty love her, So Frank Field dares talk about the taboo subject of benfit frauds, and this makes him a tory, Didn’t know it was laoburs policy to supprt benefit frauds, I’ve never said anyone who’s on the left disagrees with Blair is a Trot, Field doens’t beleive every benfit claim to be a fraud, And Of course it as Enoch Powell who Let the Large influx of immigration from the commonweath in the first palce, he was A learnid man who made one dum speech taken out of context to some dockers who picked up on it, if comparing field to Pwoell is the best you can do, Tony Benn went to Powell’s funeral and of course Powell endorsed labour at the 1945 and Feb 74 General elections..
              Denis healey’s best friend in APrliament was Ted Heath..

          • AlanGiles

            Have you never heard Frank Field being interviewed, John?. He believes “most people” on benefits should not be on them. I recall a Radio 4 Saturday morning programme just a couple of years ago (“Around Westminster”) when he was having one of his wet dream fantasies when he told the interviewer that “the unemployed need a bit of salt on their tails”.

            I’m not sure if you are saying Blears was illegal and immoral, (which? you are not clear) but not to worry because her constituents “love her”, well, thats just fine then, be illegal or immoral, be an expenses scrounger and that is perfectly OK.

            John don’t pretend to be naive. You know very well that if a benefits claimant had made the same sort of outrageous claims that MPs made on their expenses they would have been prosecuted – no doubt about it – people like Blears could claim it was “a mistake” or a “misunderstanding”, be seen signing a cheque with a grin like a monkey that has seen a bag of nuts, and all is forgiven.

            It seems to me you endorse the Labour party that lost the last election: the public saw that labour MPs were greedy liars – just like the opposition, but, in your book, providing they are right wing their behaviour is excusable.

            * Shorty Rogers (1924-1994)

          • John Reid

            I mean that Blears felt that her behaviour was wrong that’s why she gave back the money for the allowance,take ian Gibson the Laoubr M.P for Norwich, a left winger who let his daugther by his second home on the cheap or Harry cohen, two decent poeple in the formers case I said at the time he was hounded, and campaigned in that by election, some of the expences claims like The Wintertons or Bill cash sellign their homes to theri kids adn then renting them back were unbeleveiable, but they got away with it, as do other claiments, Laobur lost the last election becuase brown bottled the election and we were spending to much we also had a weak manifesto, but comparing this to trots or others who want to deslect laobur candidate sbecuase they’re from the wrong wing of the party to why we lost the last election, when the left were deselecting right wing labour candidates was half the reason we lost the 83,87 elections. the expences scandal erupted in 2009 , yet labour were on 22% of the vote in 2008, but we carried the falg for it, we should have tried to get the tories to criticse bill Cash more, we went upto 29% at the election, I didn’t hear one commet criticisng us on the door at the 2010 election cos of the expences scandal, In fact i recall one life long tory voter, voted laobur cos he felt the tories were worse at it ,than us.

          • AlanGiles

            I make no excuses for Harry Cohen either. Beach caravans as “second homes” and sunken baths on expenses, when Waltham Forest, the area he represented, is one of the poorest areas of East London. It was, at best, incongruous, and at worst, decadent.

            Blears was right to feel she had “done something wrong” as you so kindly put it. E$specially when she had joined Purnell in his “bash-a-benefit-claimant” activities.

            Brown should have insisted more of these fiddlers had stood down – I think the public rightly perceived that it was the old trick of not what was right or wrong, but what they could get away with. Blears constituency were not brave enough to kick her out – Tony McNulty was not so lucky – yet I believe he hopes to make a comeback in 2015. If I lived in his constituency I would not vote for him, because I think these people betrayed public trust.

            That last line of yours “In fact i recall one life long tory voter, voted laobur cos he felt the tories were worse at it ,than us.” – well, you are welcome to it and him. A strong recommendation, indeed.

            We need a really good clean-up and clean out, and until that happens we are on very shaky ground.

            * Conte Candoli (1927 – 2001)

        • AlanGiles

          John: The Gang Of Four made the Limehouse Declaration in January 1981, but be that as it may, with the greatest respect you seem to label any of us on the left who do not avidly read The Gospel According To St. Tony (as ghost written by Lord Mandelson), as “Trots”.

          It is so  very easy to use a word like that, but, though I don’t want to plough through history, there have been occassions when MPs have deserved to be deselected. I think Blears constituency ought to have done it in 2010, and indeed, many other constituencies where dishonest MPs hung on like dirty glue.

          Many years ago Frank Field became the target for deselection, and I supported it then, and do now. I am not a “Trot”, but then Field is hardly a “Labour” MP - he is as obsessed with “benefit cheats” as Enoch Powell was obsessed with “immigrants”. If you listen to recordings of their voices when they are discussing their bete noirs you can hear a similarity in the voices – measured, certainly, but just as Powell felt there was no such thing as a “good” immigrant” Field believes every benefit claimant is a fraud.

          Now if you regard me as a “Trot” because I do not think there is much difference between an extreme Right-wing “Labour” MP and a Conservative, go ahead and call me that, if it amuses you. But just remember Field’s best friend in Parliament is Iain Duncan-Smith.

          * Jackie Armstrong (1920-2005)

          • AlanGiles

            John, It seems only fair to let you know Blair’s latest pronouncement, according to the Press Association this morning:

            ”
            Former prime minister Tony Blair led tributes to his “great friend”Robin Gibb following the death of the Bee Gees star on Sunday night”.
            Hold the front page.What a loss Blair was to showbiz – I can just see him in white trousers and permed  hair singing disco hits falsetto!* Ronnie Chamberlain (1924-1999)

          • treborc1

            God no.

    • Brumanuensis

      Loyalty to your tribe is only really a bad thing if you become uncritical and completely closed-off to other tribes. If you retain a willingness to criticise your Party when you think it’s gone wrong and you aren’t willing to dismiss a good idea just because it comes to your enemies, then there’s nothing wrong with being tribal. For me, tribalism just means what Cruddas says it means: an enduring loyalty to your team, not just sticking around when times are good. It means not giving up, even when you may not be happy with the way things are, and instead seeking to make them as you want them to be. 

      No political party can survive without tribalism. Otherwise they’d just fall apart and that would be bad for democracy, particularly parliamentary democracy. I would argue that people who are tribal are in many ways more pluralist than so-called ‘pluralists’, because they are willing to tolerate differing opinions within their group, for the sake of holding everything together. I wish that was a more common sentiment.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

        There are quite a few people I regard as “tribalists” on LL who show a remarkable inability to tolerate differing opinions…

        • treborc1

          Well if your talking about attacking the Tories that’s not  tribalism that just normal

        • Brumanuensis

          Well, there are always exceptions. Who did you have in mind?

  • hp

    Fortunately, there are lots of us non-triablists out here who require a bit more convincing before offering our vote.

Latest

  • Comment Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

    Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

    By Glenys Thornton

    Monday saw the first day of Committee on the Same Sex Marriage Bill, where it became clear after a three hour debate on how to distinguish Same Sex Marriage from so called “traditional” marriage that opposition to this bill has not gone away. Despite a huge defeat on Second Reading, opponents reheated and repeated their earlier speeches, in part because their arguments rely on belief and prejudice not evidence or fact. So we sat until 11pm debating conscience clauses, Registrars [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

    Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

    By Mark Ferguson

    Well that was a bad PMQs for Ed Miliband – the second in a row. Perhaps he hasn’t gotten back into his stride after such a long period without the weekly Wednesday joust, but whatever it is, Miliband isn’t hitting his marks at PMQs. Meanwhile Cameron – who has been jousting with world leaders this week – seemed far more o top of his game than we’ve been used to seeing him lately. Alas the problem for Miliband was that [...]

    Read more →
  • Video Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

    Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

    Last week it was revealed that the government discussed secret plans to hike interest on pre-existing student loans, meaning that anyone with a student loan will be expected to pay far more than expected. Today, the Prime Minister was asked about this – he spoke for nearly a minute but wouldn’t answer the question. What does he have to hide? How much more does he expect graduates to pay?

    Read more →
  • Comment Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

    Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

    By John Woodcock

    Across the industrial north, it is striking how old pit villages and industrial towns are proving far less willing to embrace renewable energy than the noisier, more polluting fossil fuels and industries which shaped their identity. Energy companies are getting a nasty shock after mistakenly believing that these communities would not bat an eyelid at a few wind turbines on the surrounding hills because they had been content to make huge slag heaps part of the landscape in decades past. [...]

    Read more →
  • News Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

    Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this (and much more) in your inbox. You can sign up here. Put reckless bankers in jail Britain’s banking bosses should face jail if their decisions force fresh bailouts, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards says today. The commission’s hotly anticipated report urges the Chancellor, George Osborne, to oversee the [...]

    Read more →