The movement IS the policy – why changing the way the party works is bigger than Clause IV

February 7, 2013 9:04 am

Last night Jon Cruddas gave a speech at the Resolution Foundation on Labour’s Policy Review. Much of the focus has been on comments regarding the timetable of the review, and Cruddas’s argument that merely opposing the cuts isn’t enough (which should have been self-evident to anyone who has looked at Labour’s economic approval ratings).

But there was more to Jon’s speech than that – in particularly a radical idea that Cruddas himself suggested could be a modern Clause IV, but which could actually be far more significant than that. It’s almost sacrilege in the Labour Party to say that something could be bigger than Clause IV. Those who hated the change see it as a terrible loss, those who supported it see it as Blair’s defining moment in the quest for electability. Yet abolishing the clause was largely a symbolic gesture. No-one in the Labour Party seriously believed that Blair, or any other leader, planned to pursue a strategy of “common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange”. But what Cruddas is talking about changes the way in which people (rather than just politicians) interact with the state, and could fundamentally alter the way in which the Labour Party operates. Last night he said:

“The quiet revolution within the party led by Iain McNicol and Arnie Graf is perhaps the most encouraging of all the Labour stories. In that it is developing local leadership and local campaigns. It is confronting centralism and bureaucracy; remote authority and alienation within the actual Party itself. I would suggest 20 years on this could be the modern equivalent of the Party reformation supplied by Tony Blair with the changes to Clause IV.”

and:

“Overall our Party itself is the key to The Policy Review. There has been a campaigning priority given to a Living Wage and a renegotiation of energy bills through party organisation. Innovative growth partnerships are being developed in our Councils.  These deal directly with the issue of wages and debt, of earning and belonging.  They are campaigns that link up to the fundamental issues of working and family life.”

Cruddas lauded the power of local campaigns on living wages, local regulation and accreditation of landlords and high street campaigns around food, gambling and licensing to name but a few. What he’s arguing is that the street, the community, the marketplace, the factory floor and the call centre staff room must be where Labour Party policy is grounded. Campaigns coming from those places – like the Living Wage – which prove successful will gain more credit from Cruddas than well written reports. Or as he said last night – ‘Do the work don’t write a proposal’. He might also have said that listening to and encouraging active local parties whilst in government would have stopped crises like the one we’re currently facing in housing.

If done right – with a proper process for local parties to feed into the policy process – Cruddas’s plan can give a purpose to local parties that is about organising in their communities for positive change which feeds up into Labour’s legislative plan for government. That’s a change that works for and includes party activists and local communities – and helps the state encourage and focus on the priorities of those same communities – but also frees the state to focus on priorities, rather than micro-managing society. What is needed is a manifesto rooted not in the think tanks of Westminster (although there is a place for them) but in the real lives of people working long hours in difficult conditions for low pay. By building a movement that hands real power – and a real say – to people not politicians, Cruddas suggests that the movement IS the Policy Review. The false line between political campaigning and political organising is being taken down, brick by brick.

If it works, it’s not symbolism, it’s a process by which the Labour Party can change Britain for the better, alongside the British people. And that’s far a far bigger proposition than changing Clause IV ever was.

  • AlanGiles

    I’m sorry. I am quite prepared for all
    the “downs”, but does anybody find Mr Crudas’s windy verbiage in
    any way inspiring?. If so, I am astonished you find it so.

    He says so much, but says so little. He
    talks about everything and nothing. His word-spinning brings a quote
    from the bard to mind (Horatio to Hamlet):

    “These are but wild and whirling words, my lord.”

    He knows there is a problem (we all know that) but do his
    words offer any real solution – or alternative?. Got a problem?. Ask Crudas to do a three year “review” and Crudas will talk to Arnie Graf. Cameron has Crosby (Australian) and you have Graf (American).

    Perhaps we need to look nearer to home?

    Perhaps I’m taking it too seriously. I always think of
    Antonio Carlos Jobim when I read Crudas-speak (“There’s so
    many people who can talk and talk and talk and just say
    nothing…”)

    But after all this po-faced, rather pompous outpouring from
    JC, I have found you just about the cheesiest music link I can
    find to demonstrate Jobim’s words:

    • PaulHalsall

      I normally agree with you Alan, but Samba is not cheesy!

      • AlanGiles

        No I agree not the musical form (the Stan Getz/Charlie Byrd ouvre’ even led the grand old man Coleman Hawkins to follow in their footsteps “Desafinado” on the Impulse label.), and the music remains timeless (it’s 51 years now)
        It was just this particular rendition I thought was the corniest I could find. That said perhaps Jon Crudas’s more arid and lengthy speeches could be improved by getting Kate Hoey to do a little dance at the same time: or – to use another old jazz title “I Wish I Could Shimmy Like My Sister Kate” (Kid Ory)

  • rekrab

    For centuries the ordinary people have tried to enpower their movement for the betterment from the topuddle martyrs to the suffragettes and the yarrow marchers, in the end the fat controller at the top always won through.So I say this Jon, you want to create a more equal society, then don’t side step the pathways just drive a straight line towards the summit, for only those in power can really change the power for a more inclusive society.

    • PeterBarnard

      Not always true, Derek, (” … only those in power …”). The fall from power of the leaderships in the Iron Curtain countries in the late 1980s was accomplished by the peoples in those countries, many (most? all?) of whom are now part of the European Union, which, despite its faults and present difficulties, is largely beneficial.
      The great Labour government that was elected in 1945 drove that “straight line towards the summit” (a lovely phrase). The new Jerusalem wasn’t altogether achieved, but the country – socially, politically, economically, and in terms of human dignity – was a damn’ sight more balanced and equitable for twenty/twenty-five years after 1945 than it has ever been, both before and since. It’s a comment on our present times that the Conservative governments between 1951 and 1964 would be regarded as “left wing” these days.
      Have faith. The owners and managers of capital have been in the driving seat for the last thirty-odd years, but the pendulum will swing. Enormous progress has been made in the last two hundred (and more) years, and social justice will eventually prevail. Selfishness is, eventually, self-destructing.

      • rekrab

        Great to hear from you Peter and all the best to.

        Yeah, a truly wonderful happening, to draw back that Iron Curtain. And what a fantastic reason to express the continuity of Europe.

        I really do feel like it’s been a wilderness trek for the past 30 years and how I do yearn for another Atlee or Macmillan.

        Peter again you enthuse me, Adeste fideles!

        • AlanGiles

          To pluck one example from Mr Crudas’s verbosity: I cannot recall a time when a party in OPPOSITION has posited the idea of decentralisation, however when they get into government they like to be in control of things.
          It was ever this.
          When you win the 2015 election it will be because of the absolute crassness of the coalition and it’s intolerance and stupidity, it will have nothing to do with JCs pseudo-intellectual outpourings.

      • aracataca

        Correct Peter.
        When asked the question: ‘What do you think are the consequences of the French Revolution?’
        Chou En Lai replied ‘It’s far to early to tell’
        IMHO we are entering the end game of the neo-liberal ‘revolution’ that began around 1980 and staring at ten to fifteen years of zero growth.

  • Pingback: FODE* | Councillor Bob Piper

  • Pingback: Cruddas sets One Nation Labour on path to government | Shifting Grounds

  • Pingback: Yesterday’s failures threaten Labour revival: Replace Liam Byrne! | Winstanley

Latest

  • Comment I’m on the frontline against UKIP and the Tories

    I’m on the frontline against UKIP and the Tories

    Hello! My name is Naushabah Khan. I’m a keen kickboxer, and I’m on the frontline against UKIP and the Tories. Will you join me? I’m the Labour candidate in Rochester and Strood. Mark Reckless defected to UKIP — now we’re in a three-way fight with two right-wing parties and the by-election is on 20th November. I really need you in my corner in the next five weeks. Support has started to flood in already. We’re trying to do something different […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Labour need to go further on the National Minimum Wage, say LabourList readers

    Labour need to go further on the National Minimum Wage, say LabourList readers

    At the start of the week, Alan Milburn the former Labour minister who now chairs the commission on social mobility and child poverty said that Labour’s plan for the National Minimum Wage wasn’t ambitious enough. The party leadership – who have said that they would ensure the minimum wage would be £8 by 2020 – responded to this criticism by deeming it “plainly absurd” and defending their proposed policy as more ambitious than the Tories’. But we wanted to know […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Britain needs to renegotiate its relationship with the real world

    Britain needs to renegotiate its relationship with the real world

    British politics is peculiarly dominated by the relationship between this country and the rest of the world. Margaret Thatcher’s politics were led by the effort to restore Britain’s global prestige. Since then the EU and foreign wars have divided opinion, and hastened the downfall of two Prime Ministers. They may very well undermine third. The political storm of our day comes from the rise of a party interested– it seems –in little other than severing our relationship to Europe. Every […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe McFadden’s appointment comes at a time of big opportunity for Labour on Europe

    McFadden’s appointment comes at a time of big opportunity for Labour on Europe

    Pat McFadden is taking over the Europe brief just at the time when the issue can work in Labour’s favour. Provided we hold to Ed Miliband’s decision not to cave in to the calls to offer an in-out referendum. Europe is again becoming toxic for the Tories. How Cameron must be looking back wistfully to that time when he told his party to stop banging on about Europe. That’s exactly what it is now doing. And it’s largely his own […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The Next Portillo Moment

    The Next Portillo Moment

    Undoubtedly the highlight of election night ‘97 was seeing Labour record the unlikeliest of victories where I live in Enfield Southgate. We did it through hard work, at the time all three Enfield seats were blue and though the Labour swing meant that Edmonton and Enfield North were going red regardless it took a special campaign lead by an extraordinarily good candidate in Stephen Twigg to record what was an iconic victory in the Party’s history. We held the seat […]

    Read more →