Articles tagged with: Jon Cruddas
David Laws, Greg Clark and Jon Cruddas crossed swords over equality in the UK tonight at an event in parliament to launch a new Centre Forum publication. A cross party consensus emerged in favour of equality but Cruddas demands John Rawls’ democratic equality, while Laws and Clark seemed satisfied with the less exacting principle of equal opportunities. In fact, the dividing line in British politics over equality may come back to Rawls to such an extent that it is entirely captured in the second principle of justice offered in A Theory of Justice (1971). This principle holds that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that:
a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).
b.) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
It wasn’t expressed in these terms but Laws and Clark might be said to be content with b) alone. But a) and b) are required for Cruddas. The way that Rawls still colours these debates would frustrate David Miller who sees the pre-eminent position of Rawls within liberal Anglo-American philosophy as contributing “to the way in which theorising about social justice has become detached from questions of political feasibility”. A debate amongst politicians may be less theoretically robust than most which the likes of Miller engage in, but, at least, it inevitability contains the focus upon political feasibility that Miller seeks. Centre Forum are to be congratulated for bringing a cross party mix to debates such as these. Perhaps the next step would be to introduce someone like Miller into proceedings? Extra spice for the cocktail?
I am intrigued by what he would have made of the debate. The divide between the Labour MP, Cruddas, and his Liberal Democrat and Tory interlockers, Laws and Clark, respectively, also asserted itself on the way in which the economic recession will impact political feasibility. Laws concurred with Robert Reich’s diagnosis of “socialism for the bankers and capitalism for everyone else“, though he seemed pleased with this and Reich isn’t. Both Laws and Clark stressed the challenge of tackling inequality amidst the tightening public finances that coming years are likely to witness. Cruddas seemed less concerned by these tightening finances. Indeed, he appeared somewhat excited by the prospects for a new, less economically liberal era that he sees as being born on 15 September 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Though, like Ed Balls, he expressed concern that these tumultuous times may aid the far right.
The thought that occurred to me in respect of political feasibility was one of the lessons contained in Paul Krugman’s The Conscience of a Liberal (2008). When Bill Gates walks into a bar the average income of the bar’s patrons shoots up, but the individuals in the bar are no better off than before, which is more or less what has happened to US living standards since the 1970s; all those below the 90th percentile of the income distribution received a below average increase in income. While Labour’s policies since 1997 have contributed towards a fairer distribution than this in the UK, the majoritarian argument for redistribution that follows from Krugman’s analysis potentially opens up a new fertile territory here. It is welcome to see three politicians from three different parties come together to debate how those at the bottom of the income scale might be helped. However, if the inequality debate could be reconfigured as one that is not only about those at the bottom of the income scale but also about seeking an economic system that improves the living standards of the typical (median) citizen, in contrast to the super rich at the top of the income scale, then this debate may have far more political traction. If this were to happen, New Labour would have a narrative on equality to take to ‘middle Britain’, with the policy responses being correspondingly more ambitious. In the context of the row over bankers’ bonuses, the possibility that such a narrative and policy package might be constructed seems more feasible than it did previously.
“This was the week in which Labour lost the next election”, according to Matthew d’Ancona. A coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems is the best response, thinks Sunder Katwala, while Matthew Taylor suggests a, “radical departure from past practice. How about declaring a unilateral political ceasefire?” John Prescott was spitting feathers in a wholly absurd and unnecessary fashion with Taylor. Presumably, he is at least as angry with Katwala. But, at least, Prescott wants to fight this war; the next general election.
Danny Finkelstein suggests that Ed Balls is briefing against Ed Miliband as part of the next war; the race to be the next leader of the Labour Party. Balls, allegedly, wants to be the candidate of the left in this contest, though I can’t see him usurping Jon Cruddas from this position. Given that Labour could well swing leftwards in opposition, as a Blair/Brown backlash occurs against a backdrop of continued economic struggles, this is a position from which Cruddas could be victorious.
This is an outcome which is unlikely to delight either of the Eds, but the extent of Labour’s leftward swing in opposition may be directly proportionate to Cameron’s majority. Labour Party discipline will be easier to maintain if the party feels itself to be closer to a return to government. So the Ballses and the Milibands may best fight their next war (i.e. the Labour leadership election) by focusing entirely upon this war (i.e. the general election). In this much, Prescott is right. But, I think, there is more to be said for Taylor’s suggestion than he thinks. Certainly, the public appetite now is very much for sincere and strategic leadership, not political game playing. While I am not quite sure how one goes about “a unilateral political ceasefire”, Charles Clarke would seem to have suggested a good place to start.
“Surely it would be better both for Labour and for the country if the prime minister were now to announce the date of the next general election (my preference would be 6 May 2010). That would show confidence in the government’s economic approach, rebut any allegation that Labour was trying to manipulate economic decisions for party advantage and remove the rampant speculation around election timing which can erode the clarity and direction of the government’s leadership”.
