Jon Cruddas establishes a frame for reform of power as a choice between Tony Crosland and Michael Young. Crosland espoused the old centralism with a bit of local agency delivery and consultation. Young called instead for a radical devolution of economic and political power. Crosland won and Labour remains wedded to the Croslandite political economy.
This is not just a story of Labour history. The British state has remained remarkably resilient in the face of enormous technological, economic and social disruption. New Labour flirted with the ethos of Young but ultimately chose betrothal to Crosland. But Thatcher was wedded to a Croslandite-esque statecraft too – minus the equality.
History repeats itself over and over again – until it doesn’t. Ed Miliband is currently flirting with both Crosland and Young. His Hugo Young lecture kept both hanging on. Unfortunately, statecraft is a choice. You can’t be a radical decentralist and central uniformist at the same time. Will the choice be different this time?
There is a better chance now than at any time since the war for three reasons. First, there is austerity and the future growth of dependency. If we want to secure greater impact for less or static public investment there needs to be some serious creative thinking – and that will have to happen beneath the national state. Second, there is a God that has failed. New Labour’s statecraft hit political, economic, and financial limits. Croslandism can only go so far before it unravels – and unravel it has. The gains in, for example, reducing poverty in the early 2000s have started to reverse. Finally, there is the alternative. If the choice facing the nation is smaller state versus bigger state then it is difficult to judge which way it will turn. If it’s smaller state versus smarter state then the odds that it will go for the latter are greater. On all three counts, Croslandism has reached its limits as a vehicle for social justice.
The key passage of Cruddas’ speech is where he talks about a new, open politics and commits Labour in the following way to a restructuring of power:
‘-We will redesign the relationship between central and local government to spread power out to our cities and regions.
‘-We will reform our economy to support business in wealth creation and support workers for a fair reward for their labour.
‘-We will be radical in challenging injustice, unaccountable institutions, and all vested interests whether in the private or the public sector.’
If this is the core Labour proposition in 2015 it is a convincing one. It will be a late triumph for Michael Young. It is a radical and tough proposition. Finding a policy and political package to attach to it is challenging. So be it – the challenging route is the more rewarding. For all.
———————————————————
Anthony Painter is a contributing editor to Progress and author of Left Without a Future? Social Justice in Anxious Times
———————————————————
Were this to happen, it would really be a game-changer.
But the cynic in me suggests that, in reality, Whitehall always trumps Town Hall .
If anyone can make it happen, I think Jon Cruddas can – and I really want to see how it might be made to work.
I agree. Ian’s comments above show exactly how Whitehall blocks things. That’s why we need a workable change plan. The starting point for that is an acknowledgement that much of the current system is wasteful, disempowering, designed around structures rather than need, and too far from where actual needs and demands are expressed. Then you start to think of real alternatives in a different light rather than just saying ‘what doesn’t happen can’t work’. You are then at the starting point…..which is where Cruddas is.
“redesign the relationship between central and local government…” How?
“reform our economy to support business…etc” How?
“Radical in challenging injustice” How?
A very timely discussion at a moment in England when the population does not want localities but Central Government to organise help. They shop in nationwide in supermarkets where they expect the same goods at the same prices everywhere and they expect the same of services in health care. They are fed up with being told to choose an electricity supplier from a gang who confuses them with a multiplicity of tariffs
They are Fabians not Progress or Compass. They want to get on with ‘Life’
Do they have a good school round every corner? And what do they mean by ‘good’? Ofsted good? So each and every patient expects the same thing from the NHS? And do they get it? (have you looked at UK cancer survival rates recently?) And when it goes wrong, they want the state just to step it in and make it OK?
Quite quickly the flaws of the ‘one-size-fits-all’ state with passive citizens is revealed. Then what you consider uniform expectations end up being quite different. We all want a God that just makes us happy but once we know that God doesn’t exist then we start to ask some less utopian questions. That’s when you start to get involved or want to be involved. The failures of Fabianism are one of the drivers of the need for a more active, more decentralised state.
Answers to you questions:
a) Schools.. not at the moment,… one that they think is educates their children,…. yes Ofsted is a good start ( I was a School Governor for seven years) but it is not uniformity in the French fashion. Of course ‘every child counts’
b) NHS yes, they expect expert treatment delivered with empathy and care everywhere.. (As recent in elective surgery patient I observed the process could have worked better.) Even more they expect to be ‘put right.’ (as I expect my garage to do to my car.)
c) It depends what you mean by the “State” I do think the State is responsible for seeing that the objective is met just Waitrose management is responsible for delivering customer expectations.
d) In both of these fields I think the expectations I have set are universally acceptable.
e) In real life ‘one size core’ provision ‘does fit all.’ and more over guarentees outcomes. Its the ‘fripperies’ which differ.
f) I don’t know what God has to do with this But I notice that feeding a large crowd was effectively organised by His followers on two occasions and the litter cleared up afterwards.
g) People expect schools and hospitals not to require their involvement any more than supermarkets do though volunteers are welcome. My point is people have better things to do than “to be involved`’ .In any case they are quite ofter choose to be involved in the so called ‘third sector.’