Cruddas and Purnell (who is a colleague….) are central to this re-engineering of the left. They get it.

I’m not sure that, other than a fetish for syllables, there is really too much difference between institutions and norms – though I do accept the latter has certain rhetorical value. Also, the point that norms can be highly contested becomes axiomatic the more you continue to undermine them – which perhaps explains disastrous governmental social policy particularly with regards immigration.

I’ve blogged (lots!) before on the social liberalism vs social conservatism point, and the the polarisation (which is starting to ape America?) is something to be lamented – on this I wholly agree. However, one soon gets into a web of difficult-to-define terms, and as you suggest, it is easy to end up depicting things as polar opposites when in reality they may be bed-fellows – social conservatives can be liberals too, and vice-versa, as history more than bears witness to. Indeed, I think the conflict that arises is with what liberalism has come to mean for a certain clique of people today – basically a radically individualistic libertarianism (paradoxically with a strong state needed to police it).

As for Cruddas, I am a fan. And as a RC and a (broadly speaking) communitarian, it’s exciting that he – and Purnell of course – are starting to recognise that liberalism, in its modern form particularly, does not necessarily sit comfortably within the Labour tradition. I tend to think the battle for the future of the party is slowly grinding into motion – I know who I would like to win!

And you are right that liberals fail to adequately recognise what you describe as ‘social norms.’ I prefer to describe them as institutions for a very simple reason. Actually, there is a cultural clash between what we can describe as social liberalism and social conservatism. The problem is that social liberals often take a condescending and elitist view-point whereas social conservatives tend to describe their outlook as ‘norms’ when, in fact, it is not a ‘norm’ at all and is highly contested.

Now, my own view is that in any head-on cultural fight I’m going to come down on the side of individual liberty over any communitarian notion. However, that does not mean that I don’t see the importance of social institutions- e.g. marriage, community. I do see the importance in emotional, cultural and functional terms. I do not think for a moment that the state can replace those things.

There must be a negotiated settlement here and the only way to reach it is to ensure open dialogue in an equal and democratic forum. Then the differences may not be as great as first appears. Without that, there does seem to be a dangerous process of political polarisation taking place on certain social and cultural issues. This is one of the pressing concerns in politics currently…and something I intend to do more to think and write about but it will take time to work through all this. Hopefully many more voices join the discussion.

Interestingly, one of those will be Jon Cruddas……see New Statesman:

“I’m interested in reciprocity, in duty, in a sense of obligation to others,” Cruddas counters. “Labour, because it was captured by the focus group, has lost that ethic of community, responsibility, obligation. This is difficult language for the liberal.”

Well, my view, whether you’d describe me as liberal or not, is that he’s on to something.

It always appears to me that the cultural edge of ‘working class’ resentment tends to be downplayed, or at least explained away as just the inarticulate outpourings of a community who don’t have enough access to certain resources (jobs, houses, NHS etc.). At times you tend to do the same – and at others you seem to recognise there is more to it than mere economics, even if you don’t then follow this through and address what this ‘more’ might be (this openness is what makes your pieces so much more interesting than the self-absorbed and smug ramblings of certain ‘progressives’ out there)

Your comment ‘Without an awareness of the parameters of social change… liberal attitudes come under threat’ is, to my mind, the seminal point, and whilst your beef with market forces is something I entirely agree with, it would be interesting for the left to draw out the debate a little on this – and question whether its ideological attack on so many social norms and values, laughably in the name of liberty, have been well placed (I know many on the left will simply deny any such attack – it which case it needs to show why the instincts of so many are wrong).