Skip to main content

Big Picture Labour vs Pragmatic Labour

I think Labour folk fall broadly into two camps:

1. BIG PICTURE LABOUR. These folk look at the social and economic trajectory of 100 years plus, and believe that:

(i) Immediately after WW2, a huge shift took place that gave rights, social security, NHS, etc. to ordinary working people who, pre-War, had been horribly exploited.

(ii) However, this shift was against the prevailing social and economic direction of travel, which tends always to run back towards Victorian levels of social injustice and inequality.

(iii) The last half century or so has seen our social and economic train increasingly returning back to the Victorian situation, with it moving faster under Tories, slower under 'New' Labour (who merely applied the brakes a bit).


(iv) Reversing the train may be achievable (indeed, many of the aims - nationalised rail/utilitIes, free university education, generous benefits system etc. are available elsewhere in successful economies - Scandanavia for example).

It is certainly worth the risk to try, because the alternative, with either Tory or PRAGMATIC LABOUR Government, is that we end up at the same place - Victorian Britain - we just get there at different speeds.

(v) Reversing the train is THE most important political issue. It is more important than Brexit. For Labour to scupper Brexit now would be to lose the support of the working people that they need.

2. PRAGMATIC LABOUR. These folk believe:

(i) Change of the sort desired by BIG PICTURE LABOUR outlined above is radical, and is neither required nor desirable - or at least is not electorally achievable.

(ii) Labour's aim and duty must be to do what can be done in the short term to improve the lot of working people. That means keeping Big Business and Rupert Murdoch on board at least as far as possible. Not to do what can be done for working folk - to chase after the pie-in-the-sky vision of BIG PICTURE LABOUR folk - would be to *betray those working people*.

(iii) Under PRAGMATIC LABOUR Government, many real benefits for working people were achieved. None of that would have been achieved had the Party pursued the BIG PICTURE LABOUR agenda. BIG PICTURE LABOUR ignore this.

(iv) Brexit is a disaster that will harm our economy and the lives of ordinary working people more than almost anything else. Therefore it must be stopped, and Labour should now commit to stopping it.

Does this sound right? I know there are folk who fail to fall into either camp, but it seems to me that, say, 85% of Labour folk fall into one or other.

POSTSCRIPT

Why do I think that Labour's scuppering Brexit would scupper BIG PICTURE LABOUR'S train-reversing project? Because the working class folk whose support Labour need are predominantly Brexit and indeed are currently so emotionally committed to Brexit that Labour's scuppering Brexit would be seen by them as an unforgivable betrayal. I also think that the Press would use this against Labour very effectively. Labour, as a party rooted in the working class, would be finished.

What Labour Remain need to do is refocus the anger and frustration that led to w/c support for Brexit where it properly belongs. This will take time. So they need to play the long game. 
 
BTW I fear that if you block Brexit now, that anger and frustration will fuel fascism instead. I really fear that. I think that is the worst-case outcome (and the most likely outcome if Labour block Brexit).

Comments

Martin Freedman said…
Always wary of a simple dichotomy for something more complex, but I do not think you were arguing for that here. Still I think there is ... ahem... a third way (Not The Third Way!)

So I feel the Big Picture Labour is correct for some but missing the point for others.

Lets us call it a new radical progressive Big Picture. On the surface it has many of the same goals as your Big Picture Labour but the means to implement it are different and are based on evidence-based policies especially including in economics such as MMT and not a reversion to an old school post war bastardised keynesianism.
Martin Freedman said…
I think the choice is between Pragmatic (Neoliberal-light), Big Picture("Keynesianism") and ..you can give it a name.. New Progressive (Post Keynesian/MMT (not just anti-Neoliberal but also anti- bastard Keynesianism)).

Popular posts from this blog

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o