The controversy in Haringey shows that, for all that politicians claim their policies to be neutral, that's not how politics works.
In an interview following her resignation as leader of Haringey Council last week, Claire Kober provided one of the most concise summaries of a politics first popularised in the UK by Tony Blair (under the influence of ‘Third Way’ sociologist Anthony Giddens) – the ideology of ‘pragmatism’:
“I’m quite a practical, pragmatic person in all areas of my life. My politics are defined by an approach of: ‘Here’s a problem, let’s solve it.’
“But we’re now in a political context that is much more ideological. And my politics aren’t the right politics for that time. So you’re either in denial about that, or you accept it, and say it’s time to move on.”
‘Blairism’, ‘centrism’, the rise of the ‘Spads’ and self-proclaimed ‘policy wonks’, were pervasive trends under successive New Labour governments and continued under the coalition government of 2010-15.
These trends rested on the assumption, made explicit by Blair, that ‘ideology’ was ‘dead’, and that the work of progressive government – local and national – is to find left-of-centre solutions that are more rational (because they help more people at lower cost) than the alternatives.
In recent years, wonks in fields like public service design and ‘user experience’ have dumbed this politics down yet further, opting simply for the term ‘what works’.
The coalition, for instance, created the ‘What Works Network’, which ‘uses evidence to make better decisions to improve public services’. This brash phrase, issued by local and national level politicians, is meant to make us think them vigorous and practical – people who get things done, and don’t ‘play politics’ with key policy areas. Yet the claim by politicians to be only interested in ‘what works’ reeks of arrogance and narrow-mindedness.
How can politicians be so sure of their own rational judgement? Can they honestly believe they have alighted upon the perfect policy solutions to a given problem?
Though it certainly introduced some key redistributive and social democratic policies, laying claim to a ‘post-ideological’ politics meant that in government the British party of the left – Labour – played straight into the hands of the dogma that had animated the New Right in the 1970s and ‘80s: neoliberalism.
Inspired by Friedrich Hayek’s and Milton Friedman’s moralising injunctions to displace collective forms of public life with market mechanisms, the ideology was not perfected, as many leftists imagine, under the Reagan and Thatcher administrations but rather, as the late Stuart Hall saw, under the Clinton and Blair ones – and then through the self-styled ‘heir to Blair’ David Cameron.
The social rejection of ‘expertise’ in the run-up to the UK’s 2016 referendum on EU membership was often exaggerated by those – like Michael Gove – with vested interests. It is not expertise itself that people are tired of, but rather the way it is portrayed.
Expertise in the fields of policy and economy is invariably and inescapably politically partisan. It was the neoliberal hubris and Third Way ‘pragmatist’ arrogance of laying claim to ‘neutral’ political-economic expertise that led to the economic crisis of 2008-present.
The more recent, correlative political crisis of 2016 to the present is a result of people’s disillusionment with precisely the politics of pragmatism.
Why this matters is that ‘what works’ never works for everyone. Every policy works better for some people than for others. The privatised redevelopment of Haringey could work well for the young, middle class white people who have been moving to the area in recent years. It might not work so well for many who are already there.
At a Stop HDV demonstration last year, I witnessed an older, lifelong resident of the borough, breaking down as she addressed the small but dedicated group of protestors. She spoke of her love for Tottenham Hotspur, of how she had always sought to live close to the stadium at White Hart Lane, and cried as she talked about the plans to demolish her home and forcibly relocate her.
What the political pragmatists need to wake up to is that their pragmatism invariably reflects their privilege. The effects of policy choices are uneven, and are experienced structurally. Ideology never died, and people are tired of the conceit of the self-proclaimed pragmatists.
There is no ‘neutral’ policy in politics. That, in a nutshell, is why ‘what works’ won’t work anymore.
Dr Ben Whitham is a Lecturer in International Relations at De Montfort University, and is Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (AFHEA).
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
8 Responses to “What the drama in Haringey shows us about ‘pragmatic’ politics”
nhsgp
=== key redistributive and social democratic policies,
You redistributed all the poor’s pension contributions. Spent the lot.
Now you owe the poor trillions for the trillions they paid in, and since you spent the money you have no assets to pay. See Norway’s SWF.
Look at taxes. 30% of taxes go on the debts.
Wealth inequality – caused by your policies
Austerity public and private – caused by your polices
Pensioner poverty caused by your policies.
Forget “What works”.
It’s what doesn’t work. More of the same is the disaster.
Michael
The question is not only “What works,” but “for whom does it work, and why does it work.” Do we nationalise industries because that will solve a problem, or because we think that’s what socialism is? Anything else is , like this article, bullshit.
Martyn Wood-Bevan
It teaches me that dishonesty is rife in politics – lets blame all the world’s problems on Democratic Socialists who get called everything under the sun because they oppose neoliberalism and right-wing people pretending to be democratic moderates. Misusing the corrupt right-wing MSM is a disgrace and such people should be expelled from the Labour Party.
patrick newman
Who is not in favour of a pragmatic approach to political intentions. The issue is Cui Bono. When Labour gets into power it will have to take a pragmatic approach to implementing its policies but those policies must benefit those who have been damaged by 8 years of ideologically Right-wing government (even with the LD’s onboard) those whose needs have been frustrated by the laissez-faire free-market economic policies. I thought the last Labour manifesto was pragmatic in detail and costings but there is always room for improvement and elaboration.
Lawman
I wonder if the appropriate vow is “both/ and” but with a social, economic and political philosophy as the starting point.
Much good was done during the ‘New Labour’ years, but – like many party members – I became disillusioned at the compromise with liberalism and big business, while our core constituency was neglected.
The 1945-51 governments are good examples of having a vision – socialism – and then implementing it in a practical manner. What made it remarkable was that the UK was bankrupt in 1945.
Looking ahead, I am greatly encouraged by the outline of Labour’s future economic policy.
Now the ‘what works and is practical’ aspect comes into play. To borrow long term at low fixed interest rates makes sense; but not if it goes so far as to cause the UK to be considered an economic pariah.
Thus we shall need to do 3 things:
(1) prioritize
(2) persuade the electorate of the benefit of our plans
(3) avoid unnecessary distractions e.g. internal factions or expending effort on obscure irrelevant causes.
Of course I may be wrong.