Credo of a pragmatic idealist

Some time ago I filled in a questionnaire for Compass as part of the input for their excellent, if controversial, publication, The  Good Society (a review of which can be accessed on the Progress home page).The questionnaire covered all aspects of the kind of society we should be aiming for and in the belief that my answers might be of interest to a wider audience I am reproducing them here, with the kind permission of Compass. My overall stance is what I call "pragmatic idealism", which inevitably means that some will see my responses as too pragmatic whilst others will regard them as too idealistic. What do YOU think?

1 What do you think are (or will be) the five or six principles that a good social democrat government should use to guide it?

1Sustainability.                                                                                                                                    

2 Promoting individual and social well-being (encompassing a better work-life balance and harmonious human relationships).

3 More democracy and a greater distribution of power.

4  Equipping people to use the aforesaid in a responsible manner.

5 Greater equality

2 What do you think are (or will be) the key issues the democratic left needs to deal with in the next 20 or 30 years?

1 Effectively addressing global warming by reining back rampant consumerism.

2 Securing and holding on to power in an increasingly selfish, acquisitive and competitive society.

3 Achieving the right balance between personal liberty and protection from anti-social behaviour and terrorism.

4 Raising public consciousness on the major issues in a materialistic society dominated by trivial distractions.

5 Getting the media to act in a more responsible way (to enable democracy to work properly).

3 If you could enact three policies what would they be?

1 A properly formulated 35 hour week.

2 The compulsory introduction of logical thinking, emotional intelligence, and life skills into the school curriculum.

3 Stringent controls on advertising.

4 How should we approach the issue of immigration?

By thinking it through in an ideologically -free manner in terms of the ability of the indigenous population to accomodate greater numbers and different cultures at any one time (taking  account of the local "carrying" capacities and prevailing levels of consciousness).

5 How should we govern our public services? What should be the role of the private providers?

Public/private provision should be determined by what works best to achieve the desired outcome and by what people are prepared to pay in taxes. Thus if people are not prepared to pay the higher taxes required for having an excellent school or hospital in every neighbourhood then the government has to be more discriminating about how limited public funds are to be used, bringing in the private sector to supplement them if necessary. PFI's are acceptable if the end result is an affordable, better service even if someone is making a profit in the process.

6 What are the key implications of environmental sustainability for policy? In particular what can we do as a country unilaterally?

The main implication is that we shall all have to learn to live with less than what profit-hungry Big Business is trying to foist upon us.. As a country we can set an example by aiming for a higher all round quality of life even if this makes us slightly less competitive and produces a slightly lower material standard of living than would have otherwise been the case.

7 How should we pay for what we want to do? What can we tax and in what way?

By ceasing to refer to the tax burden and recognising that taxes are the price we pay for civilisation. We should tax the "bads" in society whilst ensuring that this does not adversely affect the worst off.

8 How should Labour reform itself in order to take social democratic politics forward?

The Labour Party should continue reforms designed to ensure that it will not be hi-jacked by ideologically -pure zealots who seem to prefer the freedom of opposition to the responsibilities of power. We should identify with progressive causes but resist utopian demands. Always rember that politics is the art of the possible and that the search for perfection is the enemy of the possible.

Comments

[el Tom]

This looks pretty good to me. It's not rabidly radical, but contains pragmatic measures which would at least address the issue of direction, in terms of where our society is aiming in it's development. This is something which I feel that the government has thematically lacked since the 2001 election.

Really, that should represent the big core aim of Compass as a group.

I'm a massive Compassite, but I want the organisation to continue finding new answers to the new problems we face (often much as a result of the government's own measures). Compass must not become a battering ram of the more unsavoury elements of the left. The good thing about it has always been that it is radical, critical, activist and most importantly, sane. This is what really sets it apart from the old left.

The only point I would really take issue with is the balancing of rights point. I'm not saying that it's impossible to do, but the way that policticians have used such discourse has been reflected in real life 'reforms' where balance has been attempted on true dichotomies, internment without trial being the prime example (this is actually the topic of my dissertation).

Apart from that, rather surprisingly, your own thoughts on the topics start from a relatively similar point to my own, though one would probably not be able to tell from the opposite conclusions we draw on the Cmpass message boards.