|
Post by SouthStandShrew on Jul 22, 2015 11:13:00 GMT 1
Nice to see the old cannon Blair being brought out to scare people voting Corbyn.
Who next Lords Kinnock and Two Jags?
Still in shock with Kendalls comments that Palestine shouldn't of been recognised.
One extreme to the other with Labour.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 22, 2015 11:29:15 GMT 1
Personally think Labour need to adopt the Corbyn stance of actually providing an alternative to the Tories and their farcical laws and inept chancellor. Trying to be more Tory won't get Labour my vote, won't get them plenty of others' votes and will hardly convince many alienated voters that there is a point in voting. Prefer Corbyn's economic stance - he needs to to be well backed up, but most prominent economists are of the view that austerity isn't beneficial. Having a clear, anti-austerity message was what got the SNP their tidal wave of support and is what would convince me to vote Labour in 5 years time.
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Jul 22, 2015 12:44:07 GMT 1
Personally think Labour need to adopt the Corbyn stance of actually providing an alternative to the Tories and their farcical laws and inept chancellor. Trying to be more Tory won't get Labour my vote, won't get them plenty of others' votes and will hardly convince many alienated voters that there is a point in voting. Prefer Corbyn's economic stance - he needs to to be well backed up, but most prominent economists are of the view that austerity isn't beneficial. Having a clear, anti-austerity message was what got the SNP their tidal wave of support and is what would convince me to vote Labour in 5 years time. I think you will find what ACTUALLY got the SNP their support was Labour joining forces with the others to oppose the Referendum.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 22, 2015 12:48:49 GMT 1
Personally think Labour need to adopt the Corbyn stance of actually providing an alternative to the Tories and their farcical laws and inept chancellor. Trying to be more Tory won't get Labour my vote, won't get them plenty of others' votes and will hardly convince many alienated voters that there is a point in voting. Prefer Corbyn's economic stance - he needs to to be well backed up, but most prominent economists are of the view that austerity isn't beneficial. Having a clear, anti-austerity message was what got the SNP their tidal wave of support and is what would convince me to vote Labour in 5 years time. I think you will find what ACTUALLY got the SNP their support was Labour joining forces with the others to oppose the Referendum. Odd point of view. Labour would, therefore, have expected to get close to 55% of votes in Scotland as most of the "no" voters would have voted Labour, as backed up by the previous election results. They got nowhere near that, though. Plenty of SNP supporters in the election voted no in the referendum, and plenty of non-Scots took the same point of view as I did - if the SNP were a party across the whole of Britain, they'd have got my vote.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 22, 2015 12:57:38 GMT 1
Personally think Labour need to adopt the Corbyn stance of actually providing an alternative to the Tories and their farcical laws and inept chancellor. Trying to be more Tory won't get Labour my vote, won't get them plenty of others' votes and will hardly convince many alienated voters that there is a point in voting. Prefer Corbyn's economic stance - he needs to to be well backed up, but most prominent economists are of the view that austerity isn't beneficial. Having a clear, anti-austerity message was what got the SNP their tidal wave of support and is what would convince me to vote Labour in 5 years time. Even if Corbyn wins (which I sincerely hope he does) I can only him lasting a few months before the Parliamentary Labour party led the Blairites force a vote of no confidence. If that were to happen it would see the beginning of the end of the Labour party, as more and more people look for an alternative to Tory Lite policies. This will see many Labour supporters head to the Greens, as they were the only party in England to put forward anti-austerity ideas at the last election and they will become (along with the nationalist parties) the true opposition, which Labour hadn't been under Milliband and aren't again now under Harman.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 22, 2015 13:04:30 GMT 1
I think you will find what ACTUALLY got the SNP their support was Labour joining forces with the others to oppose the Referendum. Plenty of SNP supporters in the election voted no in the referendum, and plenty of non-Scots took the same point of view as I did - if the SNP were a party across the whole of Britain, they'd have got my vote. My thoughts exactly. If Labour could find someone half as good as Nicola Sturgeon to lead them they would stroll the next election and maybe even win back some of Scotland. If not I think that Scotland will be lost to Labour for a very long time and probably a very large chunk of England too.
|
|
|
O/T Blair
Jul 22, 2015 13:07:13 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by heavyglow on Jul 22, 2015 13:07:13 GMT 1
I think you will find what ACTUALLY got the SNP their support was Labour joining forces with the others to oppose the Referendum. Odd point of view. Labour would, therefore, have expected to get close to 55% of votes in Scotland as most of the "no" voters would have voted Labour, as backed up by the previous election results. They got nowhere near that, though. Woah, woah, woah. You're stark raving mad mate. Tone down the outlandish histrionics and put your toys back in the pram. Even when Labour were getting most of the Scottish seats, their share of the vote was often below 50%. Therefore your sum of 55% x 100% = 55% is a little over-simplified.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Jul 22, 2015 13:19:49 GMT 1
Labour seem to be adopting the Neil Kinnock post-election mentality of "we lost the election because everyone who didn't vote for us was wrong".
The electorate in this country firmly shut the door in the face of red Ed and his regressive leftist ideals because they clearly didn't want them, surely the last thing this joke of a party should be doing is steering further into the abyss of extremist left wing politics and appointing this relic as their leader.
Blair is right, Labour will be unelectable for a generation if they go down this road. I certainly won't be complaining.
Maybe listening to the most successful leader you've ever had isn't such a bad ideal after all.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 22, 2015 13:20:50 GMT 1
Evidently so, decidedly sane friend. But that's not remotely how my calculation was done. Clearly it's a rather arbitrary calculation, but if people were only voting SNP because of Labour's "no" stance, would the majority of others not have voted Labour because of their "no stance"? I'm perfectly aware that it doesn't stack up, mate, and thought the nature of the post was clear.
Evidently and unfortunately not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 13:44:25 GMT 1
Tony Blair won 3 general elections. One even after one of the most contentious wars in history that still divides people. If it wasn't for him and his vision, labour would never have freed the country from 17 bleak years of tory rule. Mistakes where made there is no doubt, but anyone thinking that the countries ready for a Green Party revolution or snp like power switch is frankly deluded. The whole idea of a mass social conscience or common good died long ago.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jul 22, 2015 14:06:50 GMT 1
Tony Blair won 3 general elections. One even after one of the most contentious wars in history that still divides people. If it wasn't for him and his vision, labour would never have freed the country from 17 bleak years of tory rule. Mistakes where made there is no doubt, but anyone thinking that the countries ready for a Green Party revolution or snp like power switch is frankly deluded. The whole idea of a mass social conscience or common good died long ago. Blair also lost The Labour Party 4 million votes during his premiership and deliberatley moved the party away from its traditional values and aims. This Corbyn debate is very interesting - and indeed i think needed - for party members to really have a say in how we want the party to go in the future. I dont for one minute think he will be successful but it may just shake up those with in the hierarchy who seemed to think that all thay had to do was stand for election and it would be a done deal. It may also have the desired effect of removing the odious Liz Kendalll from any position of inflence for the foreseeable future ! Personally, i shall vote for Corbyn on the grounds that he may just shake the whole party and restore some of its core values. the flip side of that is that if elected he wouldnt win the next election, but then The Labour Party wont win that whoever is the leader. For me it's Corbyn to do what is necessary and then make way for a serious prime minister candiadte at a later date
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jul 22, 2015 14:40:18 GMT 1
It's all so depressing, every prospect of at least another 10 years of Tory rule.
Even as someone sympathetic to Labour I couldn't vote for any of the third raters running for the leadership. Corbyn is the new Michael Foot. The idea that Labour lost because they were not left wing enough is ludicrous, but not as daft as voting for someone even more left wing.
The one thing likely to blow the Tories off course is another massive financial crash which is being predicted by some economists. Not a lot to be cheerful about on the politics/economics front.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 22, 2015 15:09:49 GMT 1
Tony Blair won 3 general elections. One even after one of the most contentious wars in history that still divides people. If it wasn't for him and his vision, labour would never have freed the country from 17 bleak years of tory rule. Mistakes where made there is no doubt, but anyone thinking that the countries ready for a Green Party revolution or snp like power switch is frankly deluded. The whole idea of a mass social conscience or common good died long ago. By and large, my political thoughts are based on the economic principles and ideals of the parties, as that's the aspect I'm knowledgeable enough to debate well on and make decisions on. Other aspects I'm happy to debate and have my views changed - the NHS being a prime example (originally against privatisation, now think if done well i.e. not how the tories have started it, then it may be for the best). Therefore, my reasons for backing Corbyn are solely based on his anti-austerity, left-wing economic principles. It's what I believe is ideal, rather than Osborne's posing or the "austerity lite" proposed by the 3 other candidates.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Jul 22, 2015 15:20:33 GMT 1
I think you will find what ACTUALLY got the SNP their support was Labour joining forces with the others to oppose the Referendum. Odd point of view. Labour would, therefore, have expected to get close to 55% of votes in Scotland as most of the "no" voters would have voted Labour, as backed up by the previous election results. They got nowhere near that, though. Plenty of SNP supporters in the election voted no in the referendum, and plenty of non-Scots took the same point of view as I did - if the SNP were a party across the whole of Britain, they'd have got my vote. The 55% who voted "no" aren't all Labour voters! If you look at the split in vote at the general election, the SNP won 50% of votes in Scotland. If you assume that all SNP voters voted for Independence that's up only 5% on the independence vote. You may have a few people that voted for independence but still voted for another party but, as minormorris was trying to point out, these parties are likely to have lost their vote due to their position taken during the independence vote, especially Labour.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 22, 2015 15:36:46 GMT 1
Odd point of view. Labour would, therefore, have expected to get close to 55% of votes in Scotland as most of the "no" voters would have voted Labour, as backed up by the previous election results. They got nowhere near that, though. Plenty of SNP supporters in the election voted no in the referendum, and plenty of non-Scots took the same point of view as I did - if the SNP were a party across the whole of Britain, they'd have got my vote. The 55% who voted "no" aren't all Labour voters! If you look at the split in vote at the general election, the SNP won 50% of votes in Scotland. If you assume that all SNP voters voted for Independence that's up only 5% on the independence vote. You may have a few people that voted for independence but still voted for another party but, as minormorris was trying to point out, these parties are likely to have lost their vote due to their position taken during the independence vote, especially Labour. No, see my response to heavyglow above. I evidently didn't word my response anywhere near well enough!
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 22, 2015 16:07:14 GMT 1
The only thing I'm certain about is that it's crazy to claim certainty about the outcome of an election that's five years and a million events away.
Is Corbyn too left wing? He might be, for those who think "Red Ed" was an accurate (and witty) tag, but most of us don't still live in the 1970s.
Are the Labour candidates no good? What would that judgment be based on, a few recent TV appearances? I'm sure a few months as opposition leader will strengthen whoever wins.
Are the Tories unbeatable? Not at all. Only two months since the election and the leadership jostling is underway, with the schism between Osborne/May and Johnson already showing. This will only increase, with Cameron increasingly becoming a lame duck PM as the years pass. Throw in the EU referendum, an issue that splits the Tories wide open, opposition to the continuation of austerity and divide & rule government (despite the "one nation" rhetoric), the growing possibility of a disastrous military engagement in Syria/Iraq and the seemingly endless economic frailty (here and abroad) and I wouldn't bank on anything in five years' time.
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on Jul 22, 2015 16:29:35 GMT 1
It is funny watching the Labour party crap itself about who may be the new leader when he was put up for nomination by their own people anyway. They got it badly wrong 5 years ago and might be doing the same again here.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jul 22, 2015 16:30:11 GMT 1
I spent quite a bit of time at Glastonbury speaking to "left thinking" people and I agree with Jamo I think this leadership debate is more about Labour re establishing the core values of their party, not necessarily about the next election
Blair was no doubt a very successful leader in terms of election success, but that was against a very weak opposition. What also happened was a decline in local decision making within the party and the ability to build up core local support through local councils, campaign groups and debates.
A new style of leadership can help rebalance that within the party and if devolution really does happen give the party a strong base in northern towns and cities and London to rebuild a power base and deliver local politics
Think the election result was down a series of issues. When people were polled the "left wing" ideas labour put forward were actually quite popular, and the Conservatives have actually just implemented two of their policies. Where Labour fell down was the total lack of clarity on these policies and a pretty poor presentation of their economic policy (which I'm not sure they even beloved in)
Think voting in a left wing leader will put labour back a few years, but in the long term would be better for them as a party and quite possibly for the nation as a whole. Really can't see a future for them as the Tory lite party they seem to be at the moment
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 22, 2015 16:54:50 GMT 1
Thought provoking post mattmw. I hope you're right, particularly with the suggestion that Labour might become a more devolved party with greater local support.
I think that goes further because there's a dearth of engagement with all the main parties, not just Labour. You only have to look at party membership figures to see that but we need our politics to be less remote and less presidential It shouldn't just be about leaders but too often it comes to that. I don't know whether that level of engagement can ever be recaptured but insipid, personality-free election campaigns based on fear of mistakes, media-friendly soundbites, cliches and the odd leaflet in the post inspire nobody. It's a battle just to avoid apathy.
But a healthy democracy always needs an opposition that can win the next election. If there's no realistic prospect of the government of the day being replaced before too long, then you don't have a functional democracy. It's a critical distinction - of course Tories should want to win the next election but they shouldn't want to see Labour "unelectable" unless there's a serious alternative which, at the moment, there isn't.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Jul 22, 2015 18:07:49 GMT 1
The 55% who voted "no" aren't all Labour voters! If you look at the split in vote at the general election, the SNP won 50% of votes in Scotland. If you assume that all SNP voters voted for Independence that's up only 5% on the independence vote. You may have a few people that voted for independence but still voted for another party but, as minormorris was trying to point out, these parties are likely to have lost their vote due to their position taken during the independence vote, especially Labour. No, see my response to heavyglow above. I evidently didn't word my response anywhere near well enough! I'm not sure what your saying no to? Your response to heavyglow made even less sense. "but if people were only voting SNP because of Labour's "no" stance, would the majority of others not have voted Labour because of their "no stance"? " No they wouldn't. Why would a tory or lib dem voter who voted against independence suddenly switch allegiances to Labour? I agree that many in Scotland felt that Labour had moved away from them, but at the heart of it was the fact that, if England votes conservative, Britain gets a conservative government (as proved this year). Independence would clearly give the left better representation and therefore the left in Scotland has moved to the SNP. Some believe that a more devolved Labour party may win back those voters. However, just look at the Lib Dems to see the failings of localised party's. The Lib Dems have, for many years, run very different campaigns in different areas of the country. Once they entered government they couldn't placate all of their electorate and this was partly responsible for their complete collapse. Labour failed because it didn't have a strong and coherent vision for the country. The party need to listen to the country rather than itself if they are going to build a compelling enough vision to win the next election. If you think we're in the same situation as Spain or Greece, where enough people were for pushed towards the political extremes, you're blind to the fact that middle England have not been hit anywhere near hard enough to take that chance. Venceremos suggests that a cataclysmic turn of events will swing Labour into power, but i'm sure they thought that after the last election when things were allot bleaker. With an unpopular government and a Euro crisis, Labour still went backwards. It'll take quite abit more to get Labour back in power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 18:39:25 GMT 1
idea of a mass social conscience or common good died long ago. Well I suppose it depends on what you classify as 'mass' but in recent history between 750000 to a million people marched in London over a war Blair facilitated. Then 10s of thousands turned out for the recent anti - austerity marches across the country. I'm part of two groups, one of which actively campaigns at a national level, and the other more locally. Very much a sense of 'mass' social conscience or common good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 19:43:42 GMT 1
Personally, i shall vote for Corbyn on the grounds that he may just shake the whole party and restore some of its core values. the flip side of that is that if elected he wouldnt win the next election, but then The Labour Party wont win that whoever is the leader. For me it's Corbyn to do what is necessary and then make way for a serious prime minister candiadte at a later date I have already voted for him, it was a £1 well spent
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jul 22, 2015 20:38:31 GMT 1
Personally, i shall vote for Corbyn on the grounds that he may just shake the whole party and restore some of its core values. the flip side of that is that if elected he wouldnt win the next election, but then The Labour Party wont win that whoever is the leader. For me it's Corbyn to do what is necessary and then make way for a serious prime minister candiadte at a later date I have already voted for him, it was a £1 well spent I thought it was £3 to join the Labour Party!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 20:58:12 GMT 1
I have already voted for him, it was a £1 well spent I thought it was £3 to join the Labour Party! I don't need to join, as ex forces we can vote for next leader for a quid, no way would i waste 3 on him!!
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jul 22, 2015 21:18:37 GMT 1
I thought it was £3 to join the Labour Party! I don't need to join, as ex forces we can vote for next leader for a quid, no way would i waste 3 on him!! Bargain then!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
O/T Blair
Jul 22, 2015 21:56:19 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 21:56:19 GMT 1
idea of a mass social conscience or common good died long ago. Well I suppose it depends on what you classify as 'mass' but in recent history between 750000 to a million people marched in London over a war Blair facilitated. Then 10s of thousands turned out for the recent anti - austerity marches across the country. I'm part of two groups, one of which actively campaigns at a national level, and the other more locally. Very much a sense of 'mass' social conscience or common good. So tell me, in comparison to the numbers that used to be part of the wider labour movement, how does 1,7million compare? Or in voting terms spread across the country. Don't forget that Mr Blair got re elected by the country after the war, so how does that compare to the million that marched? And truth be known, how far does that social conscience go? Does it extend to raising their taxes to provide more more for the less well off? I'm not so sure. I think the "I'm alright Jack" spirit is now in control amongst the vast majority and whilst I truly support the spirit and principles of the labour left, I genuinely don't believe the will or support is there amongst the masses. Britain has changed. The middle classes are the new mass movement and without them labour will win nothing.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 22, 2015 22:48:49 GMT 1
No, see my response to heavyglow above. I evidently didn't word my response anywhere near well enough! I'm not sure what your saying no to? Your response to heavyglow made even less sense. "but if people were only voting SNP because of Labour's "no" stance, would the majority of others not have voted Labour because of their "no stance"? " No they wouldn't. Why would a tory or lib dem voter who voted against independence suddenly switch allegiances to Labour? I agree that many in Scotland felt that Labour had moved away from them, but at the heart of it was the fact that, if England votes conservative, Britain gets a conservative government (as proved this year). Independence would clearly give the left better representation and therefore the left in Scotland has moved to the SNP. Some believe that a more devolved Labour party may win back those voters. However, just look at the Lib Dems to see the failings of localised party's. The Lib Dems have, for many years, run very different campaigns in different areas of the country. Once they entered government they couldn't placate all of their electorate and this was partly responsible for their complete collapse. Labour failed because it didn't have a strong and coherent vision for the country. The party need to listen to the country rather than itself if they are going to build a compelling enough vision to win the next election. If you think we're in the same situation as Spain or Greece, where enough people were for pushed towards the political extremes, you're blind to the fact that middle England have not been hit anywhere near hard enough to take that chance. Venceremos suggests that a cataclysmic turn of events will swing Labour into power, but i'm sure they thought that after the last election when things were allot bleaker. With an unpopular government and a Euro crisis, Labour still went backwards. It'll take quite abit more to get Labour back in power. I was saying no as an agreement that it didn't make sense; I'll try without attempting to be ironic or getting arsey because of an incredibly odd and patronising response. I shouldn't write when half asleep. But my point was that those who voted Labour in Scotland are, I feel, quite unlikely to turn against them (and of course many of those who voted yes would have already been SNP) on the back of just their no stance, although some may have. The SNP's platform for the election had nothing to do with independence and they made that very clear. Furthermore, there were plenty of 16 and 17 year olds who voted yes who wouldn't have been eligible to vote for the general election, so the proportion of voters in the general election who voted yes will have been above 55% anyway. Essentially, I think suggesting the only reason that the SNP reshaped the Scottish political landscape was Labour backing a no vote is completely wrong. It may have been one of many contributory factors, but as you say, their garbled and weak message for what they were going to do, largely Tory-lite policies, was - in my opinion - far more important.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Jul 22, 2015 23:01:19 GMT 1
No, see my response to heavyglow above. I evidently didn't word my response anywhere near well enough! I'm not sure what your saying no to? Your response to heavyglow made even less sense. "but if people were only voting SNP because of Labour's "no" stance, would the majority of others not have voted Labour because of their "no stance"? " No they wouldn't. Why would a tory or lib dem voter who voted against independence suddenly switch allegiances to Labour? I agree that many in Scotland felt that Labour had moved away from them, but at the heart of it was the fact that, if England votes conservative, Britain gets a conservative government (as proved this year). Independence would clearly give the left better representation and therefore the left in Scotland has moved to the SNP. Some believe that a more devolved Labour party may win back those voters. However, just look at the Lib Dems to see the failings of localised party's. The Lib Dems have, for many years, run very different campaigns in different areas of the country. Once they entered government they couldn't placate all of their electorate and this was partly responsible for their complete collapse. Labour failed because it didn't have a strong and coherent vision for the country. The party need to listen to the country rather than itself if they are going to build a compelling enough vision to win the next election. If you think we're in the same situation as Spain or Greece, where enough people were for pushed towards the political extremes, you're blind to the fact that middle England have not been hit anywhere near hard enough to take that chance. Venceremos suggests that a cataclysmic turn of events will swing Labour into power, but i'm sure they thought that after the last election when things were allot bleaker. With an unpopular government and a Euro crisis, Labour still went backwards. It'll take quite abit more to get Labour back in power. Sorry to digress away from the topic of conversation but I was of the opinion that I was the only Salop fan in Loughborough. (Well the LE12 postal code anyway...and assuming that is where you are by your username).
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 23, 2015 7:11:04 GMT 1
Agree with that. Immigration has killed the Labour party. I firmly believe that. And I firmly believe it will continue to do so. Many in the country simply would not trust the party again because of their record on immigration. And I suspect Corbyn isn't going to be able to turn that around. Right or wrong, Labour are now seen as the party of open door immigration, of immigrants, welfare, dangerous & damaging political correctness and economic incompetence (I'm afraid there is no money left). But the big one in my opinion is immigration. And I don't understand how a move to the left would address any of that. And before anyone shoots me down, I'm really not interested in any counter as to why Labour shouldn't be seen as such. I'm simply telling you what I believe many people in the UK deem the the Labour party to represent today...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 7:35:41 GMT 1
Well I suppose it depends on what you classify as 'mass' but in recent history between 750000 to a million people marched in London over a war Blair facilitated. Then 10s of thousands turned out for the recent anti - austerity marches across the country. I'm part of two groups, one of which actively campaigns at a national level, and the other more locally. Very much a sense of 'mass' social conscience or common good. So tell me, in comparison to the numbers that used to be part of the wider labour movement, how does 1,7million compare? Or in voting terms spread across the country. Don't forget that Mr Blair got re elected by the country after the war, so how does that compare to the million that marched? And truth be known, how far does that social conscience go? Does it extend to raising their taxes to provide more more for the less well off? I'm not so sure. I think the "I'm alright Jack" spirit is now in control amongst the vast majority and whilst I truly support the spirit and principles of the labour left, I genuinely don't believe the will or support is there amongst the masses. Britain has changed. The middle classes are the new mass movement and without them labour will win nothing. In the context of politics a common good or mass social conscious isn't exclusively Labour though, nor is it exclusively working class. Nor is it exclusively left wing. Throughout the 19th and 20th century a lot of social change was been driven by the middle class. In the context of our society, I'd argue that the shared belief that the NHS and welfare state are sacrosanct is a good example of common good or mass social consciousness. The reason Blair got re - elected after the second Gulf war is for the same reason that the Tories will be voted back in in 2020. Weak and divided opposition.
|
|