[Quantum Boy]

OK I know this thread was closed but the debate was not finished so hopefully this thread can be a better one?

Originally Posted by Slim

What put us on to a path was post war socialism. That's just a fact. Now, if socialism had been in charge of the country for 50 years, then human nature and corruption would have taken over, and it would have failed. However, right wing neoliberalism has been in charge for 50 years, and it has failed. No one thinks this country is in a healthy state at the moment, and yet right wing neoliberalism can't survive on the right alone, it needed the centre, whether that's Blairs (a thatcher acolyte) version of neoliberalism (more centrist, and better, actually - but not good enough), or Camerons/Johnsons, right through to truss' libertarian version.

None of this would have been possible without the centre ground.

Now after 50 years of this, absolutely no change is on offer, only more of the exact same thing, only this time with a different colour rosette. For this to keep happening, then centrists need to have been on board and whether that's knowingly or unwittingly the results are the same.

I'm intrigued by this post because in terms of a summing up of 20th century Western politics in the first paragraph, I completely agree with this assessment. I have no issue with it whatsoever. If I do have to dip into economic ideology -- I am firmly in favour of heavily socialist policies when it comes to education, healthcare and other public services. I more-or-less think that neoliberalism has essentially been the end of the modern world(a slow painful death). With where we are now and where we're headed, I would be all for a form of UBI, if I heard one that actually sounds feasible.

However

I think I can see where we fundamentally disagree. I think what's crucial to the success of political extremes has absolutely nothing to do with actual politically aware nuanced centrism. I think what it relies on is politically un-aware populism. Which is an entirely different thing -- but in fact is exactly what you're talking about when you refer to people whose politics "flip flop". That's not the centre. That's people who don't actually understand politics or economics beyond a very basic level, who are vulnerable to a social contagion and skillful oratory, being indoctrinated back and forth to different ideologies.

It's not the same thing whatsoever and I think somewhere in there is where the disagreement lies.

[arista]

OK let's be civil

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Quantum Bauble

OK I know this thread was closed but the debate was not finished so hopefully this thread can be a better one?



I'm intrigued by this post because in terms of a summing up of 20th century Western politics in the first paragraph, I completely agree with this assessment. I have no issue with it whatsoever. If I do have to dip into economic ideology -- I am firmly in favour of heavily socialist policies when it comes to education, healthcare and other public services. I more-or-less think that neoliberalism has essentially been the end of the modern world(a slow painful death). With where we are now and where we're headed, I would be all for a form of UBI, if I heard one that actually sounds feasible.

However

I think I can see where we fundamentally disagree. I think what's crucial to the success of political extremes has absolutely nothing to do with actual politically aware nuanced centrism. I think what it relies on is politically un-aware populism. Which is an entirely different thing -- but in fact is exactly what you're talking about when you refer to people whose politics "flip flop". That's not the centre. That's people who don't actually understand politics or economics beyond a very basic level, who are vulnerable to a social contagion and skillful oratory, being indoctrinated back and forth to different ideologies.

It's not the same thing whatsoever and I think somewhere in there is where the disagreement lies.

Thanks for continuing the discussion and thank you for providing more info about where you stand economically.

How common is politically aware, nuanced centrism?

2 Political candidates

One has a socialist economic platform (for ease, exactly what you've written above), but they also say that trans rights are human rights, and we should take an extra 20k people over the next 2 years because of Gaza and Syria

The second person is purely in favour of the neoliberal status quo, wants to reduce corporate tax down to zero (because job creators), and reduce the tax on Millionaires down to a 15%% flat rate, but they want to ban healthcare for trans people, and will recruit an extra 100k service people to guard our borders, and will ban mosques.

Firstly, who do you think wins that election?

Which group of people will decide that election? Socialists like me, uber capitalists like Arista, or this group in the middle?

Bear in mind we have the the times/telegraph/sun/guardian/times writing headlines everyday about how the socialist eats babies and we have the BBC giving an open invitation to the we hate Muslims party.

For some, I get it completely, they will vote their economic freedom over and above restricting anything they view as subversive, and for some others, i also get it completely, they are centrists of an age who believe trickle down will eventually start working going into it's 6th decade, but centrism isn't generally politically nuanced, it's full of people who say "I don't like them, and I definitely don't like them, so I'm in the centre." It's comforting, and it's easy. You obviously saw the same moral indignation that I saw when i said that centrism is not great. I've been accused of being a lefty because I want to be viewed as being good or doing the right thing, or whatever, but centrism is the actual house where that belief resides

I 100% believe that it's completely obvious who wins that election, and I don't believe it would even be close.

Swan wrote something along the lines of "we want to vote left slim, but you/your side make it hard" Or something like that. No hate to swan, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. When push comes to shove, it generally, but not exclusively, veers right.

When you say you believe in and practice, nuanced centrism, I believe you. You're socially conservative, and have economic views that are way to the left of where 95% of labour voters would feel comfortable. I'm just saying that these beliefs are not normal, as the last 50 years have shown us.

[Quantum Boy]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Thanks for continuing the discussion and thank you for providing more info about where you stand economically.

How common is politically aware, nuanced centrism?

I do agree with pretty much all of the above whole post, my only issue really, is that in answer to this part quoted... obviously it's not common at all, but I don't think it's any less common than politically aware and nuanced stances on the left or right. Call me a cynic but the number of people who can hold a conversation about politics with any real understanding of the issues (or the history) is ... a small percentage, no matter where you grab them on the spectrum. And that's even thinking about the people who are politically empassioned - will show up at events, will stand in the streets, will shout, genuinely believe in their politics - most still can't fully explain those politics, beyond that they sound morally correct to them (at best), or that the people they align with are espousing those politics (at worst, and worryingly, these days as standard). Maybe typically centrist but I do think it's a universal issue. Grab a 20 year old "woke lefty" at an event, grab a beer bellied red-hat-wearing free-market MAGA bloke at another on the same day, isolate them and try to have a chat about Locke or Marx, 9.5 times out of 10 you're not going to get a conversation at all. Blank stares all round.

So I still stand by that I don't think the center influences election outcomes... political unawareness / "mob rule" decides it and it's not always about swaying the center ground over the line. People voicing politically extreme views - that are borrowed - will swing wildly from positions way left and right of center, based on the way the wind is blowing that year, and which campaign has taken off. Elections simply aren't won by politics or policy any more, it's ALL oratory and showmanship that tilts the scales.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Quantum Bauble

I do agree with pretty much all of the above whole post, my only issue really, is that in answer to this part quoted... obviously it's not common at all, but I don't think it's any less common than politically aware and nuanced stances on the left or right. Call me a cynic but the number of people who can hold a conversation about politics with any real understanding of the issues (or the history) is ... a small percentage, no matter where you grab them on the spectrum. And that's even thinking about the people who are politically empassioned - will show up at events, will stand in the streets, will shout, genuinely believe in their politics - most still can't fully explain those politics, beyond that they sound morally correct to them (at best), or that the people they align with are espousing those politics (at worst, and worryingly, these days as standard). Maybe typically centrist but I do think it's a universal issue. Grab a 20 year old "woke lefty" at an event, grab a beer bellied red-hat-wearing free-market MAGA bloke at another on the same day, isolate them and try to have a chat about Locke or Marx, 9.5 times out of 10 you're not going to get a conversation at all. Blank stares all round.

So I still stand by that I don't think the center influences election outcomes... political unawareness / "mob rule" decides it and it's not always about swaying the center ground over the line. People voicing politically extreme views - that are borrowed - will swing wildly from positions way left and right of center, based on the way the wind is blowing that year, and which campaign has taken off. Elections simply aren't won by politics or policy any more, it's ALL oratory and showmanship that tilts the scales.

Again, some legitimate and extremely fair points. This is the area I feel this misses, and why i think it matters.

People over on the left and right, even if they wouldn't be able to get down into the weeds, and have that all encompassing discussion/debate around their ideologies, still subscribe (at least to some degree) in a few central tenets that they love. maybe that's even more dangerous than being political blank canvases - I honestly don't know.

On the left, economic (there is no freedom without economic freedom), or social issues.

For the right, anti-immigration or social issues.

Obviously and purposefully, both of those examples don't paint anywhere near the complete picture, but are just a couple of quick golden calves I can place into the tenets boxes.

Centrism is a whole different animal because it is primarily (imo) about what it isn't rather than what it is. Maybe that's perceived as a strength by centrists, where not being right or left is the true measure of intellectual honesty. I've already conceded that your centrism is nuanced, so when I make purposeful generalisations, I'm not making them about what you believe.

We have a 50 year sample size of voters not swinging wildly between left, right, and centre. It is a sample size that has almost exclusively protected the right. When I made the statement about centrism being for right wingers who don't want to say they are right wingers, then that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Blair, to get elected, attacked the left.

Starmer, to get elected, attacked and expelled the left. There is next to no change. He did it because being anti-left wing is ideological for him (and this centrist lab party), just like reeves, streeting, and the whole cabal of tory cosplayers. At least Blair found a place for people like prescott. There is no prescott in the current lab party, and if there was, the whip would be removed within minutes.

Lab/Tory/Reform polling at over 60% between them. All saying the exact same things on immigration and other social issues, all 100% behind not taxing wealth.

The perceived centre has been shifted way over to the right, and that hasn't pushed centrists to the left (to remain in the centre ground), it's kept them on the right.

[The Slim Reaper]

Well then...

[Quantum Boy]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Well then...

While the thread was a fascinating re-read I don't see that anything has changed, honestly. The problem is populism, ignorance and convincing oratory and all of the rest is smoke and mirrors. If anything that seems more obvious than ever. The current oratory is barely even rooted in reality. Global politics as it currently stands (on all fronts) is pretty much a collection of bed time stories for thick people. Maybe my centrism has descended into full blown political nihilism.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

While the thread was a fascinating re-read I don't see that anything has changed, honestly. The problem is populism, ignorance and convincing oratory and all of the rest is smoke and mirrors. If anything that seems more obvious than ever. The current oratory is barely even rooted in reality. Global politics as it currently stands (on all fronts) is pretty much a collection of bed time stories for thick people. Maybe my centrism has descended into full blown political nihilism.

Nothing has changed? How is the centrist lab party doing these days? A mix of left/right policies or full on radical right wing?

[Quantum Boy]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Nothing has changed? How is the centrist lab party doing these days? A mix of left/right policies or full on radical right wing?

No, nothing has changed in the slightest, and this being sadly correct if anything is exactly what I was talking about;

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

I think what's crucial to the success of political extremes has absolutely nothing to do with actual politically aware nuanced centrism. I think what it relies on is politically un-aware populism. Which is an entirely different thing -- but in fact is exactly what you're talking about when you refer to people whose politics "flip flop". That's not the centre. That's people who don't actually understand politics or economics beyond a very basic level, who are vulnerable to a social contagion and skillful oratory, being indoctrinated back and forth to different ideologies.

British (and of course American, and mostly western in general) politics in summary, it's not real political ideology it's psychological manipulation in pursuit of control. Labour flipping from support of immigration to full on Reform-clones over night, and why? Because they think it might work well for them politically. Literally no other reason.

[Quantum Boy]

Giving it thought it actually looks like they're making moves out of sheer desperation; they believe that Reform is on a path to power and I think they're probably correct. However I don't think their desperate swivelling will work. I think we're cooked.