Ruling from the centre-left is particularly difficult, as Labour governments have regularly demonstrated.
Possibly because the centre left is the wrong place to be trying to rule from? As in, not consistent with reality? Shouting at clouds stuff?
Ruling from the centre-left is particularly difficult, as Labour governments have regularly demonstrated.
Possibly because the centre left is the wrong place to be trying to rule from? As in, not consistent with reality? Shouting at clouds stuff?
Centre as in “centre of the Overton Window”, which is a lot more Sinister than it used to be. Perhaps that’s why it’s difficult, as the Centre for most of the people is mostly where it used to be.
I am perplexed – We have been ruled from the Extreme Left for nearly 3 decades (certainly Blair was on the Extreme Left and the Starmer Government has proven itself well to the Left of North Korea) so I am curious as to where this ‘Center Left’ administration he is talking about is? A government that suggests men can be women and which declares white people to be borderline illegal on the grounds of their race is ‘Center Left’? Interesting definition of the political spectrum!
Perhaps this angst we are seeing on the part of the Centre-Left is a dawning realisation the Social Democracy done right doesn’t get any better than Singapore: in other words it looks and feels neither particularly socialist nor particularly democratic.
Labour, “centre-left”?? Even the last tory government wasn’t right-wing enough to be classed as “centre-left” – at least in any sane world.
BTW – notice they didn’t say “govern” but “rule”. Piano wire and lampposts time.
Taking away your rights to freedom of speech, property and association while importing hordes of foreign sex offenders to rape or stab your children and deliberately cratering the economy so you’re fucked into permanent poverty *is* the centre-left, bigots.
The Guardian definition of “Centre-left” is “a little to the left of the Grauniad” which is “reality-denying virtue-signalling, anti-capitalist demagogary” when translated into normal English.
What makes it difficult to rule from there is the *reality-denying* bit. (The anti-capitalist bit doesn’t get too difficult until after you’ve eaten the goose that laid the golden eggs and you’ve no gold left to buy food)
The good thing about Labour taking over is that we’ve just had 14 years of continuity Labour rule, just with a blue rosette, so everything is pre-f*cked by socialism already. There’s no meat left on the bone for them to use to make things look OK for a few years, and pretend its all ‘working’.
Labour is centre left. The far right see the working class as criminals and parasites.
Boris described the British working class as criminal, drunk, and hopeless.
Rishi said he had friends from all walks of life except the working class.
The tories are far right.
Reform, are far right tory yuppies with a new lock of paint.
@ Toledo Zaragoza
The first four words are partially correct – *some* of the Labour Party is centre-left.
The rest is utterly false and is poor quality trolling
John77 ; I am saying th3 truth. I am not trolling.
The left tend to be more about supporting the poor, minorities, and the working class.
The right support the rich, and elites.
Labour are the British working class.
Look up yourself what Boris and Rishi said.
Here is Rishi Sunak saying he has all sorts of friends but not working class.
https://youtu.be/p9bbBYcwFOk?si=7kNSfRFDHIBpqGVm
Here is evidence of Boris insulting the working class.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-poor-working-class-chav-loser-burglar-drug-addict-a9227941.html
I have provided evidence that the Tories are far right. Reform are made up of people even worse than the Tories.
Toledo Zaragoza, cherry-picking stuff that Boris came out with in a long-forgotten newspaper column, all in order to pursue some brain-dead argument that no one with any sense could take seriously (“The Tories are far right because of random shit their former leader spouted nearly twenty years ago!”), is not going to impress any of the below-the-line peeps here. Some of them (like Steve) may well be prisoners of their own reactionary fantasies, but they’re still several notches higher up the IQ scale than a dolt like you ever will be. They know what “evidence” really means, and that the crappy anecdotes people like you come up with will never beat actual data. But I suspect you’re so blind to your own witless prejudices that you’ll never understand any of this.
Interestingly, in the US the Dems used to be the party of the working class, but no more. They are the party of billionaires, mega-corporations (Repubs play with them too, but Dems are all in on subsidies, special tax breaks, etc.). Dems still work for some unions, especially of gov’t workers, but they moved on from representing grocery check-out girls or small businesses long ago.
CJA ; I provided clear evidence that the Tory leaders have a problem with the working class. Your rrply was to rant out some knuck dragging insults.
I am sure I have a higher IQ than you. In fact I am sure my pet dog does also.
The far right have a long history of seeing working class people as parasites.
Esteban the Dems are more supportive of working class people than the Republicans.
Of course I’m going to insult you. You’re not worth anything else.
“I am sure I have a higher IQ than you. In fact I am sure my pet dog does also.”
Gosh, really?
CJA; If I wanted the opinion of a hole. I would have broken wind.
@ Toledo Zaragoza @ 11.14
Nonsense – “working” means “not a parasite”
*Some* people – principally the working class – see non-workers as parasites
@ Toledo Zaragoza 11.09
That clip does NOT say that Rishi has no working class friends
@ Toledo Zaragoza 11.13
The working class make up 49% of the Uk population, the middle class 36% and the upper class 1%
Of the bottom 20% less than one-third are working class.
@ Toledo Zaragoza 11.14
No you have not.
You have PRETENDED to do so but you have not
@ Toledo Zaragoza 11.05
Since I am numerate I can inform you that the Conservative governments have done more for the poor than the Labour governments throughout my lifetime.
The only government in my lifetime to simultaneously make the poor poorer and the rich richer was the Blair/Brown one in 1997-2010 (data supplied by HMRC under Mr G Brown).
Unless you count Lloyd George, all the ethnic minority Prime Ministers have been Conservatives.
There are better trolls than you
The article on Boris showed him making anti-working class statements.
The video on Rishi Sunak clearly showed him saying he had friends from all walks of life except the working class.
That is 100% evidence. End of story. You can do Trumpian during your head in the sand ignore all the evidence, but that just shows how unreasonable you have decided to be.
Labour and the Liberals have provided Scottish PM’s of the UK. They are a minority group. Tony Blair had Irish heritage also.
And Labour have David Lammy. An ethnic minority person.
The stats tend to show the biggest increase in inequality was under Thatcher, not Blair or Brown.
Boris said far right anti working class things.
Plus this article suggests inequality increased under Thatxher.
https://fabians.org.uk/the-inequality-boom/
@ Toledo Zaragoza
That is just incompetent lying
HMRC statistics show that the lower 50%’s share of national wealth peaked after ten years of Maragaret Thatcher at 7%, declined slightly to 6% thanks to a “Bull market” on the Stock Exchange (so the rich were deemed richer while the poor stayed the same) undr John Major, then halved to 3% under Blair/Brown. This is data published by HMRC under Gordon Brown.
The median income rose faster both under Mrs Thatcher than under any Labour government and in 1951-64 than under Attlee or Wilson and probably “New Labour” [data for Blair/Brown is distorted by an error introduced into the calculation of RPI in October 1997 and not corrected until Autumn 2010 which – the Royal Statistical Society stated – reduced stated RPI by up to 1% below real RPI so growth in “Real” GDP was overstated by nearly 1% per annum and growth in “Real” wages was overstated by nearly 1% pa]
You should not assume that we are so ignorant that we cannot spot your lies.
Here is more academic evidence of an increase in inequality under Thatcher.
https://academic.oup.com/ehr/article/137/585/513/6565512
I pay attention to the experts. You are an amatuer who is calling me a liar for telling you the truth. That is Trumpian burying your head in the sand.
Read the article i have linked from official sources. It says the Thatcher government increase inequality and poverty.
I do not take lectures from an amatuer over neutral experts.
Read this https://academic.oup.com/ehr/article/137/585/513/6565512
@ Toledo Zaragoza
Quoting a Labour Party group on Mrs Thatcher is like quoting Trump on President Biden. Zero credibility!
I quoted a government source during a period when Labour was in government, so the likelihood that it was lying in favour of Mrs Thatcher is negligible.
Felix Romer is not a neutral observer and his credibility is zilch – after I point out the rapid growth in median income he claims that the Thatcher government concentrated on increasing the income of the bottom decile – any neutral observer would have acclaimed a policy of increasing the income of the bottom decile as those are they who most need it but Romer condemns this , showing that he is a propagandist not an analyst. Anyone starting with “Orange Man Bad” instead of starting with facts and ending with “therefore Orange Man Bad” is not an analyst but a propagandist. “It is common knowledge” is a common trick to avoid having to produce a single shread of evidence to support a lie. I may be an amateur but I’m not stupid.
Your citing the same blatantly biassed article twice in successive posts raises questions about your competence (or, maybe, sobriety).
Since you don’t have a neutral expert, rejecting an *honest* amateur is not justified. I quoted a source that might be suspected of being biased in favour of “New Labour” and showed that wealth inequality hit a nadir under Mrs Thatcher.