I see things slightly differently, but probably arrive at much the same place: I think that the labels 'right', 'left' and 'centre' get in the way of seeing what most people are. Most have a mixture of views on different issues - some of those views are 'left-' some are 'right-wing'. For example, on this forum there are people who regard themselves as 'right wing' who support the socialist NHS. When it comes to politics, outside of the 'true believers', people have a mix of views, sometimes even contradictory views. This means that the 'centre' is an emergent phenomenon, made up of the views of millions of people from all political positions, not just 'centrists'. And the envelope of those views is a set of cultural norms. So, yes, Labour's acquiescence to, say, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act shifts the centre, because Labour is accepting as a norm certain measures that are clearly authoritarian.
Don’t disagree with any of that. Quite a few identify me as socialist, a few others as hard left and one or two as an ideologue, but there is much about socialism with which I do not identity with so tend to avoid self identification other than occasionally describing myself as leftish and for social and environmental justice.
When I use the word centrist, I am working from the assumption the elections are won from the centre, an assumption that was popular on here not so long ago, and that the centre therefore has to be roughly where we are right now because the two main parties are so close together.
I might have to revise that opinion in light of a book I’ve just started reading called
Angrynomics, a non-academic book (it has big friendly letters on the front) that is nevertheless quite informative. It suggests that anger comes in two main forms, justified anger against specific things and tribal anger that is about identity with a group.
The book describes a post war politics that broke down political identities where the right became more left with Macmillian’s Middle Way and a left that became more right. The search for identity led to Blair and Clinton, both of whom went in for a bonfire of financial regulations that led to The Crash. After the Crash left, right and centre were justifiably anger, but had nowhere to turn in what appeared to be a consensus that bumper banker bonuses were necessary. There Is No Alternative was a phrase from Thatcher that was adopted by Osbourne and unchallenged by Labour or Lib Dem. There was anger, but in that consensus it lacked direction. To turn away justified anger, for which they were responsible, politicians turned more and more to exploiting tribal anger. It amplified anger at minorities and those on the outside and gave it a sense of direction, which is why we get Trump and his Wall and Brexit and trade Barriers.
Tony will no doubt jump in here and talk about Corbyn and fascism and authoritarianism and far right nationalism, and there is some truth in that, but the broader truth is that tribal anger went across left, right, and centre, and more important, to focus on that tribal anger, lets our politician off the hook when they should facing our justified anger
The more relevant truth is that if we want to move on from politics based on tribal anger, we need to find an alternative, an identity based on justified anger, and anger that is informed by objective moral and existential wrongs. Objective anger directed at changing social, economic, political, and above all, environmental injustice.
Which leads us onto……
Quite agree. And by implication, we need to invest ('deficit spend' or otherwise) to do it. The West needs to adopt the best of what already exists, to invent a social model that delivers popular wellbeing within planetary limits. It needs to model this so the rest of the world, notably China and India, will be able to follow. Our cities need to look like
Groningen, our transport systems need to look like French high-speed rail, our homes need to be near-passivhaus, our essential supply chains (food/energy) need to be made resilient etc. Anything less may not be quick enough to avert systemic food chain collapse (
agriculture) (
fishing) via climate meltdown.
….which perfectly encapsulates where our anger needs to be directed….
.
