Is England shifting ever leftward?
Discussion
iphonedyou said:
Does that take into account the shifting sands of what's considered left and right wing, though?
I'd agree the country as a whole is moving inexorably left, sadly.
I agree that what is considered left and right shifts around - and I would argue that rather than becoming more left wing, the country is simply becoming more politically fractured. What we are witnessing is further erosion of the two-party system - I will even predict five years out that we'll have another hung parliament in 2020. I'd agree the country as a whole is moving inexorably left, sadly.
trashbat said:
There is no credible 'left wing' or rather progressive force in English politics. Labour have ceased to be it. On the face of it, the SNP appears to be that to some degree in Scotland, but I'm not Scottish.
If you think the UK is economically left leaning, you must be completely blind to history. An increasing gap between rich & poor, austerity, increasing privatisation, reducing taxation and so on - decades of neoliberalism of differing brand but similar substance.
Reducing taxation? Are you paying less VED or fuel tax? Council tax? If you factor in the fiscal drag in the last decade is the tax burden not increased? Tax on cigarettes, alcohol? Air travel?If you think the UK is economically left leaning, you must be completely blind to history. An increasing gap between rich & poor, austerity, increasing privatisation, reducing taxation and so on - decades of neoliberalism of differing brand but similar substance.
Increasing gap between rich & poor: is this not illustrative between the difference in theory and practice with the politics of the left? In theory... from each according to his ability, to each according to his need (quietly assuming those with the ability are willing to work for those without). What was the rich/poor gap like for those in the Soviet Union?
The UK is more economically left leaning than IIRC how it was pre 1950's. After the war things got nationalised, simplistically we moved left as far as I can tell. Nowadays as you say we have increasing privatisation, but then those privatised companies are often propped up by the state; To me that means they're nationalised in all but name. Without debating whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, I view the bank bailouts in the same way.
I agree with you, with the advent of New Labour that the left are not openly economically left in the same (blatant) way that they once were (although Ed is recently talking about capping energy prices). The left has shifted (or confined) their focus to all things social.
trashbat said:
However you said:
Yes you probably could swap them around and sound credible, such is the complexity of the subject and understanding of what constitutes what, the reasoning and history. I'm not totally sure you'd be correct to do so however. Blair and his third way are left (to me they're what we have now with the Blairite Tory party which doesn't seem to be economically particularly right, and is socially left). Blair gets mistaken as being a right-wing Labour PM because he continued Mrs Thatchers economic liberalism which people mistook for conservatism and therefore assumed was right.Esseesse said:
The centre and centre-left IS nowadays on the left, and the centre-right is the same as the centre-left.
And yet I think you could swap around left & right in that sentence. Regardless it is all very much tightly grouped around a centrist position, not least thanks to Blair and his third way.trashbat said:
Of course the point should be that a one-dimensional indicator is not a very good one. Right vs left doesn't tell you anything about authoritarian vs libertarian, or economic conservatism vs social conservatism.
Indeed, I agree with you here. And of all the indicators, left vs right is possibly the worst because the words in themselves are not usefully descriptive, are quite open to interpretation, and people rightly or wrongly feel attached or against one of them.A more useful debate might be on whether we are becoming more authoritarian (and less free). There may be more consensus on that kind of question across different party supporters, however I suspect division on what the answer is.
Timmy40 said:
I think this is a very good point, it irritates me when the media seems obsessed with wealth inequality, and poverty when both are defined as comparing one persons income with another. Poverty and wealth are more than just money. I grew up in what a socialist would define as abject poverty.....but we were far far happier than a I think a lot of people with more money. Socialists seem oddly obsessed with money as the cure for everything....given they claim not to care about money.
Although I agree the wealth doesn't equal contentedness, I think you miss the point about wealth inequality.It's not so much about static disparity as it is about the direction of travel. If the rich - and we're not just talking individuals but meaningful groups - are getting richer whilst the poor get poorer, it at least tells you something about whether you have a healthy and sustainable society. Maybe not the be all and end all, but something.
And, whilst again I agree that economic wealth is not a good measure, the thrust of your post strays a little close to 'well they should be happy with next to nothing', a sort of 'let them eat cake' philosophy. I'm guessing that you have more riches than rags now, so how happy would you be to go back there?
trashbat said:
Timmy40 said:
I think this is a very good point, it irritates me when the media seems obsessed with wealth inequality, and poverty when both are defined as comparing one persons income with another. Poverty and wealth are more than just money. I grew up in what a socialist would define as abject poverty.....but we were far far happier than a I think a lot of people with more money. Socialists seem oddly obsessed with money as the cure for everything....given they claim not to care about money.
Although I agree the wealth doesn't equal contentedness, I think you miss the point about wealth inequality.It's not so much about static disparity as it is about the direction of travel. If the rich - and we're not just talking individuals but meaningful groups - are getting richer whilst the poor get poorer, it at least tells you something about whether you have a healthy and sustainable society. Maybe not the be all and end all, but something.
And, whilst again I agree that economic wealth is not a good measure, the thrust of your post strays a little close to 'well they should be happy with next to nothing', a sort of 'let them eat cake' philosophy. I'm guessing that you have more riches than rags now, so how happy would you be to go back there?
Ovaltine said:
Utterly bewilders me too... getting to the point where country I grew up up in no longer exists
Amazing that isn't it -I grew up here in the UK in the 70s and 80s. It was quite crap - rubbish food for a start, Now the UK is just so much better on every level.Do you think countries and cultures are able to just stop developing and freeze frame a certain point in time? Its not how the world works.
The UK is not the same as it was 20 years ago, which wasn't the same as it was 20 years before that..in 20 years time it wont be the same as it is now. Nor in 200 years.
Esseesse said:
Indeed, I agree with you here. And of all the indicators, left vs right is possibly the worst because the words in themselves are not usefully descriptive, are quite open to interpretation, and people rightly or wrongly feel attached or against one of them.
A more useful debate might be on whether we are becoming more authoritarian (and less free). There may be more consensus on that kind of question across different party supporters, however I suspect division on what the answer is.
A good point. Our drift into a more authoritarian state continues irrespective of who is in power. I'm not convinced it is entirely intentional either. A more useful debate might be on whether we are becoming more authoritarian (and less free). There may be more consensus on that kind of question across different party supporters, however I suspect division on what the answer is.
Esseesse said:
Reducing taxation? Are you paying less VED or fuel tax? Council tax? If you factor in the fiscal drag in the last decade is the tax burden not increased? Tax on cigarettes, alcohol? Air travel?
I'm not sure, and I suspect it'd be complex to work out in a truly meaningful fashion. I only notice that come every budget since at least mid-term New Labour, my take-home pay increased, even though I am reasonably comfortably off and especially of late we are supposedly in times of austerity.Esseesse said:
Increasing gap between rich & poor: is this not illustrative between the difference in theory and practice with the politics of the left? In theory... from each according to his ability, to each according to his need (quietly assuming those with the ability are willing to work for those without). What was the rich/poor gap like for those in the Soviet Union?
Better than it is now!Graun said:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/11/russi...
Yevgeny Yasin, scientific director of HSE and a former economics minister, said: "The principal issue for Russia's economy and society today is the level of inequality. Only the best-off 20% of the population is successfully participating in the rise in prosperity which became possible as the result of creating a market economy."
Food is slightly cheaper relative to income and simple pleasures have become more accessible. The average adult buys more vehicles and televisions and can afford more alcohol and cigarettes than at the beginning of the 1990s. "Drinking, smoking and burning around in a car have become a lot cheaper," the report found.
But most Russians can only stare in envy at the super-wealthy with their Bentleys and dachas. According to the report, income inequality between the mid-1980s and the mid-2000s has increased eight times more than in Hungary, and five times more than in the Czech Republic.
Yevgeny Yasin, scientific director of HSE and a former economics minister, said: "The principal issue for Russia's economy and society today is the level of inequality. Only the best-off 20% of the population is successfully participating in the rise in prosperity which became possible as the result of creating a market economy."
Food is slightly cheaper relative to income and simple pleasures have become more accessible. The average adult buys more vehicles and televisions and can afford more alcohol and cigarettes than at the beginning of the 1990s. "Drinking, smoking and burning around in a car have become a lot cheaper," the report found.
But most Russians can only stare in envy at the super-wealthy with their Bentleys and dachas. According to the report, income inequality between the mid-1980s and the mid-2000s has increased eight times more than in Hungary, and five times more than in the Czech Republic.
Esseesse said:
The UK is more economically left leaning than IIRC how it was pre 1950's. After the war things got nationalised, simplistically we moved left as far as I can tell. Nowadays as you say we have increasing privatisation, but then those privatised companies are often propped up by the state; To me that means they're nationalised in all but name. Without debating whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, I view the bank bailouts in the same way.
But much less so than say, the 1960s. Does anyone think you could create the NHS now? Or for that matter many other truly public projects. At best you get public infrastructural projects that are destined from the outset to become private ventures, e.g. the Channel Tunnel.It's funny that you look at the banks and see nationalisation. I look at them and see the wreckage of free market liberalism and light touch regulation, bailed out by the taxpayer primarily to protect private capital rather than for social good, turned into profit making entities again and then re-privatised so that they can return to their original problematic state. Nationalisation is more than just donating money to the private sector.
Esseesse said:
A more useful debate might be on whether we are becoming more authoritarian (and less free). There may be more consensus on that kind of question across different party supporters, however I suspect division on what the answer is.
I think we're less authoritarian than the Blair era, although that's not hard, and I think Theresa May would probably like to see us back there. Stuff like ID cards are one of the many indicators that Blair was a long way from being socially left wing.trashbat said:
lthough I agree the wealth doesn't equal contentedness, I think you miss the point about wealth inequality.
It's not so much about static disparity as it is about the direction of travel. If the rich - and we're not just talking individuals but meaningful groups - are getting richer whilst the poor get poorer, it at least tells you something about whether you have a healthy and sustainable society. Maybe not the be all and end all, but something.
And, whilst again I agree that economic wealth is not a good measure, the thrust of your post strays a little close to 'well they should be happy with next to nothing', a sort of 'let them eat cake' philosophy. I'm guessing that you have more riches than rags now, so how happy would you be to go back there?
The poor are not getting poorer,It's not so much about static disparity as it is about the direction of travel. If the rich - and we're not just talking individuals but meaningful groups - are getting richer whilst the poor get poorer, it at least tells you something about whether you have a healthy and sustainable society. Maybe not the be all and end all, but something.
And, whilst again I agree that economic wealth is not a good measure, the thrust of your post strays a little close to 'well they should be happy with next to nothing', a sort of 'let them eat cake' philosophy. I'm guessing that you have more riches than rags now, so how happy would you be to go back there?
HTH
sidicks said:
The poor are not getting poorer,
HTH
A lazy post. Compared to what? Not the rich, so what? Inflation?HTH
Edit: I'll do the legwork for you - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/...
Edited by trashbat on Tuesday 21st April 11:34
trashbat said:
lazy post. Compared to what? Not the rich, so what? Inflation?
You made the claim!
trashbat said:
Edit: I'll do the legwork for you - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/...
Maybe you missed this bit:Robert Joyce, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says the claim that the bottom fifth of UK households saw a rise in their disposable income between 2008 and 2012 is upheld by data from the Office for National Statistics.
sidicks said:
trashbat said:
lazy post. Compared to what? Not the rich, so what? Inflation?
You made the claim!I also didn't make any such claim. Note the 'if'.
sidicks said:
trashbat said:
Edit: I'll do the legwork for you - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/...
Maybe you missed this bit:Robert Joyce, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says the claim that the bottom fifth of UK households saw a rise in their disposable income between 2008 and 2012 is upheld by data from the Office for National Statistics.
Maybe they are not getting poorer in absolute terms but the hours for those at the bottom get ever longer. Are you not poorer if you have to work longer hours for the same money or just to keep pace with inflation? It would be very easy to find data to refute that claim. It is a relative term anyway.
trashbat said:
we're not just talking individuals but meaningful groups - are getting richer whilst the poor get poorer, it at least tells you something about whether you have a healthy and sustainable society.
What if the poor aren't actually getting poorer but are getting a much richer, albeit at a slower pace than the very richest?AnotherClarkey said:
That's simple then, just become an immigrant somewhere else.
When you read posts like this you just know that IQ's have dropped several percentage points.Encouraging "white flight" is no solution to the issues that successive governments have generated such as labours unwritten opendoor immigration policy and the incomprehensible policy of Political Correctness to shut up any detractors.
How about enforcing a strict but fair immigration policy and insisting on English being spoken here by all migrants, no setting up of separate ethnic townships such as tower hamlets muslim only areas and addressing peoples concerns for whats happening here?
Or is that too right wing for you?
trashbat said:
Compared to what? Not the rich, so what? Inflation?
Not getting poorer means that over a time interval the poor are less poor than they were 
As you think detail is needed, what time interval (years maybe) shows that the UK poor (choose a definition) are poorer in April 2015 than a previous point in time? Correct for inflation by all means - and this is nothing more than a question!
It would be interesting to know which groups and which time intervals show that UK poor are/are not poorer. My first suspicion is that cherry picking a category of 'poor' and another cherry pick over the time interval will provide whatever result is desired, but that it would be more difficult to show the poor are getting poorer.
Also there has to be a suspicion that comments around the poor (variably defined) relate to their lot not improving as fast as others, rather than deteriorating in absolute term. Not getting better off quicker does not qualify as 'becoming poorer'.
Looking wider than the UK to the global position, more than 1 billion people live below the redefined $1.25 per day "absolute poverty" threshold. In 1980, more than 50% the world's population was living under that definition of absolute poverty whereas in 2014 the number living below it is was just over 20% so there's progress of sorts somewhere.
And looking leftwards as per the thread title at that survey of Labour voters revealing pure spite and envy over the top rate of tax, Thatcher had a point in that the left would in reality rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich, given that any set of economic conditions will not result in equal gains for all, ever, unless an unacceptably draconian eugenics programme is implemented alongside other totalitarian state actions.
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 21st April 12:02
Eric Mc said:
I don't think so.
Leftwards compared to when?
1920?
1948?
1979?
1997?
2010?
After the war there were quite a few communists about. I worked with some in the 60s, so they didn't go away quickly. Socialism was an accepted policy, a 'lite' version being the main thrust with public ownership of rail, power, buses that sort of thing. Things turned against them when the socialist workers part and such started to take over some unions and then the collapse of certain industries. Blair was centurist. John Smith, despite being fairly left of centre, rid the party of many of the extremists and then died, leaving Blair to move the party to the middle ground, catching the tories of guard. he pinched the methods of the SDP, and pinched their supporters, once hitting 40% in the polls. The right wing of the tory party tried to take control and this put off the electorate.Leftwards compared to when?
1920?
1948?
1979?
1997?
2010?
The latest vote put the tories as the largest party, so I don't see a shift leftwards there.
The rise of the UKIP would suggest that the country has moved to the right. Certainly since the war such parties have been accepted as extremist and ignored. Ozzy Mosely has massive support from both upper and working class before the war but when he tried the same thing after, with Max as his little me, it was a failure and there was considerable negative response. Only the upper classes seemed to be the same. The rhetoric of the party, the union movement, nee British union of fascists, was quite repulsive, yet before the war generated lots of support.
That has been the biggest change I've noticed in my lifetime, the rise of the right. Whether it is still going on, I'm not so sure.
Timmy40 said:
trashbat said:
we're not just talking individuals but meaningful groups - are getting richer whilst the poor get poorer, it at least tells you something about whether you have a healthy and sustainable society.
What if the poor aren't actually getting poorer but are getting a much richer, albeit at a slower pace than the very richest?So to come up with a silly example, if by 2020, 'the poor' all get paid enough to notionally afford 100" TVs and a new car, but there's no public services any more, disease is rampant, etc, whilst 'the rich' and indeed everyone else in every other developed countries have no need to work, are colonising space and travelling about in personal jets, you'll probably be judged by many to have produced something of a failure.
But then if *everyone* is more comfortably off than ten years ago, whilst the rich just have silly numbers in their bank accounts, probably only a few will notice.
It's complicated, but in general the gap matters, because this stuff doesn't just happen in isolation in a vacuum. Crime, for instance, has some relationship to inequality. Mortgages and home affordability is no doubt linked to it. Plus wealth can be fragile, so if all your struggling customers starve to death, you might yourself be in trouble.
Edited by trashbat on Tuesday 21st April 12:04
trashbat said:
It's complicated, but in general the gap matters, because this stuff doesn't just happen in isolation in a vacuum. Crime, for instance, has some relationship to inequality.
Gaps matter to politicians who want to exploit the poor, even if they're getting better off, for their own personal and political ends.As to crime and inequality, correlation isn't causation. It's down to personal decisions and whether an individual makes a good decision or a bad one. People can do that in any circumstances and I suspect some who would consider themsevles poor would object to any slur suggesting they are more likely to be criminals purely because of some particular level of poverty.
Rich people shoplift, embezzle, try insider dealing etc as bad decisions are available to all.
When you have a Tory Prime Minister introducing legislation to allow gay & lesbian people to get legally married, against the wishes of what Theresa May called 'the nasty party', then there is no doubt that in terms of social policy England is 'drifting ever leftward'.
And that is a very good thing. Gay marriage makes me proud to be British. I have some news for all you right wingers :
The left has won the social argument. Deal with it.
And that is a very good thing. Gay marriage makes me proud to be British. I have some news for all you right wingers :
The left has won the social argument. Deal with it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff