Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

[Francesca R]

"All main political parties are right of centre" seems pretty similar to claiming that almost all integers between one and ten are even. Not to be taken seriously.

 

[Craig B]

"All main political parties are right of centre" seems pretty similar to claiming that almost all integers between one and ten are even. Not to be taken seriously.

By the definition of right and left used in the chart, it's possble for them all to be on one side or the other, as the criterion is not a mutual relationship of the parties, but their position as regards external political criteria. I'm sure in fact that's obvious to you if you consider it a little.

If we consider "Policy X" (whatever it may be) to be right wing, as measured objectively, then if all main parties adopt policy X, they're all right wing.

 

[Francesca R]

their position as regards external political criteria.

In other words, not representative of the political centre.

 

[Rat]

Well, that may be their opinion, but it looks like nonsense to me. They place the Conservatives way to the right of the BNP and UKIP, for instance, and they say that the only national party of the left is the Green party. It would be interesting to see how they came to those conclusions, and, just as importantly, who they are that compile charts like that.

As Tebbit wrote of the BNP:

...there is plenty of anti-capitalism, opposition to free trade, commitments to "use all non-destructive means to reduce income inequality", to institute worker ownership, to favour workers' co-operatives, to return parts of the railways to state ownership, to nationalise the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and to withdraw from NATO. That sounds pretty Left-wing to me.

Most people have only a vague notion of what left-wing and right-wing actually mean, but by any reasonable measure, the BNP are left of the Conservatives, unless you regard authoritarianism as necessarily right-wing.

 

[Craig B]

In other words, not representative of the political centre.

I don't know what you mean. Let's look at this in terms of general political theory and say that (this is not a real example) those parties which propose that money should be abolished are left wing. If no party proposes that, then none of them are left wing. There's a sort of real but diluted version of that in the Clause 4 question. If that sort of thing is left wing, it stays on the left, and a party that abandons it moves to the right. If none of them promote it, they're all on the right. The centre as a whole may have moved in relation to this measure.

But if the centre is defined as the average of all political parties then of course they can't be all left wing; because some parties are to the right of other parties.

But that's not how the source we have looked at considers the matter. I think that is a better way of looking at it, by the way, because it enables overall shifts involving all parties to be detected and defined.

 

[MikeG]

I don't know what you mean. Let's look at this in terms of general political theory and say that (this is not a real example) those parties which propose that money should be abolished are left wing. If no party proposes that, then none of them are left wing. There's a sort of real but diluted version of that in the Clause 4 question. If that sort of thing is left wing, it stays on the left, and a party that abandons it moves to the right. If none of them promote it, they're all on the right. The centre as a whole may have moved in relation to this measure.

But if the centre is defined as the average of all political parties then of course they can't be all left wing; because some parties are to the right of other parties.

But that's not how the source we have looked at considers the matter. I think that is a better way of looking at it, by the way, because it enables overall shifts involving all parties to be detected and defined.

For once, I can agree with you, other than with your conclusion. That's a good analysis.

Personally, I think it rather silly to pick an arbitrary definition of Left or Right, from an arbitrary point in time, and stick with it forever.

 

[Craig B]

As Tebbit wrote of the BNP ...

Most people have only a vague notion of what left-wing and right-wing actually mean, but by any reasonable measure, the BNP are left of the Conservatives, unless you regard authoritarianism as necessarily right-wing.

Yes one might, not as regards authoritarianism as such, but racism. Not all policies are to be given the same weight as criteria. Racism outweighs many others, taken together.

In any case Tebbit was being disingenuously mischievous. He was appealing to his own very right wing following. If he had excoriated these fascists as right wingers, he feared - I think rightly - that some of his followers would have defected towards the BNP. For Tebbit, it's probably "pas d'ennemis à droite". All political rivals must be depicted as left wingers.

 

[Francesca R]

But if the centre is defined as the average of all political parties then of course they can't be all left wing; because some parties are to the right of other parties.

I regard the centre as the centre of UK voting preferences. It is daft to call it the centre if it is on one wing.

 

[Craig B]

I regard the centre as the centre of UK voting preferences. It is daft to call it the centre if it is on one wing.

As noted; that's one valid way of defining the centre, hence of defining left and right. But it isn't the only way; nor do I think it's the best way, as I have argued.

 

[Francesca R]

Sure. But I suspect these "static" assessments fall prey to subjective biases and end up saying more about who is doing the assessment than they do about voters. Hence much less useful.

 

[Rat]

Yes one might, not as regards authoritarianism as such, but racism. Not all policies are to be given the same weight as criteria. Racism outweighs many others, taken together.

In any case Tebbit was being disingenuously mischievous. He was appealing to his own very right wing following. If he had excoriated these fascists as right wingers, he feared - I think rightly - that some of his followers would have defected towards the BNP. For Tebbit, it's probably "pas d'ennemis à droite". All political rivals must be depicted as left wingers.

That feels a little like an ad hom, but certainly I don't see racism as a necessary or defining aspect of the right wing, and if it is, I think the terms 'left wing' or 'right wing' are even more meaningless. I'm sure there are many who are unflinchingly right wing and not at all racist, and I have known many old-fashioned left-wing union men who are as racist as they come.

The things that Tebbit listed are pretty much defining aspects of the left wing, and they are all things that the BNP have supported, and that the Conservatives (obviously) do not support.

 

[Craig B]

Sure. But I suspect these "static" assessments fall prey to subjective biases and end up saying more about who is doing the assessment than they do about voters. Hence much less useful.

Not agreed. You're now defining the left-right spectrum in terms of voters. Weighted for numbers supporting each party?

If so, you prevent yourself from being able to say things like "voters are moving to the right and all the main parties are following them" (If such a thing were to happen).

 

[MikeG]

I regard the centre as the centre of UK voting preferences. It is daft to call it the centre if it is on one wing.

Agreed, and as an aside, it was the assumption I made when drawing my bell-graph diagram 3 or 4 pages ago. In fact, it is so obvious that I don't even see it as an assumption.

 

[Craig B]

Agreed, and as an aside, it was the assumption I made when drawing my bell-graph diagram 3 or 4 pages ago. In fact, it is so obvious that I don't even see it as an assumption.

But this unquestioned criterion "centre of UK voting preferences" - that is not even an assumption - is not the same centre as, for example. the centre of Scottish voting preferences. It is therfore one measure, and other measures are possible, and even I think more informative.

 

[MikeG]

But this unquestioned criterion "centre of UK voting preferences" - that is not even an assumption - is not the same centre as, for example. the centre of Scottish voting preferences......

I'm pretty sure no-one claimed they were the same centres, but that does no damage to the concept. It is easily understood that being a right winger in Scotland is not the same as being a right winger in Britain as a whole, or in England. As an obvious example, being a right winger in England would probably place you on the centre left in the USA.

 

[GlennB]

I regard the centre as the centre of UK voting preferences. It is daft to call it the centre if it is on one wing.

Well, it's daft to call 8 'low' (on a scale of 1-10) just because there's a 9 floating around nearby out there. It's just lower

Similarly, it strikes me as daft to call Genghis Khan's Slow death to all who disagree with us 'left wing' just because they're a tad more moderate than Vlad The Impaler's Impale the head of all from beyond our border party.

Politically, the terms 'left' and 'right' have some absolute connotations. In this respect New Labour has veered right-of-centre simply because it fears differing too much from the Tories and appearing 'extreme'.

 

[GlennB]

Arse! I just had 5555 in the "post count as poker hand" thread and didn't notice it coming up

 

[MikeG]

........In this respect New Labour has veered right-of-centre.........

I simply disagree with this. They certainly took Labour rightwards, but they were still left of centre in my view. They may have been right of where Labour normally situate themselves, but that doesn't mean they were right of centre.

Not sure about "has" (ie present tense) in your sentence. The New Labour project is dead.

 

[caveman1917]

Righto. I'll re-calibrate all you posts mentally then.

I'll ask you again, show how neoliberalism is a "left-wing" ideology.

 

[GlennB]

I simply disagree with this. They certainly took Labour rightwards, but they were still left of centre in my view. They may have been right of where Labour normally situate themselves, but that doesn't mean they were right of centre.

Possibly, though that implies that we can define where 'centre' actually is. I was mostly disagreeing with Francesca R, who seems to have defined 'centre' in a relative way.

Not sure about "has" (ie present tense) in your sentence. The New Labour project is dead.

Well, it's moaning and writhing if you ask me, but not quite kicked the bucket yet.