You are reading a single comment by @Squaredisk and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Seemed like you were just agreeing with Ted's original rant. That came across to me as a rant about a false equivalence going on. Like why give equal focus on a hypothetical future Labour government when we actually have a lettuce-competing, fridge-hiding, government right here right now to get shut of first.
Squaredisk
I know this is a rant to get it off your chest, so sorry if this comes across as argumentative, but these statements—from the left at least—are generally not being literal about exact equality between the major parties' policy programmes, as I'm sure you've figured out. Any vaguely left-wing commenter can clearly see the destructive nature of the Conservative government and it's basically without question that Labour is preferable.
I don't like the simplistic framing of these statements either—they're not informative, they reduce the level of debate, but equally they're entirely valid value judgements. The most recent post by @chickenbones was sarcastically highlighting what they believed to be an indication of Labour returning to old rhetoric that blames the unemployed, for example.
^This is just as much a value judgement too, and that's totally fine, but pretending that Labour is beyond criticism pushes discussion in the same direction: more partisan, more derision, just vibes (take a look at some of your other replies calling people tankies for christ's sake).
The parties' directions are obviously different to me, but that doesn't mean Labour are meeting the threshold for the progressive change we need. There are certainly some problematic similarities, so I'd have thought that talking about the direction of the next government would be good and necessary.
LFGSS is full of lefties anyway, surely we can criticise both without pretending it'll have any serious electoral effect?