You are reading a single comment by @Grumpy_Git and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
There are however outliers
Yep. Progressive governments are the outlier, the statistics show it.
We're limited to what 13 labour ministries of the last 37 since 1945, 5 of which were Blair/Brown who most dont consider progressive. Again not all the others were either.Edit: not saying I'm happy about it but, numbers innit.
That's the obvious response, yes. Corbyn as proof of progressive policies not being accepted in the UK more recently, and a majority of countries in the OECD whose left wing governments are relatively centrist, if they're even in power at all. There are however outliers both domestically in the 20th century as well as current international examples.
Here's part of Harold Wilson's manifesto in 1974 before a narrow victory:
In 1970—an election he lost—he laid the ground work for those arguments with the likes of his 'Selsdon Man' speech:
Left wing: yes, won: yes. Left wing: yes, won: no. Different factors, a different time, and a very different left movement, to be sure.
Today's overton window is in a very different position, and most recently Corbyn set the boundary for electability to his right. Given the polls right now it's likely that the threshold of electoral viability is to the left of Starmer, or otherwise down to factors external to Labour policy, like Conservative incompetence and all the rest that's discussed at length in this thread.
So with all that said, do you honestly believe that there's no room whatsoever for more progressivism in the current Labour party that could be electorally viable? How about just a smidge more progressive? Two smidges?
It's quite obviously a grey area. It has some risk, sure, but it does provide space.