You are reading a single comment by @rhb and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Firstly - the evidence is half the country voted for parties that have limited support for these outcomes.
Citation needed.
rhb-
Fair enough - I was being sloppy with my language.
Conservative and reform took 40% of the popular vote. My point was that IMO is a high percentage of people voting against green policies, and while yes there’s technically a majority voting for parties with progressive green policies I don’t think that margin is sufficient for any government to start enacting “radical” change.
Persistent, methodical progress would be sensible where margins are thin. Unless you absolutely know that the results of step change will be quickly positive.
cookiemonster
Firstly - the evidence is half the country voted for parties that have limited support for these outcomes.
Second, these can be tackled in methodical, evidence based, idealogically-neutral manner. You don’t need to be radical.
Radical works both ways - trump, brexit, etc are all radical step changes. Being radical doesn’t necessarily give a positive outcome. And, given the incredible complexity of improving health, schooling, poverty and so on, there is a very high possibility that radical change results in unintended consequences.
It seems that at both ends of the political spectrum “radical” is becoming a populist ideology- persistence, focus, and very hard but boring management aren’t sufficient to improve matters. We just need some simple radical ideas and all will be well.