No, I certainly wouldn't call Labour "left wing." I've generally understood them to be "left of center" or "center left" which is what I was going for here. Point taken about Starmer though, thanks for the input!
No, I certainly wouldn't call Labour "left wing." I've generally understood them to be "left of center" or "center left" which is what I was going for here. Point taken about Starmer though, thanks for the input!
That was in fact a very good understanding of Labour... pre-Starmer.
Labour has always been a broader church than the Conservatives, and its internal politics have been dictated for years by the fact that it had - effectively - a managing class of Members of Parliament which were significantly to the right of the base. There was an alliance anyway, because they were still far left of the Conservatives and a left-wing base didn't mind supporting Labour campaigners if it brought results! That alliance brought Blair to power.
That alliance collapsed when the MPs moved further right and _still failed to win_. The base voted in a left-wing leader in Corbyn - more as a protest than out of a belief in him - and the leadership responded with immediate, open civil war. Which splintered the party further, because left-wing campaigners naturally resented supporting a right-wing leadership for two decades only to be told to get lost the instant _their_ candidate won leadership.
So Starmer's reign has been characterised primarily by ruthless, open purging of the left from the party, even at the expense of being an opposition. Given the choice between opposing Conservatives or Labour members who might vote against him, he chooses the latter. In particular, he used a transparent excuse to throw the previous party leader out of the party.
(Yes, that's as extreme as it sounds. It's like Biden revoking Obama's DNC membership. Were our press not so heavily right-wing controlled, it's unlikely it could have worked.)
The thing to understand about Starmer's popularity is that it's not about Starmer. Nobody loves Starmer. But the Murdoch and Harmsworth press don't hate him, so they aren't doing the polarising hit pieces that helped kill the last three Labour leaders. Meanwhile the Conservatives are now so openly corrupt and utterly bereft of plans to fix the economic mess they created, _anyone_ could win against them. At this point I'd give the Monster Raving Loony party favourable odds against Sunak if they had a candidate in that race.
(For the last Conservative Prime Minister, a popular newspaper ran a story betting whether she'd last longer than a lettuce they bought from a supermarket and left out to wilt. The lettuce won.)
No, I certainly wouldn't call Labour "left wing." I've generally understood them to be "left of center" or "center left" which is what I was going for here. Point taken about Starmer though, thanks for the input!
That was in fact a very good understanding of Labour... pre-Starmer.
Labour has always been a broader church than the Conservatives, and its internal politics have been dictated for years by the fact that it had - effectively - a managing class of Members of Parliament which were significantly to the right of the base. There was an alliance anyway, because they were still far left of the Conservatives and a left-wing base didn't mind supporting Labour campaigners if it brought results! That alliance brought Blair to power.
That alliance collapsed when the MPs moved further right and _still failed to win_. The base voted in a left-wing leader in Corbyn - more as a protest than out of a belief in him - and the leadership responded with immediate, open civil war. Which splintered the party further, because left-wing campaigners naturally resented supporting a right-wing leadership for two decades only to be told to get lost the instant _their_ candidate won leadership.
So Starmer's reign has been characterised primarily by ruthless, open purging of the left from the party, even at the expense of being an opposition. Given the choice between opposing Conservatives or Labour members who might vote against him, he chooses the latter. In particular, he used a transparent excuse to throw the previous party leader out of the party.
(Yes, that's as extreme as it sounds. It's like Biden revoking Obama's DNC membership. Were our press not so heavily right-wing controlled, it's unlikely it could have worked.)
The thing to understand about Starmer's popularity is that it's not about Starmer. Nobody loves Starmer. But the Murdoch and Harmsworth press don't hate him, so they aren't doing the polarising hit pieces that helped kill the last three Labour leaders. Meanwhile the Conservatives are now so openly corrupt and utterly bereft of plans to fix the economic mess they created, _anyone_ could win against them. At this point I'd give the Monster Raving Loony party favourable odds against Sunak if they had a candidate in that race.
(For the last Conservative Prime Minister, a popular newspaper ran a story betting whether she'd last longer than a lettuce they bought from a supermarket and left out to wilt. The lettuce won.)
Well, that's depressing. Thanks for the further context, will keep an eye on this.