Metal Biker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 21,328
- Team supported
- Manchester City (and McLaren F1)
The middle ground didn't fail at all, it has many more supporters than those of the left and right ever hoped to attain. The middle ground gave Labour 3 electoral victories. Cameron's shift to the middle saw his traditionally right wing party elected to power twice. As Labour moves further to the left their hopes of winning diminishes. May's shift to the right has seen a similar trend and it's why we have our shaky politics and a hung parliament until they were forced to do a deal with other right wing representatives. Those in the middle will either reluctantly choose to vote for the party that is most centrist or refuse to do so at all. This is evident by the dropping turnout of the previous elections.You might as well post a picture of the Pyramids.
The reason politics has taken the turn it has in the UK, USA, and in much of the western world is because your middle ground has failed, and it's failed because it isn't in the middle of anything.
Your middle ground takes the prevailing power structures and sets them in stone, the end of history, capitalism as the only show in town, capitalism as everything, forever, in the middle and at both ends.
But it isn't the end of history, and history tells us that capitalism is as much about sweat shops and the gig economy as it is about liberated housewives dancing round their sparkling new washing machines. Unfettered capitalism I'm afraid is a pretty shitty foundation to build a fair and equitable society.
So what to do?
The third way apostle Tony Blair set out to remove the unjust elements of capitalism by embracing something new (Blair does love new things) declaring his support for a "new capitalism", just as Bush Jnr had embraced "compassionate capitalism" ten years earlier and Nigel Farage talks of "patriotic capitalism". Even May flirted (for a while) with workers on corporate boards, before her nerve failed, and even Thatcher dreamt of a shareholder democracy! Each one of these politicians realized, in ways you won't acknowledge, that capitalism may be a great generator of wealth, but at its heart and left to its own devices, it is fundamentally exploitative and the larger it gets the more corrupt it becomes.
Up until the 1970s this was taken as given by all the political parties in this country, and the middle ground between left and right was danced around, sometimes to the right and sometimes to the left, by the likes of MacMillan and Wilson. This was utterly destroyed by Thatcher who embraced the neoliberalism of Hayek....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
In February 1975, Margaret Thatcher was elected leader of the British Conservative Party. The Institute of Economic Affairs arranged a meeting between Hayek and Thatcher in London soon after. During Thatcher's only visit to the Conservative Research Department in the summer of 1975, a speaker had prepared a paper on why the "middle way" was the pragmatic path the Conservative Party should take, avoiding the extremes of left and right. Before he had finished, Thatcher "reached into her briefcase and took out a book. It was Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. Interrupting our pragmatist, she held the book up for all of us to see. 'This', she said sternly, 'is what we believe', and banged Hayek down on the table".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Since Thatcher we have had a succession of politicians, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, who've chosen not to dance around the middle ground between left and right, as their predessors Wilson and MacMillan did, but have danced around neoliberalism instead, that is why I and others call Blair and Ummuna and Hodge, Tories, because they are, just as Cameron was happy to be called the heir to Blair and Osborne and Blair are now happy to admit they agree on almost everything, all these politicians dance around the same flame, the flame of neoliberalism.
Consequently New Labour and One Nation Toryism share more in common than just their adjectives being a lie, they are the same thing, they worship the same god.
The third way middle ground you long for is nothing more than a lie, a Tory-Lite mush created by the centre-left capitulation to neoliberal globalization, that is why it isn't the middle of anything, it's either New Labour Tory Tweedledum or One Nation Tory Tweedledee.
If your brand of politics is such a vote winner, why hasn't it? We have a free choice, after all. Left wing politics appeals to left wingers only, the third way appeals to both in some aspects. Unless you can explain the 1997 Labour landslide some other way?