Look. All through history wealth and education were strongly correlated. This makes both sides weird. The lefties try a pro-educated opinion (against tribal racism, homophobia etc.) combined with a pro-poor opinion. The righties do the opposite, they are pro-aristocrat, even though the aristocrats are educated hence not going to be "trads", while their opinions are the opinions of the uneducated hence poor.
Who the hell invented this mess and just how ever it was supposed to work?
These cannot possibly ever be stable.
The only two stable positions are elitist libertarianism and populist socialist nationalist conservatism. Consistently pro educated/rich, consistently pro poor/uneducated.
There is a presumption here, of elite capability. When a norm is adopted, it is expressed in policy and outcomes. But that isn't what we're seeing. What you are calling values look more like valueless words, mere platitudes, from outside policy circles.
In a counterfactual world where Labour had been in power the last five years, we would likely have seen the same outcomes: failure to "level up" the regions, failure to control energy and housing and food costs, failure to lift wages and reduce child poverty, failure to do much of anything, really.*
So the other wing of the Uniparty would have been elected on a protest vote. Analysis that I saw indicated that many Labour incumbents had their vote reduced, just by not as much as Tory incumbents, and that Labour "won by a land-slide" with six hundred thousand fewer votes that it received when losing the election in 2019. Fewer votes, not more. Despite population growth in the intervening five years.
Increasing numbers of people do not believe that either wing of the Uniparty is capable of much. Unless Labour delivers, both wings of the Uniparty will lose their positions, norms or no norms.
* I note that Labour's answer to the cost, red tape and delay involved in trying to build anything is to hire more planning officers, which will inevitably increase costs red tape and delay as the new people have to be funded and have to justify their jobs.
“Make St George’s and St David’s day a public holiday”
Explanation enough for the dinner chat.
Look. All through history wealth and education were strongly correlated. This makes both sides weird. The lefties try a pro-educated opinion (against tribal racism, homophobia etc.) combined with a pro-poor opinion. The righties do the opposite, they are pro-aristocrat, even though the aristocrats are educated hence not going to be "trads", while their opinions are the opinions of the uneducated hence poor.
Who the hell invented this mess and just how ever it was supposed to work?
These cannot possibly ever be stable.
The only two stable positions are elitist libertarianism and populist socialist nationalist conservatism. Consistently pro educated/rich, consistently pro poor/uneducated.
There is a presumption here, of elite capability. When a norm is adopted, it is expressed in policy and outcomes. But that isn't what we're seeing. What you are calling values look more like valueless words, mere platitudes, from outside policy circles.
In a counterfactual world where Labour had been in power the last five years, we would likely have seen the same outcomes: failure to "level up" the regions, failure to control energy and housing and food costs, failure to lift wages and reduce child poverty, failure to do much of anything, really.*
So the other wing of the Uniparty would have been elected on a protest vote. Analysis that I saw indicated that many Labour incumbents had their vote reduced, just by not as much as Tory incumbents, and that Labour "won by a land-slide" with six hundred thousand fewer votes that it received when losing the election in 2019. Fewer votes, not more. Despite population growth in the intervening five years.
Increasing numbers of people do not believe that either wing of the Uniparty is capable of much. Unless Labour delivers, both wings of the Uniparty will lose their positions, norms or no norms.
* I note that Labour's answer to the cost, red tape and delay involved in trying to build anything is to hire more planning officers, which will inevitably increase costs red tape and delay as the new people have to be funded and have to justify their jobs.
How does this relate to the article?