This a longer response to what I believe is a wrong view of Left and Right outlined by Christopher Hitchens. He seems to believe that radicalism equates to the left and conservatism to the right. I believe this is wrong and that there are radical and conservatives on the left and right.
The French Revolutionary origins of the left, right division could lead you to Hitchens view but as politics has changed a more generalised view is more appropriate. My definition reaches back to what I believe is a fundamental conflict in humans between the needs of the individual versus the needs of the group. In modern times this is often characterised in economic terms as public versus private.
So I see the left as biased towards collective action over individual action and the right as biased the other way. The centre ground is then the perfect balance between the two. In modern politics I assume most see themselves as perfect, evidence based centrists and from there the centre right have a bias toward the private sector in the absence of sufficient evidence and the centre left have a bias toward public sector solutions. The left and hard left would then be those that prefer public solutions in spite of evidence and the right likewise.
On social issues it might be assumed that the right would take a more libertarian view, allowing individuals to decide their own lives and the left in contrast would seek collective control over the individual. What has happened in practice is that individuals on the right seek to impose their world view on others where on the left collective strength allows individuals to express themselves.
Left and right is sometimes characterised as a battle between inequality and equality, but I just don’t see it in this way. Certainly on the right I see a greater pessimism about what is achievable but I don’t believe those on the centre right are really looking to deliberately create misery so the rich can prosper. Although there are some on the right that believe that inequality is natural and right, and some on the left believe that equality is a goal in itself.
So I find myself on the left because I have a bias toward collective, state intervention when I can’t see clear evidence of the best way forward. In the words of Liz Kendall “what matters is what works”. On social issues I am definitely a Libertarian, believing what people do is there own business as far as it has no direct impact on others. On equality and distribution of wealth I seek to maximise our collective potential, and to prevent the powerful from inhibiting the weak.
On the issue of conservative versus radical I certainly lean toward the radical. I view conservatives as against the natural order, which is change. The danger of radicalism is to lose what matters before we realise its importance. Inevitably a steady mix of forward movement followed by static reflection and course correction is the best way forward, but I don’t see that as essentially left wing.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Monday, September 07, 2015
Labour Leadership Contest
The first thing I noticed about the Labour leadership contest is the way people chose their candidates either on the basis of who they believed could win and election or who they thought best represented their views. Given how the process has gone its seems pretty clear that none of the candidates are likely to win in 2020 barring a self inflicted catastrophe for the Tories.
Having looked at the electorate I don’t think it will be enough to win back UKIP, Green and SNP votes alongside bringing in non-voters. I think it will be essential to encourage current Tory voters to switch to Labour and that is a very complex balance of appeal.
Before deciding how to vote I feel I need to take a positive view of the candidates, but also be realistic about how they will fare in front of the electorate. It’s worth noting at this point that the leadership election process is fundamentally flawed. All political parties have to be aware that their membership is not representative of the electorate, and will inevitably be more extreme in their views. For this reason I think the Tory method of allowing the MPs to select two candidates to put before the members is the best way of finding a leader than has the backing of the party and can appeal to the wider electorate.
Andy Burnham
In the polls he often performs best, but I can’t get past his constant flip flopping, I’ve seen him contradict himself within a sentence. It’s possible that the electorate will like his sincerity and he will be able to be all things to all people, but I can’t believe his constant contradictions will survive the scrutiny of a general election.
Yvette Cooper
For many years she has had a problem of fence sitting, and she certainly started this election quietly and uncommitted. Lately she is starting to take a position and is looking more positive. She has also been strongest in defending the last Labour government and still wanting to move forward.
Jeremy Corbyn
I find most of his critics to be deliberately obtuse when finding faults. Equally he and his supporters are too naive in understanding how the communication of ideas works in a general election. As an old leftie I can’t disagree with his general principals, but the point is there are many methods to reach those goals and a leader has to find a path to power to implement them. Corbyn simply does not convince as many of the electorate as his supporters would like to believe, he may energise the Labour heartlands, bringing good majorities when Labour win a seat, but he will not win the number of seats required. Overall I am disappointed with the lack of original or radical ideas, he is able to articulate faults without bringing forward the practical steps to fix them. He is in the end a natural for opposition.
Liz Kendall
Liz got off to a good start amongst the media commentators, but none of that has translated to the public or the Labour membership. I have found her to be brave and radical but unable to sustain enthusiasm for the length of the campaign.
Overall I have to favour Yvette Cooper, as she is the only one for me with the intelligence and stamina to survive a full election. I’m not convinced she can win, but it's still early and I remain optimistic as I think she will grow once she has the authority of leadership. If Corbyn does win then I can at least take solace in the idea that he will shift the centre of the debate forcing the Tories to move to the left again.
Having looked at the electorate I don’t think it will be enough to win back UKIP, Green and SNP votes alongside bringing in non-voters. I think it will be essential to encourage current Tory voters to switch to Labour and that is a very complex balance of appeal.
Before deciding how to vote I feel I need to take a positive view of the candidates, but also be realistic about how they will fare in front of the electorate. It’s worth noting at this point that the leadership election process is fundamentally flawed. All political parties have to be aware that their membership is not representative of the electorate, and will inevitably be more extreme in their views. For this reason I think the Tory method of allowing the MPs to select two candidates to put before the members is the best way of finding a leader than has the backing of the party and can appeal to the wider electorate.
Andy Burnham
In the polls he often performs best, but I can’t get past his constant flip flopping, I’ve seen him contradict himself within a sentence. It’s possible that the electorate will like his sincerity and he will be able to be all things to all people, but I can’t believe his constant contradictions will survive the scrutiny of a general election.
Yvette Cooper
For many years she has had a problem of fence sitting, and she certainly started this election quietly and uncommitted. Lately she is starting to take a position and is looking more positive. She has also been strongest in defending the last Labour government and still wanting to move forward.
Jeremy Corbyn
I find most of his critics to be deliberately obtuse when finding faults. Equally he and his supporters are too naive in understanding how the communication of ideas works in a general election. As an old leftie I can’t disagree with his general principals, but the point is there are many methods to reach those goals and a leader has to find a path to power to implement them. Corbyn simply does not convince as many of the electorate as his supporters would like to believe, he may energise the Labour heartlands, bringing good majorities when Labour win a seat, but he will not win the number of seats required. Overall I am disappointed with the lack of original or radical ideas, he is able to articulate faults without bringing forward the practical steps to fix them. He is in the end a natural for opposition.
Liz Kendall
Liz got off to a good start amongst the media commentators, but none of that has translated to the public or the Labour membership. I have found her to be brave and radical but unable to sustain enthusiasm for the length of the campaign.
Overall I have to favour Yvette Cooper, as she is the only one for me with the intelligence and stamina to survive a full election. I’m not convinced she can win, but it's still early and I remain optimistic as I think she will grow once she has the authority of leadership. If Corbyn does win then I can at least take solace in the idea that he will shift the centre of the debate forcing the Tories to move to the left again.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)