That’s true but the labour party is far more conservative than ever before in its history, and is still squarely “conservative” even if less so than the others. They still want to privatise the NHS even more, for example, a.right wing position which will cause a lot of suffering and cost many lives. Just because they’re not fully fascist doesn’t mean you can’t criticise them for being too conservative.
That is absolutely not true what are you on about. Is absolutely no evidence they want to privatize the NHS unless of course you want to actually point to some evidence
When a politician says “Let me be clear, we’re not talking about privatising the NHS, we’re talking about using the private sector effectively” (emphasis mine) they mean further privatisation, just like under Blair, Starmer’s hero.
This is incredibly reductive but suppose there was a single spectrum between progressive and conservative. Let’s make progressive 0 and conservative 10.
Forgetting about parties for a moment, let’s say the will of the general population is 7.
If you have two major parties they will arrange themselves as 6.5 and 7.5. Both parties appear “conservative”, but really your progressive party needs to appear conservative to steal as many swing voters as possible.
If they won consecutive elections their policies would start to move back down the spectrum.
That’s true but the labour party is far more conservative than ever before in its history, and is still squarely “conservative” even if less so than the others. They still want to privatise the NHS even more, for example, a.right wing position which will cause a lot of suffering and cost many lives. Just because they’re not fully fascist doesn’t mean you can’t criticise them for being too conservative.
That is absolutely not true what are you on about. Is absolutely no evidence they want to privatize the NHS unless of course you want to actually point to some evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/25/keir-starmers-private-prescription-for-the-nhs-is-dangerous
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-pledge-privatisation-b2123849.html
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23236106.nhs-keir-starmer-defends-use-private-sector-despite-earlier-pledge/
And this is before the election even happens.
When a politician says “Let me be clear, we’re not talking about privatising the NHS, we’re talking about using the private sector effectively” (emphasis mine) they mean further privatisation, just like under Blair, Starmer’s hero.
That’s not really how major parties work though?
This is incredibly reductive but suppose there was a single spectrum between progressive and conservative. Let’s make progressive 0 and conservative 10.
Forgetting about parties for a moment, let’s say the will of the general population is 7.
If you have two major parties they will arrange themselves as 6.5 and 7.5. Both parties appear “conservative”, but really your progressive party needs to appear conservative to steal as many swing voters as possible.
If they won consecutive elections their policies would start to move back down the spectrum.
This is known as the “Overton window” for anyone who wants to read into it further.
Yeah right I had no idea it had a name. Thanks.