The Rise of the Centrist

She did and it was quashed.
Poor girl.

I often feel that growing up in a political family must be a bit like growing up in an organised crime family.

You're born into a environment defined by Machiavellian sociopathy and a constant will to power. There's a perpetual - and confusing - double standard in the form of a façade of respectability and lip service to civilised values.

Deeply damaging for children and adolescents. Especially when you add constant media pressure, 24/7 police bodyguards, and the continual scrutiny and intrusion of your peer group.
 
I think you misunderstand my point, IMHO very, very few "Genuine and honest politicians" are capable of achieving greatness; I can count on the thumbs of one foot the number that spring to mind. As I said earlier, it's the duplicitous buggers who get their names in the history books, because they get things done regardless.

But surely the morally upstanding sorts are usually in the backbenches forming a sort of Awkward squad to reign in the excesses of the backstabbers?

Wasn't it Cook (or was it Blunket?) who was in a cabinet post, then returned to the back benches and resigned from there because he was morally opposed to the government's stance on something? I remember footage of him on the news deliberatly reading out his statement from the back benches to illustrate the point.
 

Boris_Johnson

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
Poppy outrage season is almost upon us.

That special time of year when the "Poppy is not political" statements are thrust upon us and people start asking why footballers won't wear a poppy but will bend the knee.

Just as the Neo-Marxist movements hijack the anti-racist rhetoric, the bigots will hijack the poppy appeal to promote their message.

The Centrist understands the noise will generally be created by the "un-slient" minorities once again and will let them fight amongst themselves. Because to get involve merely adds merit to their arguments and detract from the very cause it should be about.

They understand the fundamental reasons; the primary one being that it's about respect and honouring those who gave their lives for those very freedoms which permit such an array of views. And to oppose such views is to oppose such freedom of expression, regardless of how illogical, bizarre and extreme they may be.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
But surely the morally upstanding sorts are usually in the backbenches forming a sort of Awkward squad to reign in the excesses of the backstabbers?

Wasn't it Cook (or was it Blunket?) who was in a cabinet post, then returned to the back benches and resigned from there because he was morally opposed to the government's stance on something? I remember footage of him on the news deliberatly reading out his statement from the back benches to illustrate the point.
Yes they do, and sometimes to great effect (cf Sir Geoffrey Howe), but the rarely achieve greatness themselves.

 
Both have recognized what Psychology knew about centuries ago i.e. the ancient texts really were literature designed around concepts to make humans better people and the idea that we have an individual consciousness with nature or god, that transcends being a 'good citizen' and if that is unbalanced and society as a whole is chaos then its how societies have turned to the darkest ideas and short cuts to heaven like communism/fascism.

Yes I tend to agree, with the above, clearly some 'Myths' are fanciful, a mix of history and 'pull up a sandbag', some are wild stories to make an education point. A group within society driven too dismiss any or all 'Religious Texts out of hand in the drive towards secularism, strikes me as a movement that exhibits the very same methods as a religious group... For instance those who subscribe to the doctrine of 'New Atheism' have to have the same 'Faith that 'God' does not or cannot exist.

P.S. I happen to believe we have a new short cut to heaven and progressivism is driving society to hell at an accelerated rate, because you can't keep dividing people and atomising society through technology forever without consequences.
I am not sure what you mean by "we have a new short cut to heaven", but without doubt I am in agreement that "progressivism" is the driver behind much that has bent western society out of shape. Articles of 'Faith' that groups coalesce round are as old as tribal humanity itself, be it a religion or the 'Bus load of BMH Nurses from wherever'.

The faith and mythology of constant progressivism does seem to involve dividing and atomising at a core tactic, I would suggest that the 'centre of society' think that looking at maintaining, monitoring with a view to improving a system is more conservative in nature than progressive.

The faith and mythology of constant conservativism, is that small governance is the core of freedom I would suggest that the 'centre of society' think that order rules and law (a central governance), while at times not able to keep up with sociality developments, is seen as a vital requirement more to maintain a functioning society than to conserve it.
 
And this is exactly why the Conservatives have an 80 seat majority.

The Labour party no longer appeal to the 'working' family, they are chasing the fringes, the lame and lazy and the minority groups in order to guarantee their vote, in the meantime they have arrogantly (IMO) ignored the core value of the Labour party 'To support and give a political voice to the workers'. These days the working person gets no support at all from the Labour party and even less voice.

It is no wonder that the Conservatives are appealing proposition to the average working person.

As has been previously said, i am far from being a Labour supporter, but a good Govt needs a good opposition!

I would contend that for many decades the Labour Party, not only abandoned the working class but are disdainful of them as working class... You are absolutely correct that 'Good Government' needs a good opposition.

Sadly I cannot recollect a time in my entire life say from the 1970's when their has been either an effective or credible opposition, rather the opposing party to government has spending more time in-fighting than opposing poor legislation.

Labour has constantly trying to rid itself of communists and the like and the Conservatives mostly divided over the EU in all its previous form. The Liberal Party / Liberal Democrats sway between fence sitting and fringe issues, seen only as important when required to make a majority, thus seen more as a protest vote option by the electorate.

The only time parties seem to come together is to fight elections, to be frank I doubt the Conservatives 80 seat majority was not because of standing on a core idealogical position, rather that the country had settled with 'Brexit' being a done deal and the hope from parts of the electorate that the Conservatives in government would deal with mass migration... I don,t think the centre are particularly happy that neither are being resolved well.
 
Whether we have an empire as such now is a discussion. Many people have pointed to the US's global dominance in recent decades but is that really an empire? Certainly, it is eating itself from within and its power is waning. The agents of that change are, again, a discussion point but it's probably fair to say that the US has been invaded, if not physically. No doubt the agitprop which fuels Woke, Antifa and so on are receiving not a little overseas encouragement of one form or another.

What we're seeing is a threat to society's cohesion. Not just in the UK but in the US and other Western-aligned countries.

Absolutely, the 'Western Enlightenment Liberal' societal core seems unable or unwilling to stand up resolutely and defend itself. Too 'turn the other cheek' against a reasonable enemy may de-escalate 'turning the other cheek' to an unresolvable enemy, ends up with one's arrse being beaten to the ground.

I agree, to bring it back to the UK, that the Tories appear to be walking blindly into it, or else doing very little about it. It may be the complacency of an always-there-to-be-squandered 80-seat majority. It may be that Brexit and Covid chew up bandwidth enough.

One thing is sure: the population isn't happy. That's not pushing it into Labour's arms. Far from it; if the Tories are failing to shine in many respects Labour is still managing to make them a beacon of virtue by comparison.

I've no issues with that. Labour is a mediocrity of its own making - see comments above about getting complacent and dying from within.

Blindly indeed the 80 seat majority is sadly i think seen by the political and media class for what it actually is, It's a dismissal of political correctness over patriotism, a dismissal of globalism where ones nation should seek to be only a cog in an internationalist machine, it is not a whole hearted support of the direction that the Conservative party is moving too, post election. Which is some mutated Blue Labour Blair'ism. 'TC' Blair did more damage to this nation than one would have thought was possible... That another thread there.

I do, though, think that we need to be doing more to slap down the nonsense of the identitarians. Because it is precisely nonsense.
This in spades.

Yours aye,

Gammon Minor ;-)
 
Maybe there’s a further variation of the old left / right spectrum? Progressive and Aspirational?

The Aspirational are those who want to get on, do well for themselves and their families, and build up some sort of value that can then be passed down to their children.

They believe in self-reliance but know from experience that a safety net is needed. However, they have a low tolerance (and no respect) for those who abuse the safety net or promote it as a valid alternative life choice.

They want reasonable public service and a certain level of protection for industry, for as little tax outlay as possible.

They also want as little interference from the establishment and elite as possible.

Basically, they just want to get on and want a “live and let live” society. If you’re successful, you can keep the rewards. If you’re not successful, the state will help temporarily until you’re back on your feet.

One of the things, I think your good posts points out and is also clear across many posts in this thread the various political spectrum labels mean different thing to different people, add to that at times we all many use broad brushes and mahossive generalisation in debate.

Sadly this can lead to misunderstanding, misrepresentation presenting an opportunity for trolls and political opportunists in some cases to derail of shut down debate.

However if we where to spend time be it speaking or writing defining everything down to the last detail this also is likely to also do much to away from the core of the debate, and send it instead into the weeds.

That is why I try to stick to traditional paradigms, while they may be at times clumsy they are broadly understood and accepted as a reasonable broad brush. Thus the 'silent majority' aka centralists are seen as silent not because they 'are' disconnected but rather they they get brushed aside by the overuse of progressive buzz word bingo, and the disingenuous nature of a sadly activistic media when questioned.

An example being 'what do you think of the women and children's suffering when talking of pushing back against mass migration... Particularly when is is clear the majority are not women and children.

The media know that a reasonable person is going to say, its a pity and the nation should be as sympathetic as is possible. They only look for someone who's focus is that the majority of mass migration is young men, when they have a narrative to frame of 'if you are against mass migration' then they can allude that the interviewed are one step removed from "white supremacy" bla bla bla.
 
Poppy outrage season is almost upon us.

That special time of year when the "Poppy is not political" statements are thrust upon us and people start asking why footballers won't wear a poppy but will bend the knee.

Just as the Neo-Marxist movements hijack the anti-racist rhetoric, the bigots will hijack the poppy appeal to promote their message.

The Centrist understands the noise will generally be created by the "un-slient" minorities once again and will let them fight amongst themselves. Because to get involve merely adds merit to their arguments and detract from the very cause it should be about.

They understand the fundamental reasons; the primary one being that it's about respect and honouring those who gave their lives for those very freedoms which permit such an array of views. And to oppose such views is to oppose such freedom of expression, regardless of how illogical, bizarre and extreme they may be.

Spot on... Sadly that "The Centrist understands the noise will generally be created by the "un-silent" minorities once again and will let them fight amongst themselves. Because to get involve merely adds merit to their arguments and detract from the very cause it should be about."

Sadly this is too my mind just giving ground to the unreasonable, and while it's a huge pain in the ass and as you say a distraction from in this example 'honouring remembrance'. Is I believe why the the 'Progressive Identitarians' use it as an offensive tactic, to advance the cause.

Telling all and sundry to 'get bent' when they use such tactics, is not taking the high ground for moral purposes, rather holding high ground is a better tactical choice in being able too repel an enemy attack.
 
Details hmmm. Yeah ok!


And very likely just the very tip of the iceberg!
If you can find any self-employed person paying other than a token amount of income tax and the lower level of NI then it is a statistical outlier.

I experienced one whose income was in excess of 50k - yet after ‘expenses’ stated he only took home £11,500. There are millions of these - and I will guarantee that large numbers also claim the maximum in Tax Credits et al.

One demographic is VERY well represented in that cohort.
 

Mr_Relaxed

War Hero
I would contend that for many decades the Labour Party, not only abandoned the working class but are disdainful of them as working class... You are absolutely correct that 'Good Government' needs a good opposition.
Agreed but I would also contend that it’s a patronising style - a little in the same way some left wingers will refer to the way that the British Empire behaved. Funny that…

Mummy knows best, is how it comes across. And it’s a mother who gets a little scared (and lays on a guilt trip) when the kids try to leave home.
 
Yes I tend to agree, with the above, clearly some 'Myths' are fanciful, a mix of history and 'pull up a sandbag', some are wild stories to make an education point. A group within society driven too dismiss any or all 'Religious Texts out of hand in the drive towards secularism, strikes me as a movement that exhibits the very same methods as a religious group... For instance those who subscribe to the doctrine of 'New Atheism' have to have the same 'Faith that 'God' does not or cannot exist.


I am not sure what you mean by "we have a new short cut to heaven", but without doubt I am in agreement that "progressivism" is the driver behind much that has bent western society out of shape. Articles of 'Faith' that groups coalesce round are as old as tribal humanity itself, be it a religion or the 'Bus load of BMH Nurses from wherever'.

The faith and mythology of constant progressivism does seem to involve dividing and atomising at a core tactic, I would suggest that the 'centre of society' think that looking at maintaining, monitoring with a view to improving a system is more conservative in nature than progressive.

The faith and mythology of constant conservativism, is that small governance is the core of freedom I would suggest that the 'centre of society' think that order rules and law (a central governance), while at times not able to keep up with sociality developments, is seen as a vital requirement more to maintain a functioning society than to conserve it.
'short cut to heaven' - The idea that you can create a utopia by taking shortcuts, which ALWAYS involve trampling on other people. My point was the progressives are chasing a new utopia and aren't that far away from identifying political opponents as enemies to be dealt with.

Whats interesting about history is it never repeats itself, exactly.. So the far right and far left had their turn with the butchers apron and I sense the progressives are wearing it now and the more resistance that musters against them, the more they're will resist with a recourse to violence directed at the cancers they're perceive in the perfect society.
 
'short cut to heaven' - The idea that you can create a utopia by taking shortcuts, which ALWAYS involve trampling on other people. My point was the progressives are chasing a new utopia and aren't that far away from identifying political opponents as enemies to be dealt with.

I see now what you meant was, it was the use of the 'We', in "I happen to believe we have a new short cut" that confused me. I missed the ironic nature of its use.


Whats interesting about history is it never repeats itself, exactly.. So the far right and far left had their turn with the butchers apron and I sense the progressives are wearing it now and the more resistance that musters against them, the more they're will resist with a recourse to violence directed at the cancers they're perceive in the perfect society.

Indeed those who dismiss history and its context and nuances, are deemed likely to repeat the mistakes... Communists for instance, always claim that Communisms murderous failures, are because it was not done right, and the citizens failed to put in the effort. it's never that the core ideology of Communism is poison.

Just one more time, they say to get it right. Of course the authoritarian and centralised nature of the bunk, that is socialism, which then always morphs into fascism, its natural bed fellow. I don't see much difference between 'Progressivism' and Communism other than a rebranding of label. As for the Globalist agenda being floated by the intellectually illiterate, 'has much in common with Italian Fascism' and as I say is a bedfellow Communism... The only difference is all for the state or all for the party.


What real difference was there between the 'Brown Shirts' and 'Antifaschistische Aktion' during the turbulent period of the Weimar Republic, and then compare them both too today's 'National Action' or 'Antifa'. Such street thugs and ideologues don't care about the silent majority or other centralist, if you are not with them absolutely, then you are as much an enemy and valid target as each of there political polar opposition.
 
I'm not keen on this centrist thing. Surely in old money that's just being a conservative? Middle of the road in opinion.

We don't need to make up new names for things that already exist. Youth rebrand because it's cool. It's never cool.
 
LT Phillips from the radio show ‘The Navy Lark’ epitomizes the philosophy of the centrists.
Left hand down a bit, right hand down a bit, steady as she goes.
:)
 

Yokel

LE
LT Phillips from the radio show ‘The Navy Lark’ epitomizes the philosophy of the centrists.
Left hand down a bit, right hand down a bit, steady as she goes.
:)

I suspect that you wrote that in jest, but you have actually hit the nail on the head. Every natural system, such as ecosystems and the climate, are kept in balance by negative feedback. Every control system is kept under control the same way - just thinking of the controls of a steam engine being controlled by the spinning metal balls. If they spin too fast, centrifugal force pulls them up, which reduces fuel inflow. Too slow, and the fuel supply gets increased. Or perhaps an electrical heater that turns off when the temperature reaches a certain level, and turns back on when it falls below a certain level.

Likewise social and political systems need feedback for stability. I suppose that Parliament is the classic example. The Government and Opposition talk to (or perhaps at) each other, and it gives the opportunity for the Government to be held to account, exposing poor policies and curbing the excesses of proposed legislation. The system depends on both sides being able to listen. The problem is when this breaks down due to people playing the identity game. Nobody should ever be considered above legitimate and reasoned criticism, but they should never have their ideas dismissed because of their background or personal characteristics.

A small amount of negative feedback keeps you honest. If nothing else it helps you make your argument stronger and more cogent.
 
suspect that you wrote that in jest
Only in part, (just to see how many remember it).
The centre being the bit where the best ideas coalesce, with occasional good or new input from the left or right of politics.
It seems to be the direction of current government. Having got elected, and realizing that Brexit included a few unwanted consequences, the party has moved a bit too far to the left, taking the original analogy with it. :)
 

Latest Threads

Top