Trump Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I haven't heard anyone refer to a package of generic idealized political virtues as a consensus, let alone a central one. What your term would typically be evocative of is the postwar liberal consensus of international social democracy, followed by the post-Thatcher/Reagan neoliberal consensus of free trade, marketization, financialization, and reduced social welfare intervention by the state.

So it is a little worrisome that below you seem to identify this central consensus of virtuous conventions with the Blairite consensus, which was itself one branch of the Western neoliberal consensus. Don't you think that consensus could be reasonably criticized, even against the virtues you list?

To be frank I can't help but approve of the way the hard left has taken over the Labour Party. This is exactly what the Blairites were telling the left to do, isn't it? When the Left agitates for policy influence, the centrists always retort 'then win some votes.' Well that's just what Corbyn went and did. The main problem is that Corbyn seems to be building power in the party not for the sake of gaining the government and implementing his (very good) manifesto, but for the sake of self-aggrandizement and the settling of archaic personal vendettas. If I have the right of it Momentum has been attempting to purge disloyal elements from the Parliamentary Labour Party this year simply according to the calculation of who is likeliest to vote against Corbyn's leadership if he fails in the next general election (which is now apparently taken for granted). Ousting officials who don't support your agenda is all well and good in politics, but not when the man is the agenda.

I would have no complaints about the direction of the Labour Party if Corbyn were not the sort of person to center himself at the expense of the cause.

I think you're confusing the general consensus with a political ideology. The centre also isn't where you think it is, it's further to the right.

Most people don't think political in the way you do - most people just live "in the middle".

You've also bought into the rhetoric of "New Labour" when in reality Blair was just the latest incarnation of the Labour Right, like every Labour Prime Minister before him. Corbyn, on the other hand, comes from the Hard Left of the Party - the side that seen Northern Ireland as an occupied colony - Corbyn famously (not famously enough) voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement which became the foundation of the Good Friday Agreement.

[Montmorency]

I think you're confusing the general consensus with a political ideology. The centre also isn't where you think it is, it's further to the right.

Most people don't think political in the way you do - most people just live "in the middle".

You've also bought into the rhetoric of "New Labour" when in reality Blair was just the latest incarnation of the Labour Right, like every Labour Prime Minister before him. Corbyn, on the other hand, comes from the Hard Left of the Party - the side that seen Northern Ireland as an occupied colony - Corbyn famously (not famously enough) voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement which became the foundation of the Good Friday Agreement.

Your construction of a "general consensus" IS the ideology, a very specific one.

As for ordinary people, most of them are clearly either conservative or liberal, just passive in their engagement. The people whose voting behavior can be said to be "in the middle" are very few in the United States, and this behavior is typically the refuge of the "innocent and confused."

[Pannonian]

Your construction of a "general consensus" IS the ideology, a very specific one.

As for ordinary people, most of them are clearly either conservative or liberal, just passive in their engagement. The people whose voting behavior can be said to be "in the middle" are very few in the United States, and this behavior is typically the refuge of the "innocent and confused."

In the UK, before Brexit, they really were not. There is a fair bit of overlap between conservative and liberal, with the same social views driven by different reasonings. It's identity politics that is either/or. I suspect Blair, if he were eligible to and if he cared to, could probably find a consensus even in the US, with centre-left politics framed in a centre-right language. You've swallowed the radical left's portrayal of Blair as another Tory. Even where instinctual lefties had uneasy feelings about the language Blair was using, when they actually dug into what he was doing, it was astonishing just how leftist his government's achievements were. For example: given the chronic current problems with lack of housing and soaring homeless numbers, Blair practically eliminated homelessness. Look it up.

[Montmorency]

In the UK, before Brexit, they really were not. There is a fair bit of overlap between conservative and liberal, with the same social views driven by different reasonings. It's identity politics that is either/or. I suspect Blair, if he were eligible to and if he cared to, could probably find a consensus even in the US, with centre-left politics framed in a centre-right language. You've swallowed the radical left's portrayal of Blair as another Tory. Even where instinctual lefties had uneasy feelings about the language Blair was using, when they actually dug into what he was doing, it was astonishing just how leftist his government's achievements were. For example: given the chronic current problems with lack of housing and soaring homeless numbers, Blair practically eliminated homelessness. Look it up.

This is what the American electorate looks like. Most left policies are popular across the board, but there is no consensus to be found among the electorate.

With Blair it's not that simple. He was not a good friend to unions, for example.

[Pannonian]

This is what the American electorate looks like. Most left policies are popular across the board, but there is no consensus to be found among the electorate.

With Blair it's not that simple. He was not a good friend to unions, for example.

On the first point, have you heard of the slogan, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"? Like everything else under Blair, it's catchy, but it also conceals great depth in policy that's decidedly left wing in nature. And like everything else under Blair, it's detested by identity-driven lefties who ignore the substance.

On the second, what does being a good friend to unions mean? Presumably you'd contrast union-unfriendly Blair with union-friendly Corbyn. But Len McCluskey, leader of the biggest union and one of the most influential figures in the Labour party, is detested by the smaller unions and many of the non-union-affiliated Labour people, for driving policies that benefit the leadership rather than the rank and file. Eg. Brexit, which he and the rest of the Labour leadership clique are in favour of, but which is opposed by the overwhelming majority of Labour members and voters. Are unions blocs to be directed by their leaders, or are they collections of individuals to be led by their leaders?

For instance, teachers, who form one of the biggest unionised groups of workers, are pretty unanimous on how Blair kept his promises and more in government (which isn't something to be sniffed at, given the prominence he gave the subject in campaign). Which is more important, the perceived leftwardness of the leader, or the effectiveness of the leader in enacting left wing policies?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Most left policies are popular across the board, but there is no consensus to be found among the electorate....

The GOALS of those policies are quite popular. As are some of the programs. Do remember that our electorate is famously happy to support the goal behind a program without wanting to fund it. Who the heck would oppose the idea that everyone should have access to quality medical care? Of course that concept is popular.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your construction of a "general consensus" IS the ideology, a very specific one.

As for ordinary people, most of them are clearly either conservative or liberal, just passive in their engagement. The people whose voting behavior can be said to be "in the middle" are very few in the United States, and this behavior is typically the refuge of the "innocent and confused."

I'm sorry but I completely disagree.

Talk to most people, especially outside the US, and they have a very hazy notion of any political ideology. Having an ideology is something of a privilege, it requires having the leisure time and/or the education to develop one.

In general, most people want a few things, like enough money to support themselves and their families, to feel safe in their own homes and on their own streets, for their children to have more opportunities than their parents and - most of all - to be left alone to live their own lives.

Ideologues exploit these basic wants and needs to push a systematised agenda. For example, opponents to universal healthcare in the US exploit the fear that rising taxes will prevent people from bettering their own lives and the lives of their children. The fact that such tactics are utterly transparent to you or I is a reflection of our privileged intellectual status.

One of the reasons everybody in the UK is obsessed with Brexit is that it cuts completely across political lines and classes. You might say that it represents a general ideological struggle within the consensus about how we want to be governed. This is, however, an utter aberration in UK politics and should not be taken as in any way indicative of how things are generally.

[Montmorency]

On the first point, have you heard of the slogan, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"? Like everything else under Blair, it's catchy, but it also conceals great depth in policy that's decidedly left wing in nature. And like everything else under Blair, it's detested by identity-driven lefties who ignore the substance.

On the second, what does being a good friend to unions mean? Presumably you'd contrast union-unfriendly Blair with union-friendly Corbyn. But Len McCluskey, leader of the biggest union and one of the most influential figures in the Labour party, is detested by the smaller unions and many of the non-union-affiliated Labour people, for driving policies that benefit the leadership rather than the rank and file. Eg. Brexit, which he and the rest of the Labour leadership clique are in favour of, but which is opposed by the overwhelming majority of Labour members and voters. Are unions blocs to be directed by their leaders, or are they collections of individuals to be led by their leaders?

For instance, teachers, who form one of the biggest unionised groups of workers, are pretty unanimous on how Blair kept his promises and more in government (which isn't something to be sniffed at, given the prominence he gave the subject in campaign). Which is more important, the perceived leftwardness of the leader, http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/...eir-authoritay

The bolded - the substance - is actually the key issue, but I'll admit to needing to read more about the issues before I can make an absolute judgement. Blair was indeed to the left of any American president since LBJ, so all relative factors need to be normalized. So I'll pose a couple of questions:

1. Would it be reasonable to say that, for example, Blair's administration did a lot to reduce visible homelessness (rough sleeping), but its simultaneous underinvestment in social housing limited the long-term effectiveness of its policies? If not, why?

2. Do you believe a Blairite platform would be adequate to the needs of the present moment? If so, why? Are there any elements of the Corbyn platform you would prefer to the enactments of the Blair administration?

The GOALS of those policies are quite popular. As are some of the programs. Do remember that our electorate is famously happy to support the goal behind a program without wanting to fund it. Who the heck would oppose the idea that everyone should have access to quality medical care? Of course that concept is popular.

I think the fact is the American people generally want greatly expanded government services and interventions on their behalf, but without any detectable disruptions to government, the economy, or to their own lives. These desires are obviously irreconcilable. At the same time Americans are prone to be accommodating of new spending/programs once they are initiated. It seems like even if an 'idea' has 75% approval, this can never mean 75% active support of any proposal (as opposed to passive assent). Furthermore, the electorate experiences an intrinsic thermostatic reaction to whichever political group is contemporarily perceived to be in power. Strategically then what is the implication? Ram through new programs whenever you have the chance.

Talk to most people, especially outside the US, and they have a very hazy notion of any political ideology. Having an ideology is something of a privilege, it requires having the leisure time and/or the education to develop one.

In general, most people want a few things, like enough money to support themselves and their families, to feel safe in their own homes and on their own streets, for their children to have more opportunities than their parents and - most of all - to be left alone to live their own lives.

I agree. Why do you think I was saying otherwise? I even affirmed that most people are politically "passive."

Ideologues exploit these basic wants and needs to push a systematised agenda.

Yes, and centrism is one such in its prescriptions of what "the people" want, what acceptable goals and constraints there are, what is and is not legitimate... Centrism, like glib revolutionary aesthetic, is routinely a position of privileged intellectual (moreover economic) status.

As I said, most people are consistently either conservative or liberal. That doesn't mean they are sitting around in salons and debate clubs, or all running for city council and school board positions, it means if you ask them some questions about their ethical, political, and economic beliefs and desires and behaviors they will largely trend to one side of a spectrum. This doesn't even have to be especially self-examined, it can arise completely intuitively from personality or ingrained practices. Most political actors are, after all, "low-information."

Of course there will be variations in the details between countries, especially as unique populations and electoral/political systems assimilate themselves to one another in various ways, but this is something that can and needs to be studied in the context of the general fact.

One of the reasons everybody in the UK is obsessed with Brexit is that it cuts completely across political lines and classes. You might say that it represents a general ideological struggle within the consensus about how we want to be governed. This is, however, an utter aberration in UK politics and should not be taken as in any way indicative of how things are generally.

It's a little early to say that. Check to see if Brexit positions are systematically correlated with other variables. Don't be surprised if Britain is in the midst of a political realignment. (I hope you don't react to this by averring that there is no such thing as political realignment.)

[Pannonian]

The bolded - the substance - is actually the key issue, but I'll admit to needing to read more about the issues before I can make an absolute judgement. Blair was indeed to the left of any American president since LBJ, so all relative factors need to be normalized. So I'll pose a couple of questions:

1. Would it be reasonable to say that, for example, Blair's administration did a lot to reduce visible homelessness (rough sleeping), but its simultaneous underinvestment in social housing limited the long-term effectiveness of its policies? If not, why?

2. Do you believe a Blairite platform would be adequate to the needs of the present moment? If so, why? Are there any elements of the Corbyn platform you would prefer to the enactments of the Blair administration?

1. Here's a read for you. Early on, Blair took personal charge of the issue of homeless. To reduce the visible homeless, he moved them off the streets and into rented accommodation, but he also addressed the causes of homelessness, namely the social issues that led to this state. I can't remember if social housing increased under Blair.

2. None realistic. Times a big number once you factor in Brexit, which Corbyn is in favour of but which Blair opposes. Under Blair, a lot of left wing causes had increased funding in real terms to an extent that I've never seen in any other government (I can remember back to Thatcher). If you were young or old, poor, or serving the human infrastructure (eg. teachers, health service, police), you had it good under Blair. If you were in the middle, you also had it good, in terms of the stability that you got in return for the slight tax increases. None of Corbyn's platform that may be attractive to me is realistic, and I care about realism. Blair's achievements were, of course, realistic, as he's actually done them and they're on historical record.

To translate it to US terms, would you support someone who was nominally speaking in a centre right language, but who could offer the same combination of competence and a willingness to think in centre left terms? Someone whom the centre right can take to in identity, but who will and can enact centre left policies. Sometimes it's not just a matter of how far to the left someone is on the spectrum.

[Montmorency]

1. Here's a read for you. Early on, Blair took personal charge of the issue of homeless. To reduce the visible homeless, he moved them off the streets and into rented accommodation, but he also addressed the causes of homelessness, namely the social issues that led to this state. I can't remember if social housing increased under Blair.

Is there an analysis that showed it worked beyond the short-term? As I read there has been a major resurgence in homelessness over the past decade. Blair can't be blamed for any Conservative policies but he can be criticized for any inadequacies of his own administration.

Unfortunately Google fails to bring up much granular information on the subject, but I see here that

The Conservative dominance in the council housebuilding stakes is in fact a quirk of housing policy history. Council housebuilding dropped away as a significant part of country’s output under Margaret Thatcher’s government – falling from 55,200 in her first year in power to just 400 in John Major’s last. This was due to the introduction of the Right to Buy and spending restrictions which prevented councils from building at scale.

The incoming Labour government under Tony Blair did nothing to reverse this position initially. In fact, it took until 2009, under Gordon Brown’s government and then housing minister John Healey, to start any changes. They set in motion plans to give councils control of their own rental income rather than passing it to the Treasury under a model known as self-financing.

Under Blair, a lot of left wing causes had increased funding in real terms to an extent that I've never seen in any other government (I can remember back to Thatcher).

Setting Blair's priorities against Thatcher's of all people can't be informative either historically or in abstract.

If you were young or old, poor, or serving the human infrastructure (eg. teachers, health service, police), you had it good under Blair. If you were in the middle, you also had it good, in terms of the stability that you got in return for the slight tax increases.

What about the people who didn't have it good? How is the legacy to be assessed in the ongoing historical record?

Blair's achievements were, of course, realistic, as he's actually done them and they're on historical record.

Whether he did the best with what was available is controversial.

None of Corbyn's platform that may be attractive to me is realistic, and I care about realism.

What makes something realistic or unrealistic in your opinion, do you think it is possible to change that, and how? Why haven't Margaret Thatcher's policies been the most realistic ones in British history?

From my vantage all proposals of impact are unrealistic until Brexit is resolved - but what then?

Tony Blair, for his part, supports parts of Labour's manifesto.

To translate it to US terms, would you support someone who was nominally speaking in a centre right language, but who could offer the same combination of competence and a willingness to think in centre left terms? Someone whom the centre right can take to in identity, but who will and can enact centre left policies. Sometimes it's not just a matter of how far to the left someone is on the spectrum.

I care about realism too, and to my knowledge such a fantastical unicorn has never manifested in American history. On rare occasion Left politicians have governed according to left rhetoric, and much more frequently Right politicians have governed according to right rhetoric. In 50 years the best we've had is someone like Obama who pairs center-left rhetoric with center-right governance, which is suboptimal to say the least.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree. Why do you think I was saying otherwise? I even affirmed that most people are politically "passive."

Passivity implies inclination without action - rather I would say the inclination is weak, very, eak, and this is the cause of the perceived passivity.

Here in the UK it's often the case that two parties are generally palatable in a given region or constituency and you can see wide swings election to election.

Yes, and centrism is one such in its prescriptions of what "the people" want, what acceptable goals and constraints there are, what is and is not legitimate... Centrism, like glib revolutionary aesthetic, is routinely a position of privileged intellectual (moreover economic) status.

Centrism is a political ideology in the way that agnosticism is a religion. It has no real central tenets, no systematised program for implementation and no great thinkers.

As I said, most people are consistently either conservative or liberal. That doesn't mean they are sitting around in salons and debate clubs, or all running for city council and school board positions, it means if you ask them some questions about their ethical, political, and economic beliefs and desires and behaviors they will largely trend to one side of a spectrum. This doesn't even have to be especially self-examined, it can arise completely intuitively from personality or ingrained practices. Most political actors are, after all, "low-information."

Of course there will be variations in the details between countries, especially as unique populations and electoral/political systems assimilate themselves to one another in various ways, but this is something that can and needs to be studied in the context of the general fact.

Very few people are going to be in the dead-centre, it is true, but life-long political ideology is not a trend in Europe the way it is the in US. In fact, it seems doubtful it is even an historical trend in the US.

"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain."

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

Seems that quote may have originated with an Anglo-Irish statesman.

It's a little early to say that. Check to see if Brexit positions are systematically correlated with other variables. Don't be surprised if Britain is in the midst of a political realignment. (I hope you don't react to this by averring that there is no such thing as political realignment.)

Every party in the UK Parliament has a majority of MP's who are in favour of the EU - the two major parties are currently being led by their respective Eurosceptic wings at the behest of the historically Eurosceptic sections of their respective electorates.

Corbyn and Johnson probably hate each other, and their supporters almost certainly do - a realignment under such circumstances seems unlikely. Rather, it seems we are seeing a paradigm shift within British politics similar to the one which led to the creation of the Welfare State - another momentous event which did not lead to a political realignment.

[Montmorency]

Passivity implies inclination without action - rather I would say the inclination is weak, very, eak, and this is the cause of the perceived passivity.

This is elitism. You assume the natural state of the ordinary citizen is to not have strong political commitments, rather than that most people are confused, bored, enervated, or alienated by the political circus and lack the time or education to engage with it.

Here in the UK it's often the case that two parties are generally palatable in a given region or constituency and you can see wide swings election to election.

Again, this is something you would have to develop empirically. To say that people trend one way or another is not to say that it has always been so, or that it must always remain so. It wasn't like that in the US until our lifetimes, and not all at once. It depends on characteristics of the electorate, the parties, and the issues of the day. In the United States today, it is so. I can't claim to know what's going on in Chile or Lebanon - i haven't checked.

Centrism is a political ideology in the way that agnosticism is a religion. It has

Lol no. It's more like Scientology.

no real central tenets

Hatred of "populism," which entails minimizing democratic input in governance and institutions while maximizing the stability of established actors, especially business. Deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, reliance on conservative economic and sociological expertise. Hostility to criticism of elite persons from below. There's a reason why in the present day it is so frequently identified with intellectual libertarianism and small-c conservatism.

no systematised program for implementation

The general theory of centrist governance is to advance minimally-disruptive (to stakeholders) policy and build out a bespoke coalition "from the center." I know it's what Bill Clinton and Obama explicitly maintained going into their administrations. It was a resounding failure. Practically what centrist intellectuals and policy makers are more concerned with than any policy agenda is neutralizing the influence of the "extremes." Look at Larry Summers telling us that high tax rates on the wealthy are bad because instead of donating to charity the wealthy will support fascism (more).

no great thinkers.

Very few people are going to be in the dead-centre, it is true, but life-long political ideology is not a trend in Europe the way it is the in US. In fact, it seems doubtful it is even an historical trend in the US.

Life-long ideology? As in, you think people outside the US don't tend to form and maintain political orientations durably? What is your evidence for this? I'd be surprised if the matter has even been studied in the English language.

Every party in the UK Parliament has a majority of MP's who are in favour of the EU - the two major parties are currently being led by their respective Eurosceptic wings at the behest of the historically Eurosceptic sections of their respective electorates.

Corbyn and Johnson probably hate each other, and their supporters almost certainly do - a realignment under such circumstances seems unlikely. Rather, it seems we are seeing a paradigm shift within British politics similar to the one which led to the creation of the Welfare State - another momentous event which did not lead to a political realignment.

The realignment in the American party system (well, the 20th century realignment) took place over two generations, though of course it was immediately obvious to any observer by the end of the 1960s. I'm not prepared or equipped to assess early raw evidence in the UK. I'm sure the presence of national parties and the Liberal Democrats (whom I assume British voters interpret as "between" Labour and the Conservatives) complicates the picture. But don't be shocked if it turns out permanent shifts in voting behavior emerge in the medium-term.

There has been something like it happening across the Western world (at least UK, US, France) however, as explored by Thomas Piketty in his latest work. I don't care to look it up for you, but basically the mainstream soc-dem/center-left parties have gradually absorbed the educated and professional classes from the conservative/center-right parties while losing some of their original "working class" base over that time period.

OK fine, here it is. I've barely looked at it to be honest, who has the patience. You may want to skip to the graphs near the end. The ones simultaneously mapping 20 elections are visually hideous.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is elitism. You assume the natural state of the ordinary citizen is to not have strong political commitments, rather than that most people are confused, bored, enervated, or alienated by the political circus and lack the time or education to engage with it.

I'm part of the intellectual elite, so are you, to pretend otherwise is just vanity. It would be like pretending I was working class just because I'm poor. In any case, this is my observation of actually going out and talking to people - most people don't care overmuch about politics, especially when there's no election going on.

Again, this is something you would have to develop empirically. To say that people trend one way or another is not to say that it has always been so, or that it must always remain so. It wasn't like that in the US until our lifetimes, and not all at once. It depends on characteristics of the electorate, the parties, and the issues of the day. In the United States today, it is so. I can't claim to know what's going on in Chile or Lebanon - i haven't checked.

One should always worry about Lebanon - it's one of the most important political loci in the world. Currently they're having a !quiet revolution" that cuts across sectarian boundaries.

Meanwhile, in the UK it's generally accepted that after about 10-15 years you need to "get the other lot in" and only the most staunch supporters of a given party will argue otherwise. This is because people are less strognly wedded to any ideology than the parties are themselves.

British Stoicism - it's even a national trait in Hearts of Iron IV.

Lol no. It's more like Scientology.

Scientology is actually a religion, sorry to tell you.

Hatred of "populism," which entails minimizing democratic input in governance and institutions while maximizing the stability of established actors, especially business. Deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, reliance on conservative economic and sociological expertise. Hostility to criticism of elite persons from below. There's a reason why in the present day it is so frequently identified with intellectual libertarianism and small-c conservatism.

You're just described a mish-mash of Right-Wing policies. Where's the social welfare? The neccesity for charity, both private and public? The provision of necessary regulation on (say) food standards and provision of basic infrastructure (which usually includes healthcare)?

You're just demonstrated you don't know where the centre is outside the US, and that the centre in the US is quite a ways over to the right - not even the Centre-Right in the UK.

The general theory of centrist governance is to advance minimally-disruptive (to stakeholders) policy and build out a bespoke coalition "from the center." I know it's what Bill Clinton and Obama explicitly maintained going into their administrations. It was a resounding failure. Practically what centrist intellectuals and policy makers are more concerned with than any policy agenda is neutralizing the influence of the "extremes." Look at Larry Summers telling us that high tax rates on the wealthy are bad because instead of donating to charity the wealthy will support fascism (more).

Outside the US Obama and Clinton are Right-Wing politicians, Clinton less-so than Obama over all.

Life-long ideology? As in, you think people outside the US don't tend to form and maintain political orientations durably? What is your evidence for this? I'd be surprised if the matter has even been studied in the English language.

It's a lot less common.

The realignment in the American party system (well, the 20th century realignment) took place over two generations, though of course it was immediately obvious to any observer by the end of the 1960s. I'm not prepared or equipped to assess early raw evidence in the UK. I'm sure the presence of national parties and the Liberal Democrats (whom I assume British voters interpret as "between" Labour and the Conservatives) complicates the picture. But don't be shocked if it turns out permanent shifts in voting behavior emerge in the medium-term.

There has been something like it happening across the Western world (at least UK, US, France) however, as explored by Thomas Piketty in his latest work. I don't care to look it up for you, but basically the mainstream soc-dem/center-left parties have gradually absorbed the educated and professional classes from the conservative/center-right parties while losing some of their original "working class" base over that time period.

OK fine, here it is. I've barely looked at it to be honest, who has the patience. You may want to skip to the graphs near the end. The ones simultaneously mapping 20 elections are visually hideous.[/QUOTE]

You've just described New Labour - 24 years ago.