IT is less than a year in this Work The government and we are already in another cycle of frightening tactics. During the general elections, all the concerns expressed concerning labor policies (or their absence) were quickly closed by the urgent need to bring out a disastrous conservative government.
Now in power, the concerns have again been dismissed. There is no time for the luxury of the examination of responsibility, because now The reform increases And the party must be stopped. Again, the voter is invited to park his work problems and save the nation from a worst alternative. “A vote for anyone, but the work risks more chaos as part of a Farage-Tory coalition”, ” Posted the Labor Party on his X account in early May. “Vote the work. Stop the reform. “
It is hostage policy.
When voters are invited constantly to make decisions not on the type of government they want, but the one they don’t want, something is broken. The voter is held captive and has presented a series of growing threats that only a vote for work can prevent. Reform big winnings In local elections, like a finger cut in a bloody envelope, are proof that no one bluff. Vote the work, stop the reform.
In the meantime, there can be no discussion on the plowing file in the power so far, its cup of disabilityWinter fuel allowance, preservation of the limit of two children or atrocious failure of its leadership to inspire or carve out a clear identity. You might say that the reform was actually a gift for work, and you would not be wrong. According to reports, the initiates of work “see a The silver lining in the rise of the reform“, Because it means that the government can terrorize green voters on the doorstep and say” it’s good if you want to vote Green, but you will have Nigel Farage at Downing Street “.
With extortion as a principle of organization of politics, what you have definitely, whether Farage goes to Downing Street or not, it is a system that cannot be defined as democracy. And this is not a phenomenon limited to the particular microclimate of Great Britain. The centurist parties as a whole in the developed world have poor results. Indeed, they have few answers to the historical decrease in the perspectives that we see around the world. Many people are unable to obtain a life in which fundamental rights – housing, stable employment, decent income – are guaranteed. Cost of living, low economic growth, wage stagnationReducing upward mobility and the inability to live the generally worthy lives their parents have had the most difficult. An entire cohort of people enters participatory democracy and realizes that their future is canceled.
The result is a growing and logical loss of confidence in the system. Survey That among young western adults, satisfaction with regard to democracy “falls more and faster … than any other group”. The 2008 financial crash produced a system in which Wealth has become so concentrated In the United States, the result was the “biggest peak in the inequality of the richness of American history of post-war period”.
Elsewhere in Europe, austerity in -depth inequality and shrink public services. Political and economic policies, from the quantitative relaxation which promotes the rich, to the cuts in the public sector which, by their nature, affect the middle and workers’ classes, were all decisions which chose to favor a set of people and institutions compared to another. And today, parties like work are hell on maintaining the system that has bequeathed these decisions, while demanding that voters stabilize it by stifling their frustrations and aspirations for a better life.
There is contempt here. The climbing of work anti-immigration rhetoric And its promotion of budgetary prudence, which is only austerity by another name, are not the policies of a party that does its best in difficult circumstances, but an active ideological decision -making. Instead of changes, for example, in the tax system and a commitment to think differently of an economic paradigm that has reached an undeniable dead end, work looks at the growing wave of populist policy, scratches its head and decides to tell voters that populism is the problem, not the world that created it. “Serious pragmatism beats performative policy,” Drons Keir Starmer. ALL RIGHT. But there is a time when you have to ask yourself why the “performative” policy, something Starmer believes is the brand of the right and left, breaks less than a year in your mandate.
What is elastic is that yes, of course, the reform and extreme right parties are worse. But the work is not only accomplice, it helps to guarantee that these forces are at stake. All of this resonates from the pre -arab spring warning to potential revolutionaries – there will be chaos once the dictators have left. The dictators went and chaos followed. But the reason for this was not just wanting freedom and dignity is wrong. For too long, mismanagement and political oppression have been authorized to accumulate in the system, only maintained by the brute force of fear and the inability to imagine or generate what could happen afterwards. The self-defined guards of stability actually make an inevitable instability by not creating the conditions for the emergence of another viable alternative, and in fact, destroying it when it threatens to emerge.
But fear can only go so far. And constantly using fear so that things remain the same, rather than so that they improve, is a dangerous strategy. This only proves that the government has nothing to offer. The management of the naked minimum of an economic model which has long ceased to work for too many people and in which voters feel that they have no power, cannot go in one direction – towards a disarticulated right. Work can threaten everything he likes, but in doing so, it can push voters in this direction.
Sometimes – and you just have to look through the Atlantic for a scary example of this – the potential possibilities in a chaos that the voters feel that they have chosen are better than the dead end. A hostage that Starts to lose the hope of being released sometimes takes on a calculated risk and addresses his kidnapper.