Great essay, though my opinion of Starmer has never been good due to his incompetence as Director of Public Prosecutions after the death of Ian Tomlinson back in 2009. Now he's in government he seem to lacking original ideas and a basic understanding of the rule of law, both of which were apparent back then.
When it comes to Liberalism I think that it's main fault is indifference to culture, this was deliberate and justified with blank slate 'theory', in order to position it as an authoritative universalist ideology. However modern liberalism has become a disguise for a globalist agenda, and events are now playing out that clearly expose the original theory as a fallacy.
In the past the news cycle could be largely managed with a stream of new initiatives to distract from the failures of the previous ones, but as you rightly pointed out in another comment, the media are less good at coping with spontaneous events.
But given the influence of covert wealth and power on democratic politics nowadays, I wonder if part of the obsession with messaging is not just signal to voters, but to signal to their backers that they are taking an acceptable course of action that justifies their continued support.
As I said I'm not arguing whether or not Starmer is particularly competent or not. I mean I suppose there are some that would say he's competent because they want borderline Marxist government.
You're right with the liberalism point. It's become more interesting in the United States with opponents of trump the consider themselves classical liberals who constantly argue that just letting the market decide should be the primary driver. The presumption is that no citizen would ever consider other factors to be more significant when making a choice. I'm fond of bringing up that somebody might suggest lower economic growth with greater cultural stability as being a superior option. A number of liberals would look at that as being irrational. Certainly if you're a globalist you don't want differences of opinion to emerge within local cultures.
With the media I suppose one option is if you have more local, especially if it's not necessarily private but operated by community groups, you might get more reasonable expression that way. The problem is most major media corporations have the same driver as liberalism does with value and market response more than anything else.
'I'm fond of bringing up that somebody might suggest lower economic growth with greater cultural stability as being a superior option.'
That's a great way of putting it, to me current economic policies look more like a kind of globalized open door laissez faire capitalism leading to lower per capita GDP and significant economic decline at the local level. Of course the winners in this situation look at any alternative as irrational, but what is astonishing is how the messaging from the media portrays local people who oppose all this as racist and far right.
Great essay, though my opinion of Starmer has never been good due to his incompetence as Director of Public Prosecutions after the death of Ian Tomlinson back in 2009. Now he's in government he seem to lacking original ideas and a basic understanding of the rule of law, both of which were apparent back then.
When it comes to Liberalism I think that it's main fault is indifference to culture, this was deliberate and justified with blank slate 'theory', in order to position it as an authoritative universalist ideology. However modern liberalism has become a disguise for a globalist agenda, and events are now playing out that clearly expose the original theory as a fallacy.
In the past the news cycle could be largely managed with a stream of new initiatives to distract from the failures of the previous ones, but as you rightly pointed out in another comment, the media are less good at coping with spontaneous events.
But given the influence of covert wealth and power on democratic politics nowadays, I wonder if part of the obsession with messaging is not just signal to voters, but to signal to their backers that they are taking an acceptable course of action that justifies their continued support.
As I said I'm not arguing whether or not Starmer is particularly competent or not. I mean I suppose there are some that would say he's competent because they want borderline Marxist government.
You're right with the liberalism point. It's become more interesting in the United States with opponents of trump the consider themselves classical liberals who constantly argue that just letting the market decide should be the primary driver. The presumption is that no citizen would ever consider other factors to be more significant when making a choice. I'm fond of bringing up that somebody might suggest lower economic growth with greater cultural stability as being a superior option. A number of liberals would look at that as being irrational. Certainly if you're a globalist you don't want differences of opinion to emerge within local cultures.
With the media I suppose one option is if you have more local, especially if it's not necessarily private but operated by community groups, you might get more reasonable expression that way. The problem is most major media corporations have the same driver as liberalism does with value and market response more than anything else.
'I'm fond of bringing up that somebody might suggest lower economic growth with greater cultural stability as being a superior option.'
That's a great way of putting it, to me current economic policies look more like a kind of globalized open door laissez faire capitalism leading to lower per capita GDP and significant economic decline at the local level. Of course the winners in this situation look at any alternative as irrational, but what is astonishing is how the messaging from the media portrays local people who oppose all this as racist and far right.