Politics.co.uk was one of a number of organisations to note comments made by former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, last week, as they reported him saying during an interview with LBC:
On his reservations about a Farage-Conservative alliance, the former chancellor added: “I would have quite a lot of reservations… I'm verging on no. But I certainly would not vote for Reform.
“My politics is on the centre right, but the centre bit is as important as the right.”
I think this needs unpacking, because Osborne may have been being deliberately profound, which is something I may have never credited him with before.
Osborne is doing what has rarely been done of late, which is to differentiate the right, the centre, and by implication, the left. By implication, he also makes a range of other things clear.
The first is that there is a spectrum of opinion in politics.
The second is that the extremes of the left and right are different from the moderate forms of both, and there need not even be an overlap in support for these varying forms of left and right within those wings of political thinking.
The third is that there is a centre.
The fourth is that the terms 'centre right' and 'centre left' describe members of the centre, and not members of the right and left, as such.
The fifth is that if there is a centre, it is most definitely different from being on the right or left.
And sixth, if there is a right and left, then it is not the same as being on the far-right or far-left.
In other words, presuming that left and right are meaningful terms (and the two-party system, and the idea that the choice is only between capitalism and socialism, which is in itself a sad indication of society to have developed new thinking to rfelct the political realities of life as we now live it) there is a spectrurn from:
- Far right, and then to
- The right
- Centre right
- Centre
- Centre left
- The left
- Far left
The distinction is important. First, the term 'centre' recognises the existence of the Overton Window, which it has been suggested might also look like this:
At the same time, by implication, Osborne implies here is a coalition that seeks to exclude opinion, of which coalition he is clearly a part, and which simply masquerades in left and right-wing forms.
What he also makes clear is that he thinks the terms 'right' and 'left' are not that useful as they do not indicate transferability i.e. it cannot be assumed a person on the 'centre right' will support a person on the 'far right', because the term 'centre' matters more to them, meaning, in other words, that they would rather maintain the status quo than risk change.
But I also think, and this might be important, that this clears space for there to be a left and right as political spaces that are quite distinct from the centre left or centre right, as well as the far left and far right.
In other words, there is a space for policy difference, which has essentially ceased to exist in the centre, whatever further description has been given to it, but where it is possible to promote ideas that are politically plausible alternatives to the status quo, but which are not extreme, as are the far-left and far-right.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing akin to this right-wing view in this country now. It has ceased to exist, having been overwhelmed by the far-right in all its noxious Tory, Reform, and even Labour, varieties.
There is, however, a left-of-centre opinion, which has recently existed and which needs expression, and which is decidedly different to the supposedly centre-left politics of Labour, which exist well to the right in Overton Window terms.
There may well be a demand for a genuine right-wing in the UK, but I cannot see anyone supplying that view for a long time now. The simplistic, callous, catchphrase politics of the far-right has captured the whole right-of-centre space where it might exist now. You are either neoliberal centre, or a neo-fascist now, and there is little in between, and there is no intellectual firepower of any sort to create anything else.
There is, however, space for, demand for, and more than sufficient intellectual firepower available to create political space on the left, which simultaneously rejects the absurdities of the far left.
The absence of any form of actual right-wing (as opposed to far-right, or centre ground neoliberal) thinking is not an excuse for the left not to exist, but I suspect language is making it possible to deny that possibility. We need to challenge that, and recreate that politics of the left which both rejects neoliberalism and the absurdities of those of the materialist socialists for whom control rather than cooperation is the obsession. The country urgently needs for this to happen.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I see this in historical terms: the defeat of fascism in 1945 marginalised the political right in western Europe, etc, and a left-and-centre hegemony was established – most people thought that a decent society had to feature a social safety net and high marginal tax rates. But as memories of fascism and the social cohesion forged in war faded, the right came roaring back in the form of neoliberalism, establishing in the 1980s a new right-and-centre hegemony, especially in the anglosphere. What we’e living through now is the collapse of this right-and-centre neoliberal consensus, in the face of the obvious post-2008 economic mess and increasing awareness of climate-ecological breakdown.
It’s obvious, if you look at the political centre in different countries and times, that it is nothing more than the ideology of the status-quo – a rationalisation of people’s interests and investment (intellectual and emotional, as well as financial) in things as they are. Centrists are not mad or bad – they’re just worried (often quite justifiably) that any too radical change will spin out of control and make their lives harder. Problem is, in ‘western democracies’ now, they know that the status-quo is not working – that things really do have to change, so they are moving out to more politically extreme positions – those less invested in the status-quo, the young, renters, etc, generally to the left/green; those more invested – elderly home-owners, etc – to the right.
Fair comment
But,my argument remains intact
Richard, I think a typo of yours has accidentally proposed a new political school of thought. I like the idea of “alertnatives” – we need them, although spell checkers make it hard to type their name accurately.
Corrected now. Thanks.
And in the title, coutry should be country
Indeed
When I get home
You are right Richard – real, authentic politics is about the dynamics of differences of opinion pulling against each other to achieve a balance, resulting in something that we can all live with peacefully.
I’ve always seen good politics as a well tuned drum set, tensioned correctly, able to have the issues beat out and heard on it.
At the moment all we have is drum set where only the snare is working and even then not very really well.
The centre is an inclusive zone – not one of exclusion but one of rule for sure. The politics of ‘them and us’ or ‘not one of us’ within the parties does not help.
My view is what has not helped this is the market segmentation of voters by political parties in polling exercises. All market style segmentation of politics has done is disaggregate the bigger themes of politics (such as tolerating each other, living together) and introduced more personal themes that relate more to/play on individual, private partiality, pushing out the more connected/social issues, with politicians essentially losing the plot as to why they are here. Or, even worse cynically using that data to deliver election results not based on politic imperatives (tolerance, collaboration, empathy, fairness) but personal partialities that do not make a society as such, leaving it divided.
Politics is more than simply ‘product placement’.
You are right…
It is not by accident that we have a neoliberal hegemony in economic thought and political opinion. The right wing think tanks have been busy since the 1950s.
Where are the Marxists and Keynesians and socialists? Organised labour, measured by membership of trades unions, peaked at over 13 million in 1980, which was nearly a quarter of the total 56 million population. It has been sliding down ever since and is now approaching 6.5 million, roughly one in ten.
The right wing conception of leadership is a strong man (almost always a man) who has a great idea and can implement the will of the people against the elites and the establishment. It is entirely antithetical to the social/democratic instinct towards mutual support, equality and equity, respect for rights and the rule of law.
The Overton Window has shifted significantly to the right in the last 5-10 years. What was unthinkable, say, 20 years ago, is now openly considered a subject for serious discussion. Bringing back the death penalty, for example. Sky News’ press preview last night included a piece on the Southport killer, who has attacked a prison officer; there was a serious conversation on the reintroduction of capital punishment. That would never have had air time 20, or even 10, years ago.
I believe deeply in social justice and I am implacably against the death penalty. It is social justice, along with any form of compassion, which is now absent from politics. Hence the shift in the Overton Window.
Thank you for an interesting article (and glossary entry on Overton Window). I had not credited Osbourne with anything before, thank you for this; despite my opinion of the man, it is good to hear someone saying they won’t shift further right. I think your title needs another ‘n’
I’m encouraged that Zack Polanski is standing for Green Party Leadership.
Economically, he draws on MMT – understanding the role of fiat currency and its relation to socially-focussed taxes (wealth and carbon taxes) – as in this interview on Scotonomics (https://www.youtube.com/live/96D-0u37vGE?si=CtSKnMhs8xWtycfh – from 17 minutes in)
He has retweeted me, many times.
The history of 2-party politics has always been that there has been a party in favour of maintaining the status quo (historically the Tories) and a party in favour of change/reform (from the Whigs onwards). In the era of modern capitalism the reforming party has usually advocated progressive values i.e. actions that will promote the interests of the weak over the strong. That was the case with the old Liberal Party and subsequently Labour.
Of course what happened post WW2 was a new social democratic consensus was established where the worst excesses of capitalism were ameliorated through regulation, part government ownership and high taxation. Labour could stand to the left (progressive) end of this (advocating increased redistribution, higher taxation and better public services) whilst the Conservatives stood to the right (status quo and/or reduced taxation/redistribution).
However, what happened from the late 1970’s onwards was that a new attack came from the neoliberal right who did not wish to maintain the status quo, instead they sought (or at least, claimed to seek) to actively dismantle progressivism and revert to a form of ‘laissez faire’ capitalism. This became the prevailing situation in the 1980/90’s where you had a centre (labour right , lib dems, tory wets) defending the status quo, a ‘progressive’ left (labour left) promoting socialist values, and a neoliberal right (Thatcherites) wanting equally radical change towards neoliberalism.
Unfortunately from the late 1990’s onwards the socialist left collapsed (partly due to the attrition of organised labour in the previous 20 years) leaving only the ‘status quo’ centre (New Labour) and the radical right (current Conservative party and Reform are both trying to occupy this exact same territory which is why they are fighting like rats in a sack). So, there is no longer any genuinely ‘progressive’ option available. Which calls into question whether the 2-party system has run its course (or at least, can claim to qualify as ‘democracy’ any more)?
The Telegraph talking about a wealth tax?!
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/wealth-tax-could-britain-130000572.html
I admit they’re trying to say they don’t work.
They don’t, of course, as I explain in the Taxing Wealth Report 2024.
My understanding of The Overton Window, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that it is a model to understand how the centre changes its position.
For example, what was considered the ‘centre’ in, say, Ted Heaths day, would now be located in the space now called; radical, or far left.
The window moves either left or right and where it falls is called the centre and everything else is renamed to accommodate the shift.
It seems it has only moved right for a long time
I just happened upon a group of Labour MPs and supporters called “Progressive Britain”. It’s a marriage between Progress and Policy Network (both the bastard offspring of the bastard Mandelson)
The group has just had its annual conference. No reports as yet, but numerous tweets. And what a load of fantasy-world bollocks they were.
The crowning moment was Darren Jones’ closing speech, tweeted for posterity:
“ We may be in an era of five party politics. But there’s only really two sides.
Our side: a politics of love, compassion and community. With the ideas to transform Britain.
And their side: a politics of anger, division and blame. Posing only a risk to Britain.”
After I’d finished unaccountably throwing up, I looked for evidence to support Mr Jones’ assertions. I came up with:
– Savage cuts to benefits for the sick and disabled
– Slashing of the budgets for mental health and maternity care,
– Significant reductions in beds for end of life care…
– …rounded off neatly with the Assisted Dying Bill.
So very much a politics of love, compassion and community. And very definitely transforming Britain.
Double speak
“There is, however, space for, demand for, and more than sufficient intellectual firepower available to create political space on the left, which simultaneously rejects the absurdities of the far left.”
Hear hear!
“We need to challenge that, and recreate that politics of the left which both rejects neoliberalism and the absurdities of those of the materialist socialists for whom control rather than cooperation is the obsession. The country urgently needs for this to happen.”
As George Mobiot says, we are all neoliberal these days. So effective has its propaganda been that
even the most socially responsible (even left wing) of us fall for one or more of its many fallacies –
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5ae6de517c932736b15f2cc7/1589452810930-QGI81KY901BYPWF8EDKE/neoliberal+drivers.png?format=1000w
Thus I applaud your blog and MMT education / tax research work!
Also, just to be clear. I presume that by “absurdities of those of the materialist socialist” you mean the “communism”/”socialism == Stalinism/Maoism” approach to state governance by coercion as opposed to approaches such as
(i) Revolutionary Marxism for whom democratic cooperation of the working class is basic? or
(II) Social democracy more generally, for example a la Jeremy Corbyn ?
I mean social democracy
I am a democrat. I condemn revolutionary socialism.
I would encourage everybody to check out the Political Compass website, which demonstrates a more accurate way of classifying political opinions using both an economic (left vs right) axis and also a social axis spanning from authoritarian to libertarian politics.
In this scheme Stalin et al would be authoritarian socialists whereas the sensible lefties are all libertarian types who read Kropotkin & Emma Goldman.
I score -9,-9 on their test: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Liberal socialists talk too much, time to do something and stop talking about doing something.
Like?