So many points of discussion in this thoughtful article. I'm going with Working People - why does that phrase stick out so awkwardly from any statement Labour makes? It's as though it needs extra intonation, probably for the benefit of those who no longer know what it means, mostly everyone.
On the author's reply to bestbeforedate, 'seeing the benefits as well as the limitations' will probably keep us all sane for the foreseeable future. I'm just hoping.
Social democracy starts from the perspective that distribution of political rights should be distributed based on equality. Whilst it is accepted on my part that that isn't on its own sufficient for 'justice' , though that is a politically contested view..., the engagement of social democracy with the state is the recognition of that, isn't it? We are never going to get anywhere without institutions that are democratically accountable and by creating cultural norms that protect those institutions in practice as well as in law. There is no path that goes forward that doesn't run through social democracy.
That's not what social democracy is, in my view, as argued in the post. So we can either accept SD for what it is, seeing the benefits as well as the limitations, or continue to be disappointed as it fails to deliver things it has never seriously promised to deliver
Yet it has a lot if explanatory power for the priorities of the current government. Given there is a prioritisation of the outstanding inequalities in political right, there is an argument that expending political capital on house Lords reform is not going to make much difference to everyday people. So why pursue it? But it makes sense if you see it as a visible step/statement of intent towards reforming state institutions on the principle of absolute equality of political rights, because this is seen as the correct methodology by which one achievies better social democracy, increased social justice. I think we agree that equal distribution of political rights is not sufficient for justice, nor is it all that is aimed at by social Democrats, but it's a necessary condition. And I'm putting forward an alternative perspective on the priorities of the government which is that it is focused on rights and laws, and inequalities in how these are applied (be that between individuals and each other, or individuals and the state, or individuals and corporations). From that perspective what they are doing is intellectually consistent. (Which is not to say I am myself completely buying into it, this is an observation and theorisation). I think the most effective critiques will start out from accepting that ther eis a logic to some of it and pointing out how that logic might not actually be prioritizing the outcomes that are most pressing.
So many points of discussion in this thoughtful article. I'm going with Working People - why does that phrase stick out so awkwardly from any statement Labour makes? It's as though it needs extra intonation, probably for the benefit of those who no longer know what it means, mostly everyone.
On the author's reply to bestbeforedate, 'seeing the benefits as well as the limitations' will probably keep us all sane for the foreseeable future. I'm just hoping.
Social democracy starts from the perspective that distribution of political rights should be distributed based on equality. Whilst it is accepted on my part that that isn't on its own sufficient for 'justice' , though that is a politically contested view..., the engagement of social democracy with the state is the recognition of that, isn't it? We are never going to get anywhere without institutions that are democratically accountable and by creating cultural norms that protect those institutions in practice as well as in law. There is no path that goes forward that doesn't run through social democracy.
That's not what social democracy is, in my view, as argued in the post. So we can either accept SD for what it is, seeing the benefits as well as the limitations, or continue to be disappointed as it fails to deliver things it has never seriously promised to deliver
Yet it has a lot if explanatory power for the priorities of the current government. Given there is a prioritisation of the outstanding inequalities in political right, there is an argument that expending political capital on house Lords reform is not going to make much difference to everyday people. So why pursue it? But it makes sense if you see it as a visible step/statement of intent towards reforming state institutions on the principle of absolute equality of political rights, because this is seen as the correct methodology by which one achievies better social democracy, increased social justice. I think we agree that equal distribution of political rights is not sufficient for justice, nor is it all that is aimed at by social Democrats, but it's a necessary condition. And I'm putting forward an alternative perspective on the priorities of the government which is that it is focused on rights and laws, and inequalities in how these are applied (be that between individuals and each other, or individuals and the state, or individuals and corporations). From that perspective what they are doing is intellectually consistent. (Which is not to say I am myself completely buying into it, this is an observation and theorisation). I think the most effective critiques will start out from accepting that ther eis a logic to some of it and pointing out how that logic might not actually be prioritizing the outcomes that are most pressing.