The burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies. Kamudeen made a point, -BRITAIN- denied it, therefore the burden of proof - the claim that warrants investigation at this point - is Kamudeen's. Hence why I wrote you were fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.Philjia wrote:Hirota wrote:How about instead of that, you discuss the original claim, instead of trying to shift the burden of proof?
I wasn't engaging with that particular claim...
Of course, if you want to look at both in concert that seems a viable strategy. An individual's political stance isn't defined by one policy, but by a melange of policies, that overlap and can be held by "left" and "right" wing individuals at the same time.
He's in good company. Same Source:but since you asked I think Starmer vaguely aligns with some prior versions of the Conservatives (although not so much the out of control half hearted right populism of the present Conservatives) in that he is a proponent of very very orthodox neoliberalism with a bend towards tough talking nationalist rhetoric on issues like crime and policing and immigration.
In polling, a majority of "left" wing individuals support the "right" wing policy of tougher criminal justice, and a considerable proportion support tighter restrictions on immigration.
Again, hardly a position held uniquely by "left" leaning individuals:Renationalising the railways is pretty much the only component of the Labour platform that points towards any significant change in overall policy direction under the incoming government, but this is in its own way a fairly uncontroversial policy because the current system of rail privatisation has been such an unmitigated disaster. (And even then I'm not quite sure how committed Labour are since they've also said nationalisation wouldn't meet their fiscal rules, although they have reiterated that they want to do it more recently than they've said they might not)
In polling, a considerable proportion of "right" wing individuals support the "left" wing policies of railway nationalisation and nationalisation of utilities.
Whats the point I'm making here? I'd argue that it's clear that "left" and "right" clearly overlap amongst individuals, political parties, movements, and groups, and that "right" leaning individuals clearly can and will hold "left" wing positions, and vice versa. I'd argue that this persistence in labelling individuals, political parties, movements, and groups "right" or "left" looks increasingly anachronistic and useless. We are using the terminology of the past to describe the present, and it's only useful for tribalists. Sadly, I don't think anyone has really produced a useful alternative to that nomenclature, so while I pull a face at having to use such terms...I'm yet to see a more useful set of descriptors.
With all that in mind...I believe it's clear that Starmer has at least publicly moved from a "Corbynista in a smart Islington suit" to the more Blairite position in the Labour party, but I don't know if that's because he's pragmatic and remembers the drubbing of 2019 and has learnt from that to move towards something more in the Overton Window, or if he has genuinely moved position. His habit of making new pledges, big policy announcements, and then new big policy announcements to replace the last set makes me personally a bit uncomfortable as a traditional Labour voter because I don't know what Labour under Starmer actually stands for. For all Corbyns faults, at least he was consistent. It'll be an interesting election manifesto.
