Yeah, I absolutely agree with your assessment of the best way to approach effecting change in this country. In the absence of favourable circumstances, taking a centrist position and then leading the electorate the left is the only coherent approach I can see. And I agree that a sense of national positivity is the only social circumstance that would work for the left. The opposite, crisis let’s say, only really works for the right because it plays straight into their authority and security narrative.
However, I can still imagine a functional charismatic campaign working in a political environment that is basically neutral. I recognise that the country is far from functional or perfect, but it is also not (yet) materially broken. It’s historically neoliberal and anti market restraint, but there’s the beginning of an advantage for social democracy in that people are becoming more open to the idea of pro-active government engagement with the economy than they were 20 years ago. It’s clear to people that the market is not neutral and that wealth generates wealth far more effectively than hardwork. As automation continues this will only become more apparent as productivity on behalf of capital, and therefore value, is taken away from people and put in the hands of machines.
I think that this context could be the premise for an effective left wing populism, if we could find an effective, engaging, relatable figurehead to act as a catalyst for the issues. Unfortunately @colinzealuk is right about how the system suppresses the chances of turning up a politician whose personal charisma could balance out the inherent instability of any campaign addressing economic change. Everyone is looking at the current PLP trying to find any sense that there’s the right chemistry there for leadership, and obviously we’ve not found it yet.
