From Freedom Fighters to Thought Police: How the Left Lost Its Way
The strange and alarming transformation of the political Left in the West over the past decade is nothing short of a tragic farce, a perverse inversion of the values that once defined it. It is a metamorphosis that has seen the Left—historically the champions of civil liberties, free speech, and the marketplace of ideas—mutate into the very thing it once stood against: an authoritarian bloc obsessed with controlling thought and discourse.
One might ask how this curious reversal occurred. How did the Left, once the proud defenders of individual autonomy, devolve into a force for homogenisation of thought, where dissent is not debated but silenced? To understand this, we must look not just at the surface symptoms but at the ideological rot at its core—a rot that may well be traced back to the influence of Maoist thinking and its pernicious legacy.
Consider, if you will, the parallel to Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Here we see the same impulse: a fervent belief that the ends justify the means, that intellectual purity must be enforced at all costs, and that those who deviate from the party line must be purged. In the Western context, this has manifested as a zealous crusade against any ideas that do not conform to the new orthodoxies of the Left. The once-vaunted diversity of thought has been replaced by an insidious groupthink, stultifying conformity that would make any tyrant proud.
One cannot overlook the role of academia in this transformation. The universities, which once prided themselves on being bastions of free inquiry and debate, have become indoctrination centres for this new orthodoxy. A generation of students, educated—or perhaps, more accurately, conditioned—in social sciences has emerged with a chillingly uniform worldview. They chant slogans rather than engage in discussion, deploy labels as weapons rather than engage in argument, and consider themselves virtuous for doing so. It is as if the institutions designed to teach us how to think have instead taught us what to think, and done so with a precision and efficacy that would impress even Mao’s Red Guards.
This is not just a betrayal of the Left’s own principles; it is an ironic and tragic betrayal. The Left was once the vanguard of free expression, the protectors of those who dared to challenge the status quo. Now, they have become the status quo, enforcing their dogmas with a fervour that tolerates no dissent. It is a process that has hollowed out the Left, leaving behind a shell that is authoritarian in practice, even as it continues to mouth the platitudes of liberation.
Meanwhile, the political Right—often castigated as the defenders of tradition and authority—has found itself occupying the space that the Left abandoned. It is the Right that now speaks the language of individual freedom, of resistance to overreach, and of scepticism towards enforced conformity. It is a turn of events that would have been unthinkable just a few short decades ago, and yet here we are.
The shift is profound and troubling, for it suggests that the values of the Enlightenment—those of reason, debate, and individual liberty—are now up for grabs in a way they have not been in living memory. The Left’s descent into authoritarianism should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who still values the freedoms that once defined Western political life.
The question we must now ask is this: Will we allow this new orthodoxy to go unchallenged, or will we reclaim the space for free thought that the Left has so carelessly abandoned? The answer may well determine the future of our civil liberties, and with them, the very fabric of our society.
One might ask how this curious reversal occurred. How did the Left, once the proud defenders of individual autonomy, devolve into a force for homogenisation of thought, where dissent is not debated but silenced? To understand this, we must look not just at the surface symptoms but at the ideological rot at its core—a rot that may well be traced back to the influence of Maoist thinking and its pernicious legacy.
Consider, if you will, the parallel to Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Here we see the same impulse: a fervent belief that the ends justify the means, that intellectual purity must be enforced at all costs, and that those who deviate from the party line must be purged. In the Western context, this has manifested as a zealous crusade against any ideas that do not conform to the new orthodoxies of the Left. The once-vaunted diversity of thought has been replaced by an insidious groupthink, stultifying conformity that would make any tyrant proud.
One cannot overlook the role of academia in this transformation. The universities, which once prided themselves on being bastions of free inquiry and debate, have become indoctrination centres for this new orthodoxy. A generation of students, educated—or perhaps, more accurately, conditioned—in social sciences has emerged with a chillingly uniform worldview. They chant slogans rather than engage in discussion, deploy labels as weapons rather than engage in argument, and consider themselves virtuous for doing so. It is as if the institutions designed to teach us how to think have instead taught us what to think, and done so with a precision and efficacy that would impress even Mao’s Red Guards.
This is not just a betrayal of the Left’s own principles; it is an ironic and tragic betrayal. The Left was once the vanguard of free expression, the protectors of those who dared to challenge the status quo. Now, they have become the status quo, enforcing their dogmas with a fervour that tolerates no dissent. It is a process that has hollowed out the Left, leaving behind a shell that is authoritarian in practice, even as it continues to mouth the platitudes of liberation.
Meanwhile, the political Right—often castigated as the defenders of tradition and authority—has found itself occupying the space that the Left abandoned. It is the Right that now speaks the language of individual freedom, of resistance to overreach, and of scepticism towards enforced conformity. It is a turn of events that would have been unthinkable just a few short decades ago, and yet here we are.
The shift is profound and troubling, for it suggests that the values of the Enlightenment—those of reason, debate, and individual liberty—are now up for grabs in a way they have not been in living memory. The Left’s descent into authoritarianism should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who still values the freedoms that once defined Western political life.
The question we must now ask is this: Will we allow this new orthodoxy to go unchallenged, or will we reclaim the space for free thought that the Left has so carelessly abandoned? The answer may well determine the future of our civil liberties, and with them, the very fabric of our society.
Scroll to see replies
I think you infer that whilst technology may have improved and transformed lives in this century, the neolithic and religious human brain has not. Many are in that mindset. We can kill others far more effectively now in any wars and unrest but we are still regressing and going backwards in liberal attitudes. Those insidious left wing leaders are the people who insist they have seen the 'power' and the 'light' while everyone else is shouting "the emperor has no clothes on" The elite left wingers will take no notice and just put out sound bite after sound bite discrediting any 'right wing groups' and stopping discussion. Provided they (the Left) are not challenged in any way they will continue to believe they are right.
Absolute rubbish. The left has always been proponents of free expression, civil liberties, etc, and still is. You're confusing is freedom of speech / expression and freedom from consequences. You're free to say what you like, just as we're free to distance ourselves from you if you say / do stupid or horrible things.
You've written an entire post without giving a single example, I'm guessing because you want to be vague on purpose (it's easier to criticise "the left" as a boogeyman if you can't give examples).
In the meantime I'd like to list a bunch of legal rights that the right, in the West, have opposed, have tried to erode or have outright removed (either in the past or currently):
Personally, I worry far more about the right than some leftists on Twitter telling me not to use language which could upset someone.
I don't want anyone to be pushed into conformity, I completely agree. I want to live my life free to do what I like so long as it is peaceful. I don't want people telling me what religion I can and cannot follow, what places I can and cannot live, what clothes I can and cannot wear, what food I can and cannot eat, what entertainment I can and cannot enjoy, etc. The right push us towards conformity, the left don't.
You've written an entire post without giving a single example, I'm guessing because you want to be vague on purpose (it's easier to criticise "the left" as a boogeyman if you can't give examples).
In the meantime I'd like to list a bunch of legal rights that the right, in the West, have opposed, have tried to erode or have outright removed (either in the past or currently):
•
The right to have a divorce without fault.
•
The right to get an abortion.
•
The right to vote and vote in a fair system.
•
The right to live / work in other countries.
•
The right to marry someone of the same sex.
•
The right to peaceful protest.
•
The right to unionise.
•
The right to practice your religion.
•
The right to live / work free of discrimination.
•
The right to live / work free of targetted harassment.
Personally, I worry far more about the right than some leftists on Twitter telling me not to use language which could upset someone.
I don't want anyone to be pushed into conformity, I completely agree. I want to live my life free to do what I like so long as it is peaceful. I don't want people telling me what religion I can and cannot follow, what places I can and cannot live, what clothes I can and cannot wear, what food I can and cannot eat, what entertainment I can and cannot enjoy, etc. The right push us towards conformity, the left don't.
Thank you, Muttly, for your response. I appreciate your engagement with the topic, but I fear we may be talking past each other slightly. My point is not merely about the persistence of human nature or the elites' dismissive attitude, though these are important points. What I am more concerned with is the dramatic shift in the political Left's approach to freedom and authority since the 1960s.
The Left once stood as the bastion against authoritarianism, advocating for civil liberties, free speech, and individual rights. This commitment held strong into the early 2000s. However, we began to see cracks forming with the rise of political correctness, which initially seemed like a well-meaning attempt to foster inclusivity but soon morphed into a mechanism for controlling what could be said. This was the beginning of a broader trend towards policing not just speech but thought itself.
What we are witnessing now is the culmination of this shift—a purity spiral, if you will. This term, coined in sociological circles, describes a process where a group becomes increasingly obsessed with a single value, pushing ever more extreme positions while punishing even minor deviations from the accepted norm. In this context, the Left has become preoccupied with enforcing ideological conformity, where questioning the prevailing orthodoxy results in social exile, the destruction of careers, and the silencing of dissent.
This purity spiral is eerily reminiscent of the tactics used by Maoists during the Cultural Revolution, where ideological purity was demanded, and those who failed to conform were publicly denounced and ostracised. The parallels are not just superficial; they reflect a deeper authoritarian impulse that now permeates the Left. The demand for absolute conformity in thought and speech, the vilification of those who dissent, and the elevation of extreme positions are all hallmarks of a purity spiral. I will post some links on the subject below;
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/10/the-purity-spiral/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000d70h
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_spiral#:~:text=A%20purity%20spiral%20is%20a,called%20%22moral%20outbidding%22).
What is most troubling about the modern Left is not merely its authoritarian tendencies but the way it insists on subsuming individual identity into a monolithic group identity. It is no longer sufficient to belong to a marginalised or minority group; one must also adhere strictly to the prescribed ideological beliefs that the Left dictates as appropriate for that group. We hear the refrain all too often: "No real gay man should be a conservative," or "No true Irish person would defend Israel." Such proclamations are not just intellectually lazy; they are a betrayal of the very principles the Left once held dear.
The Left, which once championed the cause of individual agency and the right to self-definition, now imposes a rigid orthodoxy on those it claims to represent. It insists that all members of a given group must think, vote, and act in unison, as if their identity as individuals has been entirely erased. This groupthink is antithetical to the Left's historical role as a defender of the individual's right to dissent from societal norms. It is a tragic irony that the Left, which once fought against the authoritarian, puritanical Right, now mirrors those same repressive tendencies by demanding ideological conformity.
This insistence on ideological purity is disturbingly reminiscent of McCarthyism, a period in American history when the Right engaged in a witch hunt against those suspected of holding communist sympathies. During the McCarthy era, mere association with a particular group or the holding of certain beliefs was enough to ruin lives, destroy careers, and render individuals social pariahs. The logic was simple: to be a communist—or even to be suspected of sympathising with communists—was to be an enemy of the state. There was no room for nuance, no space for individual thought; you were either with them or against them.
Today, the Left employs similar tactics. To question the prevailing orthodoxy on issues of identity, gender, race, or international politics is to risk being branded a heretic, a bigot, or worse. Like the McCarthyites of the 1950s, today's Leftists do not merely disagree with dissenters; they seek to destroy them, to erase them from public life, to ensure that their voices are never heard again. The parallels are chilling: both movements operate on the assumption that ideological purity is paramount and that those who do not conform must be purged from the community.
What makes this all the more tragic is that the Left was once the champion of the very freedoms it now seeks to suppress. It fought for the right of individuals to express their beliefs without fear of retribution, to live their lives according to their own values, and to resist the pressures of conformity. But in its zeal to enforce a new orthodoxy, the Left has become the very thing it once despised: a force for repression, demanding that all must conform or face the consequences. This is the sad state of the modern Left, a movement that has lost its way and betrayed its most cherished principles. As someone who identifies with the libertarian Left, I now find myself adrift, politically homeless in a landscape that no longer resembles the ideals I once championed.
The Left once stood as the bastion against authoritarianism, advocating for civil liberties, free speech, and individual rights. This commitment held strong into the early 2000s. However, we began to see cracks forming with the rise of political correctness, which initially seemed like a well-meaning attempt to foster inclusivity but soon morphed into a mechanism for controlling what could be said. This was the beginning of a broader trend towards policing not just speech but thought itself.
What we are witnessing now is the culmination of this shift—a purity spiral, if you will. This term, coined in sociological circles, describes a process where a group becomes increasingly obsessed with a single value, pushing ever more extreme positions while punishing even minor deviations from the accepted norm. In this context, the Left has become preoccupied with enforcing ideological conformity, where questioning the prevailing orthodoxy results in social exile, the destruction of careers, and the silencing of dissent.
This purity spiral is eerily reminiscent of the tactics used by Maoists during the Cultural Revolution, where ideological purity was demanded, and those who failed to conform were publicly denounced and ostracised. The parallels are not just superficial; they reflect a deeper authoritarian impulse that now permeates the Left. The demand for absolute conformity in thought and speech, the vilification of those who dissent, and the elevation of extreme positions are all hallmarks of a purity spiral. I will post some links on the subject below;
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/10/the-purity-spiral/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000d70h
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_spiral#:~:text=A%20purity%20spiral%20is%20a,called%20%22moral%20outbidding%22).
What is most troubling about the modern Left is not merely its authoritarian tendencies but the way it insists on subsuming individual identity into a monolithic group identity. It is no longer sufficient to belong to a marginalised or minority group; one must also adhere strictly to the prescribed ideological beliefs that the Left dictates as appropriate for that group. We hear the refrain all too often: "No real gay man should be a conservative," or "No true Irish person would defend Israel." Such proclamations are not just intellectually lazy; they are a betrayal of the very principles the Left once held dear.
The Left, which once championed the cause of individual agency and the right to self-definition, now imposes a rigid orthodoxy on those it claims to represent. It insists that all members of a given group must think, vote, and act in unison, as if their identity as individuals has been entirely erased. This groupthink is antithetical to the Left's historical role as a defender of the individual's right to dissent from societal norms. It is a tragic irony that the Left, which once fought against the authoritarian, puritanical Right, now mirrors those same repressive tendencies by demanding ideological conformity.
This insistence on ideological purity is disturbingly reminiscent of McCarthyism, a period in American history when the Right engaged in a witch hunt against those suspected of holding communist sympathies. During the McCarthy era, mere association with a particular group or the holding of certain beliefs was enough to ruin lives, destroy careers, and render individuals social pariahs. The logic was simple: to be a communist—or even to be suspected of sympathising with communists—was to be an enemy of the state. There was no room for nuance, no space for individual thought; you were either with them or against them.
Today, the Left employs similar tactics. To question the prevailing orthodoxy on issues of identity, gender, race, or international politics is to risk being branded a heretic, a bigot, or worse. Like the McCarthyites of the 1950s, today's Leftists do not merely disagree with dissenters; they seek to destroy them, to erase them from public life, to ensure that their voices are never heard again. The parallels are chilling: both movements operate on the assumption that ideological purity is paramount and that those who do not conform must be purged from the community.
What makes this all the more tragic is that the Left was once the champion of the very freedoms it now seeks to suppress. It fought for the right of individuals to express their beliefs without fear of retribution, to live their lives according to their own values, and to resist the pressures of conformity. But in its zeal to enforce a new orthodoxy, the Left has become the very thing it once despised: a force for repression, demanding that all must conform or face the consequences. This is the sad state of the modern Left, a movement that has lost its way and betrayed its most cherished principles. As someone who identifies with the libertarian Left, I now find myself adrift, politically homeless in a landscape that no longer resembles the ideals I once championed.
Original post by SHallowvale
Absolute rubbish. The left has always been proponents of free expression, civil liberties, etc, and still is. You're confusing is freedom of speech / expression and freedom from consequences. You're free to say what you like, just as we're free to distance ourselves from you if you say / do stupid or horrible things.
You've written an entire post without giving a single example, I'm guessing because you want to be vague on purpose (it's easier to criticise "the left" as a boogeyman if you can't give examples).
In the meantime I'd like to list a bunch of legal rights that the right, in the West, have opposed, have tried to erode or have outright removed (either in the past or currently):
Personally, I worry far more about the right than some leftists on Twitter telling me not to use language which could upset someone.
I don't want anyone to be pushed into conformity, I completely agree. I want to live my life free to do what I like so long as it is peaceful. I don't want people telling me what religion I can and cannot follow, what places I can and cannot live, what clothes I can and cannot wear, what food I can and cannot eat, what entertainment I can and cannot enjoy, etc. The right push us towards conformity, the left don't.
You've written an entire post without giving a single example, I'm guessing because you want to be vague on purpose (it's easier to criticise "the left" as a boogeyman if you can't give examples).
In the meantime I'd like to list a bunch of legal rights that the right, in the West, have opposed, have tried to erode or have outright removed (either in the past or currently):
•
The right to have a divorce without fault.
•
The right to get an abortion.
•
The right to vote and vote in a fair system.
•
The right to live / work in other countries.
•
The right to marry someone of the same sex.
•
The right to peaceful protest.
•
The right to unionise.
•
The right to practice your religion.
•
The right to live / work free of discrimination.
•
The right to live / work free of targetted harassment.
Personally, I worry far more about the right than some leftists on Twitter telling me not to use language which could upset someone.
I don't want anyone to be pushed into conformity, I completely agree. I want to live my life free to do what I like so long as it is peaceful. I don't want people telling me what religion I can and cannot follow, what places I can and cannot live, what clothes I can and cannot wear, what food I can and cannot eat, what entertainment I can and cannot enjoy, etc. The right push us towards conformity, the left don't.
Yes, the Left once stood as the valiant defender of these principles, and it is precisely because of this history that its current trajectory is so concerning. The distinction you draw between freedom of speech and freedom from consequences is, of course, well-trodden territory, but it is also an evasion. The argument is not that one should be immune from all consequences, but rather that the consequences now often entail a draconian level of social and professional ruin, disproportionate to the so-called offence committed. The policing of speech has morphed into a de facto enforcement of ideological conformity, where to deviate from the prescribed norms—whether on matters of race, gender, or politics—is to invite not debate, but obliteration.
Now, as to your assertion that the Left remains unchanged in its advocacy for civil liberties, I must respectfully disagree. You ask for examples, and I shall oblige. Consider the purges in academia, where professors and students alike are ostracised, sometimes expelled, for expressing views that, until recently, were considered within the bounds of reasonable debate. Consider the no-platforming movement, which seeks to deny a stage to any speaker who does not toe the ideological line—a movement that has effectively curtailed the range of permissible discourse. Or consider the social media mobs that descend upon anyone who dares to question the orthodoxies of the day, leading to the loss of livelihoods, reputations, and, at times, personal safety. These are not the actions of a movement that values free expression.
You list rights that the Right has historically opposed, and you are correct that these are battles worth fighting. But to suggest that the Left has not also taken a turn towards authoritarianism is to ignore the very real and growing trend of silencing dissent through means that are no less coercive, even if they are social rather than legal. It is precisely because I value the freedoms you enumerate that I find the Left’s current trajectory so disheartening. For what is the point of securing the right to marry, the right to unionise, or the right to vote if we simultaneously allow the erosion of the very freedoms of thought and expression that make such rights meaningful?
You say you worry more about the Right, and that is your prerogative. But let us not pretend that the Left is blameless in the current climate of enforced conformity. The Right may push us towards conformity in matters of tradition and moralism, but the Left now does so in matters of ideology and discourse. Both are dangerous; both deserve scrutiny.
In the end, it is not about whether one side is worse than the other, but about recognising and resisting the authoritarian impulses wherever they arise. We should not have to choose between a Right that seeks to regulate our private lives and a Left that seeks to regulate our minds. To excuse the latter because of the former is to abdicate our responsibility to defend the freedoms that have been hard-won over generations.
I appreciate your desire to live freely, unburdened by the dictates of others, and I share that aspiration. However, to claim that the Left does not push towards conformity is to overlook some rather stark examples. Consider the increasingly pervasive notion of "cultural appropriation," which dictates what one may or may not wear based on their ethnic background. A white person donning a kimono or braids, for instance, might find themselves accused of theft, rather than celebrated for appreciating another culture. This is no trivial matter—careers have been derailed, and public shaming has become routine for those who dare to cross these invisible lines.
Similarly, the creation of spaces reserved exclusively for people of colour—an idea that has gained traction in certain academic and activist circles—imposes a form of segregation that, ironically, mirrors the very exclusion it purports to combat. These "safe spaces" are ostensibly about protection, but they also send a clear message about who belongs where, and who does not, based purely on the colour of their skin. It is a return to a kind of identity-based territorialism, an attempt to dictate where one can live, study, and even socialise based on immutable characteristics. These are just a few examples where the Left’s ideology impinges upon the very freedoms it claims to uphold, pushing us towards a conformity that is no less coercive simply because it comes dressed in the language of social justice.
Original post by Rincewind_Bored
Yes, the Left once stood as the valiant defender of these principles, and it is precisely because of this history that its current trajectory is so concerning. The distinction you draw between freedom of speech and freedom from consequences is, of course, well-trodden territory, but it is also an evasion. The argument is not that one should be immune from all consequences, but rather that the consequences now often entail a draconian level of social and professional ruin, disproportionate to the so-called offence committed. The policing of speech has morphed into a de facto enforcement of ideological conformity, where to deviate from the prescribed norms—whether on matters of race, gender, or politics—is to invite not debate, but obliteration.
Now, as to your assertion that the Left remains unchanged in its advocacy for civil liberties, I must respectfully disagree. You ask for examples, and I shall oblige. Consider the purges in academia, where professors and students alike are ostracised, sometimes expelled, for expressing views that, until recently, were considered within the bounds of reasonable debate. Consider the no-platforming movement, which seeks to deny a stage to any speaker who does not toe the ideological line—a movement that has effectively curtailed the range of permissible discourse. Or consider the social media mobs that descend upon anyone who dares to question the orthodoxies of the day, leading to the loss of livelihoods, reputations, and, at times, personal safety. These are not the actions of a movement that values free expression.
You list rights that the Right has historically opposed, and you are correct that these are battles worth fighting. But to suggest that the Left has not also taken a turn towards authoritarianism is to ignore the very real and growing trend of silencing dissent through means that are no less coercive, even if they are social rather than legal. It is precisely because I value the freedoms you enumerate that I find the Left’s current trajectory so disheartening. For what is the point of securing the right to marry, the right to unionise, or the right to vote if we simultaneously allow the erosion of the very freedoms of thought and expression that make such rights meaningful?
You say you worry more about the Right, and that is your prerogative. But let us not pretend that the Left is blameless in the current climate of enforced conformity. The Right may push us towards conformity in matters of tradition and moralism, but the Left now does so in matters of ideology and discourse. Both are dangerous; both deserve scrutiny.
In the end, it is not about whether one side is worse than the other, but about recognising and resisting the authoritarian impulses wherever they arise. We should not have to choose between a Right that seeks to regulate our private lives and a Left that seeks to regulate our minds. To excuse the latter because of the former is to abdicate our responsibility to defend the freedoms that have been hard-won over generations.
I appreciate your desire to live freely, unburdened by the dictates of others, and I share that aspiration. However, to claim that the Left does not push towards conformity is to overlook some rather stark examples. Consider the increasingly pervasive notion of "cultural appropriation," which dictates what one may or may not wear based on their ethnic background. A white person donning a kimono or braids, for instance, might find themselves accused of theft, rather than celebrated for appreciating another culture. This is no trivial matter—careers have been derailed, and public shaming has become routine for those who dare to cross these invisible lines.
Similarly, the creation of spaces reserved exclusively for people of colour—an idea that has gained traction in certain academic and activist circles—imposes a form of segregation that, ironically, mirrors the very exclusion it purports to combat. These "safe spaces" are ostensibly about protection, but they also send a clear message about who belongs where, and who does not, based purely on the colour of their skin. It is a return to a kind of identity-based territorialism, an attempt to dictate where one can live, study, and even socialise based on immutable characteristics. These are just a few examples where the Left’s ideology impinges upon the very freedoms it claims to uphold, pushing us towards a conformity that is no less coercive simply because it comes dressed in the language of social justice.
Now, as to your assertion that the Left remains unchanged in its advocacy for civil liberties, I must respectfully disagree. You ask for examples, and I shall oblige. Consider the purges in academia, where professors and students alike are ostracised, sometimes expelled, for expressing views that, until recently, were considered within the bounds of reasonable debate. Consider the no-platforming movement, which seeks to deny a stage to any speaker who does not toe the ideological line—a movement that has effectively curtailed the range of permissible discourse. Or consider the social media mobs that descend upon anyone who dares to question the orthodoxies of the day, leading to the loss of livelihoods, reputations, and, at times, personal safety. These are not the actions of a movement that values free expression.
You list rights that the Right has historically opposed, and you are correct that these are battles worth fighting. But to suggest that the Left has not also taken a turn towards authoritarianism is to ignore the very real and growing trend of silencing dissent through means that are no less coercive, even if they are social rather than legal. It is precisely because I value the freedoms you enumerate that I find the Left’s current trajectory so disheartening. For what is the point of securing the right to marry, the right to unionise, or the right to vote if we simultaneously allow the erosion of the very freedoms of thought and expression that make such rights meaningful?
You say you worry more about the Right, and that is your prerogative. But let us not pretend that the Left is blameless in the current climate of enforced conformity. The Right may push us towards conformity in matters of tradition and moralism, but the Left now does so in matters of ideology and discourse. Both are dangerous; both deserve scrutiny.
In the end, it is not about whether one side is worse than the other, but about recognising and resisting the authoritarian impulses wherever they arise. We should not have to choose between a Right that seeks to regulate our private lives and a Left that seeks to regulate our minds. To excuse the latter because of the former is to abdicate our responsibility to defend the freedoms that have been hard-won over generations.
I appreciate your desire to live freely, unburdened by the dictates of others, and I share that aspiration. However, to claim that the Left does not push towards conformity is to overlook some rather stark examples. Consider the increasingly pervasive notion of "cultural appropriation," which dictates what one may or may not wear based on their ethnic background. A white person donning a kimono or braids, for instance, might find themselves accused of theft, rather than celebrated for appreciating another culture. This is no trivial matter—careers have been derailed, and public shaming has become routine for those who dare to cross these invisible lines.
Similarly, the creation of spaces reserved exclusively for people of colour—an idea that has gained traction in certain academic and activist circles—imposes a form of segregation that, ironically, mirrors the very exclusion it purports to combat. These "safe spaces" are ostensibly about protection, but they also send a clear message about who belongs where, and who does not, based purely on the colour of their skin. It is a return to a kind of identity-based territorialism, an attempt to dictate where one can live, study, and even socialise based on immutable characteristics. These are just a few examples where the Left’s ideology impinges upon the very freedoms it claims to uphold, pushing us towards a conformity that is no less coercive simply because it comes dressed in the language of social justice.
Are deplatforming and university students / professors losing their jobs the best examples you can come up with? Not only are these pretty outdated ('deplatforming' reaching it's peak in the 2016-era of internet discourse) but also completely at odds with the current political landscape. There are dozens of platforms the right (including the hard right) can speak on (Twitter, GB News, The Express, Talk TV, etc).
There is no "conformity" in politics. Politics at the moment is the most diverse it has been for a very long time. We've got representation in parliament from almost every corner of the political spectrum: the Greens representing the left, Reform UK representing the hard / far right, independents representing a pro-Gaza ticket, the SNP representing a Scottish independence ticket, Conservatives representing the centre-right (with fringes in the hard right) and Labour representing the centre-left.
What right wing beliefs are people not allowed to talk about? Being anti-immigration? Being anti-gender? Being anti-'woke'? Being anti-Islam? Being anti-asymlum? Being anti-globalisation? Being anti-tax? Being anti-EU? Being anti-union? All of these are common ideas you hear talked about in public discourse, some from very high profile politicians and household names (e.g. Nigel Farage, Suella Braverman, Tommy Robinson, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, etc).
Whatever "conformity" you see from the left is few and far between compared to the conformity that the right pushes on us. I'd rather have left wing "conformity" (which really just means not being a ***** to people) than the right wing conformity I mentioned (of which there are plenty more examples).
Original post by SHallowvale
Are deplatforming and university students / professors losing their jobs the best examples you can come up with? Not only are these pretty outdated ('deplatforming' reaching it's peak in the 2016-era of internet discourse) but also completely at odds with the current political landscape. There are dozens of platforms the right (including the hard right) can speak on (Twitter, GB News, The Express, Talk TV, etc).
There is no "conformity" in politics. Politics at the moment is the most diverse it has been for a very long time. We've got representation in parliament from almost every corner of the political spectrum: the Greens representing the left, Reform UK representing the hard / far right, independents representing a pro-Gaza ticket, the SNP representing a Scottish independence ticket, Conservatives representing the centre-right (with fringes in the hard right) and Labour representing the centre-left.
What right wing beliefs are people not allowed to talk about? Being anti-immigration? Being anti-gender? Being anti-'woke'? Being anti-Islam? Being anti-asymlum? Being anti-globalisation? Being anti-tax? Being anti-EU? Being anti-union? All of these are common ideas you hear talked about in public discourse, some from very high profile politicians and household names (e.g. Nigel Farage, Suella Braverman, Tommy Robinson, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, etc).
Whatever "conformity" you see from the left is few and far between compared to the conformity that the right pushes on us. I'd rather have left wing "conformity" (which really just means not being a ***** to people) than the right wing conformity I mentioned (of which there are plenty more examples).
There is no "conformity" in politics. Politics at the moment is the most diverse it has been for a very long time. We've got representation in parliament from almost every corner of the political spectrum: the Greens representing the left, Reform UK representing the hard / far right, independents representing a pro-Gaza ticket, the SNP representing a Scottish independence ticket, Conservatives representing the centre-right (with fringes in the hard right) and Labour representing the centre-left.
What right wing beliefs are people not allowed to talk about? Being anti-immigration? Being anti-gender? Being anti-'woke'? Being anti-Islam? Being anti-asymlum? Being anti-globalisation? Being anti-tax? Being anti-EU? Being anti-union? All of these are common ideas you hear talked about in public discourse, some from very high profile politicians and household names (e.g. Nigel Farage, Suella Braverman, Tommy Robinson, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, etc).
Whatever "conformity" you see from the left is few and far between compared to the conformity that the right pushes on us. I'd rather have left wing "conformity" (which really just means not being a ***** to people) than the right wing conformity I mentioned (of which there are plenty more examples).
Thank you for your response, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position. I should start by making it clear that I am not a right-wing advocate by any stretch of the imagination. My political roots are firmly planted in the Left, and it is precisely because of this that I find myself compelled to critically examine where the Left has gone astray. My aim is not to dismantle the Left but to strengthen it, to ensure that it remains a robust force for social progress rather than falling into the traps of authoritarianism and dogma.
The rise of right-wing populism in Europe, the emergence of figures like Trump and Farage, and the unsettling spread of nationalist rhetoric terrify me as much as they do any other conscientious person on the Left. However, I would argue that the more the Left tightens its grip on ideological purity, forcing people to silence themselves rather than engage in genuine discourse, the more we inadvertently fuel the very populist movements we seek to oppose. We need only look at the recent riots in England for a stark illustration of this dynamic.
The tragic and horrifying stabbing in Southport, followed by a wave of riots across England and Northern Ireland, has been too easily dismissed by some as the work of "racist bigots" and far-right agitators. While there is undoubtedly an element of this, to reduce the unrest to nothing more than the actions of a fringe minority is not only intellectually lazy but also dangerously shortsighted. The BBC's analysis of these riots points out that while far-right influencers played a role in spreading misinformation, the involvement of ordinary people—families, neighbours, those with genuine concerns about immigration—cannot be ignored. These are not just the voices of hate; they are the voices of frustration, of a populace that feels unheard and abandoned by the political mainstream.
Dismissing these feelings only strengthens the populist fire. By failing to engage with these concerns, by refusing to allow for a wider range of discussion on sensitive topics like immigration or national identity, the Left leaves a vacuum that populists are all too eager to fill. They harness these frustrations, magnifying them into a powerful force that threatens to upend the very fabric of our society.
If the Left continues down this path—demanding conformity, suppressing debate, and ostracising those who dare to question the orthodoxy—we will only see more of the same. We must be willing to confront the uncomfortable truths, engage with the disaffected's grievances, and do so in a way that upholds the values of open discourse and mutual respect. It is not enough to simply dismiss dissenters as bigots; we must address the root causes of their discontent, or we risk driving more and more people into the arms of the very populists we fear.
Original post by Rincewind_Bored
Thank you for your response, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position. I should start by making it clear that I am not a right-wing advocate by any stretch of the imagination. My political roots are firmly planted in the Left, and it is precisely because of this that I find myself compelled to critically examine where the Left has gone astray. My aim is not to dismantle the Left but to strengthen it, to ensure that it remains a robust force for social progress rather than falling into the traps of authoritarianism and dogma.
The rise of right-wing populism in Europe, the emergence of figures like Trump and Farage, and the unsettling spread of nationalist rhetoric terrify me as much as they do any other conscientious person on the Left. However, I would argue that the more the Left tightens its grip on ideological purity, forcing people to silence themselves rather than engage in genuine discourse, the more we inadvertently fuel the very populist movements we seek to oppose. We need only look at the recent riots in England for a stark illustration of this dynamic.
The tragic and horrifying stabbing in Southport, followed by a wave of riots across England and Northern Ireland, has been too easily dismissed by some as the work of "racist bigots" and far-right agitators. While there is undoubtedly an element of this, to reduce the unrest to nothing more than the actions of a fringe minority is not only intellectually lazy but also dangerously shortsighted. The BBC's analysis of these riots points out that while far-right influencers played a role in spreading misinformation, the involvement of ordinary people—families, neighbours, those with genuine concerns about immigration—cannot be ignored. These are not just the voices of hate; they are the voices of frustration, of a populace that feels unheard and abandoned by the political mainstream.
Dismissing these feelings only strengthens the populist fire. By failing to engage with these concerns, by refusing to allow for a wider range of discussion on sensitive topics like immigration or national identity, the Left leaves a vacuum that populists are all too eager to fill. They harness these frustrations, magnifying them into a powerful force that threatens to upend the very fabric of our society.
If the Left continues down this path—demanding conformity, suppressing debate, and ostracising those who dare to question the orthodoxy—we will only see more of the same. We must be willing to confront the uncomfortable truths, engage with the disaffected's grievances, and do so in a way that upholds the values of open discourse and mutual respect. It is not enough to simply dismiss dissenters as bigots; we must address the root causes of their discontent, or we risk driving more and more people into the arms of the very populists we fear.
The rise of right-wing populism in Europe, the emergence of figures like Trump and Farage, and the unsettling spread of nationalist rhetoric terrify me as much as they do any other conscientious person on the Left. However, I would argue that the more the Left tightens its grip on ideological purity, forcing people to silence themselves rather than engage in genuine discourse, the more we inadvertently fuel the very populist movements we seek to oppose. We need only look at the recent riots in England for a stark illustration of this dynamic.
The tragic and horrifying stabbing in Southport, followed by a wave of riots across England and Northern Ireland, has been too easily dismissed by some as the work of "racist bigots" and far-right agitators. While there is undoubtedly an element of this, to reduce the unrest to nothing more than the actions of a fringe minority is not only intellectually lazy but also dangerously shortsighted. The BBC's analysis of these riots points out that while far-right influencers played a role in spreading misinformation, the involvement of ordinary people—families, neighbours, those with genuine concerns about immigration—cannot be ignored. These are not just the voices of hate; they are the voices of frustration, of a populace that feels unheard and abandoned by the political mainstream.
Dismissing these feelings only strengthens the populist fire. By failing to engage with these concerns, by refusing to allow for a wider range of discussion on sensitive topics like immigration or national identity, the Left leaves a vacuum that populists are all too eager to fill. They harness these frustrations, magnifying them into a powerful force that threatens to upend the very fabric of our society.
If the Left continues down this path—demanding conformity, suppressing debate, and ostracising those who dare to question the orthodoxy—we will only see more of the same. We must be willing to confront the uncomfortable truths, engage with the disaffected's grievances, and do so in a way that upholds the values of open discourse and mutual respect. It is not enough to simply dismiss dissenters as bigots; we must address the root causes of their discontent, or we risk driving more and more people into the arms of the very populists we fear.
It's a common tactic of the right to claim that the media simply dismiss them as "racist bigots" without any attempt to hear what they say or think. This is wrong for two reasons.
First, a huge portion of the media are supportive of the right (including the hard and far right). The Express, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, GB News, Talk TV, Fox News, etc, all frequently push anti-immigration and anti-asymlum talking points. These people are not the underdogs, they have an entire media empire supporting them.
Second, the concerns that people have about immigration and asylum have been discussed for decades. I'm not sure what planet you're living on if you think that these are topics getting brushed under the rug. We've just gone through an entire election campaign and immigration was at the heart of the debate. We've also spent our recent political history disentangling ourselves from the EU because (at least in part) of anti-immigration beliefs among the public.
The Left are often critical of anti-immigration and anti-asylum beliefs without just dismissing people as "racist bigots". Recently we've had politians across the left make the positive case for immigration whilst also recognising the concerns people have (e.g. about housing, access to public services, etc). Where people are criticised as "racist bigots" are in situations like these riots. Some of these rioters are simply racist and they should be called out as such. It's possible to listen to the concerns of 'everyday people' and also call out racism when and where it happens.
Original post by SHallowvale
It's a common tactic of the right to claim that the media simply dismiss them as "racist bigots" without any attempt to hear what they say or think. This is wrong for two reasons.
First, a huge portion of the media are supportive of the right (including the hard and far right). The Express, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, GB News, Talk TV, Fox News, etc, all frequently push anti-immigration and anti-asymlum talking points. These people are not the underdogs, they have an entire media empire supporting them.
Second, the concerns that people have about immigration and asylum have been discussed for decades. I'm not sure what planet you're living on if you think that these are topics getting brushed under the rug. We've just gone through an entire election campaign and immigration was at the heart of the debate. We've also spent our recent political history disentangling ourselves from the EU because (at least in part) of anti-immigration beliefs among the public.
The Left are often critical of anti-immigration and anti-asylum beliefs without just dismissing people as "racist bigots". Recently we've had politians across the left make the positive case for immigration whilst also recognising the concerns people have (e.g. about housing, access to public services, etc). Where people are criticised as "racist bigots" are in situations like these riots. Some of these rioters are simply racist and they should be called out as such. It's possible to listen to the concerns of 'everyday people' and also call out racism when and where it happens.
First, a huge portion of the media are supportive of the right (including the hard and far right). The Express, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, GB News, Talk TV, Fox News, etc, all frequently push anti-immigration and anti-asymlum talking points. These people are not the underdogs, they have an entire media empire supporting them.
Second, the concerns that people have about immigration and asylum have been discussed for decades. I'm not sure what planet you're living on if you think that these are topics getting brushed under the rug. We've just gone through an entire election campaign and immigration was at the heart of the debate. We've also spent our recent political history disentangling ourselves from the EU because (at least in part) of anti-immigration beliefs among the public.
The Left are often critical of anti-immigration and anti-asylum beliefs without just dismissing people as "racist bigots". Recently we've had politians across the left make the positive case for immigration whilst also recognising the concerns people have (e.g. about housing, access to public services, etc). Where people are criticised as "racist bigots" are in situations like these riots. Some of these rioters are simply racist and they should be called out as such. It's possible to listen to the concerns of 'everyday people' and also call out racism when and where it happens.
Thank you for your response, but I must point out that your reply seems to follow a rather predictable pattern—one that avoids addressing the actual concerns raised by swiftly pivoting to a critique of the right. This reflexive defence mechanism is symptomatic of a broader problem: an ideological blindness that refuses to acknowledge any failings within the Left. I wonder, is it truly impossible for you to recognise that the Left, like any political movement, is not beyond reproach?
Yes, the right-wing media machine is powerful, and yes, immigration has been a central issue in public discourse for years. But you miss the point entirely if you think this is where the discussion ends. The issue at hand is not whether anti-immigration views are discussed—they most certainly are—but whether the Left has become too comfortable dismissing genuine concerns as mere bigotry without offering meaningful engagement.
You mention that the Left has made a positive case for immigration while recognising public concerns. But if that were truly the case, why do we still see such deep-seated frustration boiling over into riots and unrest? To simply label these events as the work of "racist bigots" is to ignore the underlying discontent that fuels them—a discontent that the Left has failed to adequately address.
The crux of my argument is that by refusing to engage with these grievances seriously, by branding dissenters with the broad brush of racism, the Left is contributing to the very populist surge it fears. To acknowledge this is not to side with the Right, but to recognise that the Left must do better if it wishes to remain a force for progress.
So, I put it to you directly: is there no room in your analysis for any self-critique of the Left? Must every observation about the Left's shortcomings be deflected by turning the conversation back to the Right? If we are to strengthen the Left and make it resilient against the rise of populism, we must be willing to look inward and address our own failings, rather than continually pointing the finger elsewhere.
While it is true that immigration has been a central theme in political discourse in recent years, it is equally true that the Left often fails to engage in this discussion in any meaningful way. Rather than confronting the complexities of growing civil dissatisfaction and the cultural frictions that naturally arise from immigration, the Left frequently retreats to comfortable platitudes or dismisses concerns outright as the prejudices of the ill-informed.
This reluctance to grapple with the real issues has contributed to the very tensions that drive civil unrest. The critique of multiculturalism in Britain - found here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2017.1398444?needAccess=true - highlights the dangers of an approach that fosters separation rather than integration. Multicultural policies, while well-intentioned, have often encouraged parallel societies where different cultural groups exist in isolation from the mainstream, leading to a lack of shared identity and mutual understanding.
The Left’s refusal to acknowledge these problems, to engage with the realities of cultural friction and the challenges of integration, only fuels the fires of populism. When people feel that their concerns about the impact of immigration on their communities are dismissed or ignored, they turn to those who will listen—often the populists and far-right demagogues who exploit these anxieties for their own gain.
If the Left continues to close its eyes to these issues, insisting on an ideological purity that denies the validity of these concerns, we risk deepening the divisions in our society. It is not enough to wave the banner of tolerance and inclusivity if, in practice, these ideals are not accompanied by genuine engagement with the challenges of integration and the maintenance of social cohesion. To strengthen the Left, we must be willing to confront these uncomfortable truths, to engage with the grievances that are driving so many towards populism, and to offer solutions that address these issues in a way that upholds the values of equality and justice.
This reluctance to grapple with the real issues has contributed to the very tensions that drive civil unrest. The critique of multiculturalism in Britain - found here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2017.1398444?needAccess=true - highlights the dangers of an approach that fosters separation rather than integration. Multicultural policies, while well-intentioned, have often encouraged parallel societies where different cultural groups exist in isolation from the mainstream, leading to a lack of shared identity and mutual understanding.
The Left’s refusal to acknowledge these problems, to engage with the realities of cultural friction and the challenges of integration, only fuels the fires of populism. When people feel that their concerns about the impact of immigration on their communities are dismissed or ignored, they turn to those who will listen—often the populists and far-right demagogues who exploit these anxieties for their own gain.
If the Left continues to close its eyes to these issues, insisting on an ideological purity that denies the validity of these concerns, we risk deepening the divisions in our society. It is not enough to wave the banner of tolerance and inclusivity if, in practice, these ideals are not accompanied by genuine engagement with the challenges of integration and the maintenance of social cohesion. To strengthen the Left, we must be willing to confront these uncomfortable truths, to engage with the grievances that are driving so many towards populism, and to offer solutions that address these issues in a way that upholds the values of equality and justice.
Original post by Rincewind_Bored
Thank you for your response, but I must point out that your reply seems to follow a rather predictable pattern—one that avoids addressing the actual concerns raised by swiftly pivoting to a critique of the right. This reflexive defence mechanism is symptomatic of a broader problem: an ideological blindness that refuses to acknowledge any failings within the Left. I wonder, is it truly impossible for you to recognise that the Left, like any political movement, is not beyond reproach?
Yes, the right-wing media machine is powerful, and yes, immigration has been a central issue in public discourse for years. But you miss the point entirely if you think this is where the discussion ends. The issue at hand is not whether anti-immigration views are discussed—they most certainly are—but whether the Left has become too comfortable dismissing genuine concerns as mere bigotry without offering meaningful engagement.
You mention that the Left has made a positive case for immigration while recognising public concerns. But if that were truly the case, why do we still see such deep-seated frustration boiling over into riots and unrest? To simply label these events as the work of "racist bigots" is to ignore the underlying discontent that fuels them—a discontent that the Left has failed to adequately address.
The crux of my argument is that by refusing to engage with these grievances seriously, by branding dissenters with the broad brush of racism, the Left is contributing to the very populist surge it fears. To acknowledge this is not to side with the Right, but to recognise that the Left must do better if it wishes to remain a force for progress.
So, I put it to you directly: is there no room in your analysis for any self-critique of the Left? Must every observation about the Left's shortcomings be deflected by turning the conversation back to the Right? If we are to strengthen the Left and make it resilient against the rise of populism, we must be willing to look inward and address our own failings, rather than continually pointing the finger elsewhere.
Yes, the right-wing media machine is powerful, and yes, immigration has been a central issue in public discourse for years. But you miss the point entirely if you think this is where the discussion ends. The issue at hand is not whether anti-immigration views are discussed—they most certainly are—but whether the Left has become too comfortable dismissing genuine concerns as mere bigotry without offering meaningful engagement.
You mention that the Left has made a positive case for immigration while recognising public concerns. But if that were truly the case, why do we still see such deep-seated frustration boiling over into riots and unrest? To simply label these events as the work of "racist bigots" is to ignore the underlying discontent that fuels them—a discontent that the Left has failed to adequately address.
The crux of my argument is that by refusing to engage with these grievances seriously, by branding dissenters with the broad brush of racism, the Left is contributing to the very populist surge it fears. To acknowledge this is not to side with the Right, but to recognise that the Left must do better if it wishes to remain a force for progress.
So, I put it to you directly: is there no room in your analysis for any self-critique of the Left? Must every observation about the Left's shortcomings be deflected by turning the conversation back to the Right? If we are to strengthen the Left and make it resilient against the rise of populism, we must be willing to look inward and address our own failings, rather than continually pointing the finger elsewhere.
Of course there's room to be critical of the left, I've done so in this thread and in plenty others. What I'm doing here is pointing out the ridiculousness of the idea that the Western left are in any way comparable to that of Mao's Cultural Revolution. This is utterly absurd, so I've given some much needed context by pointing out the ideological puritanism of the right and how they wish to erode the many freedoms we currently enjoy (or, sadly, have eroded freedoms we once enjoyed).
I'm not sure how you can say something like, "You mention that the Left has made a positive case for immigration while recognising public concerns. But if that were truly the case, why do we still see such deep-seated frustration boiling over into riots and unrest?". Have you been living under a rock? The left have not been in government in this country for 14 years. Do you expect them to resolve these concerns within the first month of taking power? What do you think they should be doing?
If you want to strengthen the left then you have to make the case for the left. Part of this involves pointing out the gross mismanagement at the hands of the other side, mismanagement of which has been at the root of the concerns these people have.
Original post by Rincewind_Bored
While it is true that immigration has been a central theme in political discourse in recent years, it is equally true that the Left often fails to engage in this discussion in any meaningful way. Rather than confronting the complexities of growing civil dissatisfaction and the cultural frictions that naturally arise from immigration, the Left frequently retreats to comfortable platitudes or dismisses concerns outright as the prejudices of the ill-informed.
This reluctance to grapple with the real issues has contributed to the very tensions that drive civil unrest. The critique of multiculturalism in Britain - found here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2017.1398444?needAccess=true - highlights the dangers of an approach that fosters separation rather than integration. Multicultural policies, while well-intentioned, have often encouraged parallel societies where different cultural groups exist in isolation from the mainstream, leading to a lack of shared identity and mutual understanding.
The Left’s refusal to acknowledge these problems, to engage with the realities of cultural friction and the challenges of integration, only fuels the fires of populism. When people feel that their concerns about the impact of immigration on their communities are dismissed or ignored, they turn to those who will listen—often the populists and far-right demagogues who exploit these anxieties for their own gain.
If the Left continues to close its eyes to these issues, insisting on an ideological purity that denies the validity of these concerns, we risk deepening the divisions in our society. It is not enough to wave the banner of tolerance and inclusivity if, in practice, these ideals are not accompanied by genuine engagement with the challenges of integration and the maintenance of social cohesion. To strengthen the Left, we must be willing to confront these uncomfortable truths, to engage with the grievances that are driving so many towards populism, and to offer solutions that address these issues in a way that upholds the values of equality and justice.
This reluctance to grapple with the real issues has contributed to the very tensions that drive civil unrest. The critique of multiculturalism in Britain - found here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2017.1398444?needAccess=true - highlights the dangers of an approach that fosters separation rather than integration. Multicultural policies, while well-intentioned, have often encouraged parallel societies where different cultural groups exist in isolation from the mainstream, leading to a lack of shared identity and mutual understanding.
The Left’s refusal to acknowledge these problems, to engage with the realities of cultural friction and the challenges of integration, only fuels the fires of populism. When people feel that their concerns about the impact of immigration on their communities are dismissed or ignored, they turn to those who will listen—often the populists and far-right demagogues who exploit these anxieties for their own gain.
If the Left continues to close its eyes to these issues, insisting on an ideological purity that denies the validity of these concerns, we risk deepening the divisions in our society. It is not enough to wave the banner of tolerance and inclusivity if, in practice, these ideals are not accompanied by genuine engagement with the challenges of integration and the maintenance of social cohesion. To strengthen the Left, we must be willing to confront these uncomfortable truths, to engage with the grievances that are driving so many towards populism, and to offer solutions that address these issues in a way that upholds the values of equality and justice.
Instead of beating around the bush, say what you actually mean and tell us what you think the left should do. If you think the left should adopt anti-immigration, anti-Islam and anti-asylum positions and cosy up to the hard / far right then just say so.
Original post by Rincewind_Bored
Yes, the Left once stood as the valiant defender of these principles, and it is precisely because of this history that its current trajectory is so concerning. The distinction you draw between freedom of speech and freedom from consequences is, of course, well-trodden territory, but it is also an evasion. The argument is not that one should be immune from all consequences, but rather that the consequences now often entail a draconian level of social and professional ruin, disproportionate to the so-called offence committed. The policing of speech has morphed into a de facto enforcement of ideological conformity, where to deviate from the prescribed norms—whether on matters of race, gender, or politics—is to invite not debate, but obliteration.
Now, as to your assertion that the Left remains unchanged in its advocacy for civil liberties, I must respectfully disagree. You ask for examples, and I shall oblige. Consider the purges in academia, where professors and students alike are ostracised, sometimes expelled, for expressing views that, until recently, were considered within the bounds of reasonable debate. Consider the no-platforming movement, which seeks to deny a stage to any speaker who does not toe the ideological line—a movement that has effectively curtailed the range of permissible discourse. Or consider the social media mobs that descend upon anyone who dares to question the orthodoxies of the day, leading to the loss of livelihoods, reputations, and, at times, personal safety. These are not the actions of a movement that values free expression.
You list rights that the Right has historically opposed, and you are correct that these are battles worth fighting. But to suggest that the Left has not also taken a turn towards authoritarianism is to ignore the very real and growing trend of silencing dissent through means that are no less coercive, even if they are social rather than legal. It is precisely because I value the freedoms you enumerate that I find the Left’s current trajectory so disheartening. For what is the point of securing the right to marry, the right to unionise, or the right to vote if we simultaneously allow the erosion of the very freedoms of thought and expression that make such rights meaningful?
You say you worry more about the Right, and that is your prerogative. But let us not pretend that the Left is blameless in the current climate of enforced conformity. The Right may push us towards conformity in matters of tradition and moralism, but the Left now does so in matters of ideology and discourse. Both are dangerous; both deserve scrutiny.
In the end, it is not about whether one side is worse than the other, but about recognising and resisting the authoritarian impulses wherever they arise. We should not have to choose between a Right that seeks to regulate our private lives and a Left that seeks to regulate our minds. To excuse the latter because of the former is to abdicate our responsibility to defend the freedoms that have been hard-won over generations.
I appreciate your desire to live freely, unburdened by the dictates of others, and I share that aspiration. However, to claim that the Left does not push towards conformity is to overlook some rather stark examples. Consider the increasingly pervasive notion of "cultural appropriation," which dictates what one may or may not wear based on their ethnic background. A white person donning a kimono or braids, for instance, might find themselves accused of theft, rather than celebrated for appreciating another culture. This is no trivial matter—careers have been derailed, and public shaming has become routine for those who dare to cross these invisible lines.
Similarly, the creation of spaces reserved exclusively for people of colour—an idea that has gained traction in certain academic and activist circles—imposes a form of segregation that, ironically, mirrors the very exclusion it purports to combat. These "safe spaces" are ostensibly about protection, but they also send a clear message about who belongs where, and who does not, based purely on the colour of their skin. It is a return to a kind of identity-based territorialism, an attempt to dictate where one can live, study, and even socialise based on immutable characteristics. These are just a few examples where the Left’s ideology impinges upon the very freedoms it claims to uphold, pushing us towards a conformity that is no less coercive simply because it comes dressed in the language of social justice.
Now, as to your assertion that the Left remains unchanged in its advocacy for civil liberties, I must respectfully disagree. You ask for examples, and I shall oblige. Consider the purges in academia, where professors and students alike are ostracised, sometimes expelled, for expressing views that, until recently, were considered within the bounds of reasonable debate. Consider the no-platforming movement, which seeks to deny a stage to any speaker who does not toe the ideological line—a movement that has effectively curtailed the range of permissible discourse. Or consider the social media mobs that descend upon anyone who dares to question the orthodoxies of the day, leading to the loss of livelihoods, reputations, and, at times, personal safety. These are not the actions of a movement that values free expression.
You list rights that the Right has historically opposed, and you are correct that these are battles worth fighting. But to suggest that the Left has not also taken a turn towards authoritarianism is to ignore the very real and growing trend of silencing dissent through means that are no less coercive, even if they are social rather than legal. It is precisely because I value the freedoms you enumerate that I find the Left’s current trajectory so disheartening. For what is the point of securing the right to marry, the right to unionise, or the right to vote if we simultaneously allow the erosion of the very freedoms of thought and expression that make such rights meaningful?
You say you worry more about the Right, and that is your prerogative. But let us not pretend that the Left is blameless in the current climate of enforced conformity. The Right may push us towards conformity in matters of tradition and moralism, but the Left now does so in matters of ideology and discourse. Both are dangerous; both deserve scrutiny.
In the end, it is not about whether one side is worse than the other, but about recognising and resisting the authoritarian impulses wherever they arise. We should not have to choose between a Right that seeks to regulate our private lives and a Left that seeks to regulate our minds. To excuse the latter because of the former is to abdicate our responsibility to defend the freedoms that have been hard-won over generations.
I appreciate your desire to live freely, unburdened by the dictates of others, and I share that aspiration. However, to claim that the Left does not push towards conformity is to overlook some rather stark examples. Consider the increasingly pervasive notion of "cultural appropriation," which dictates what one may or may not wear based on their ethnic background. A white person donning a kimono or braids, for instance, might find themselves accused of theft, rather than celebrated for appreciating another culture. This is no trivial matter—careers have been derailed, and public shaming has become routine for those who dare to cross these invisible lines.
Similarly, the creation of spaces reserved exclusively for people of colour—an idea that has gained traction in certain academic and activist circles—imposes a form of segregation that, ironically, mirrors the very exclusion it purports to combat. These "safe spaces" are ostensibly about protection, but they also send a clear message about who belongs where, and who does not, based purely on the colour of their skin. It is a return to a kind of identity-based territorialism, an attempt to dictate where one can live, study, and even socialise based on immutable characteristics. These are just a few examples where the Left’s ideology impinges upon the very freedoms it claims to uphold, pushing us towards a conformity that is no less coercive simply because it comes dressed in the language of social justice.
Oh dear.
Not the old "I'm not allowed to talk about all the stuff I've just been talking about" trope?
Please.
"Must try harder".
Original post by SHallowvale
Absolute rubbish. The left has always been proponents of free expression, civil liberties, etc, and still is. You're confusing is freedom of speech / expression and freedom from consequences. You're free to say what you like, just as we're free to distance ourselves from you if you say / do stupid or horrible things.
You've written an entire post without giving a single example, I'm guessing because you want to be vague on purpose (it's easier to criticise "the left" as a boogeyman if you can't give examples).
In the meantime I'd like to list a bunch of legal rights that the right, in the West, have opposed, have tried to erode or have outright removed (either in the past or currently):
Personally, I worry far more about the right than some leftists on Twitter telling me not to use language which could upset someone.
I don't want anyone to be pushed into conformity, I completely agree. I want to live my life free to do what I like so long as it is peaceful. I don't want people telling me what religion I can and cannot follow, what places I can and cannot live, what clothes I can and cannot wear, what food I can and cannot eat, what entertainment I can and cannot enjoy, etc. The right push us towards conformity, the left don't.
You've written an entire post without giving a single example, I'm guessing because you want to be vague on purpose (it's easier to criticise "the left" as a boogeyman if you can't give examples).
In the meantime I'd like to list a bunch of legal rights that the right, in the West, have opposed, have tried to erode or have outright removed (either in the past or currently):
•
The right to have a divorce without fault.
•
The right to get an abortion.
•
The right to vote and vote in a fair system.
•
The right to live / work in other countries.
•
The right to marry someone of the same sex.
•
The right to peaceful protest.
•
The right to unionise.
•
The right to practice your religion.
•
The right to live / work free of discrimination.
•
The right to live / work free of targetted harassment.
Personally, I worry far more about the right than some leftists on Twitter telling me not to use language which could upset someone.
I don't want anyone to be pushed into conformity, I completely agree. I want to live my life free to do what I like so long as it is peaceful. I don't want people telling me what religion I can and cannot follow, what places I can and cannot live, what clothes I can and cannot wear, what food I can and cannot eat, what entertainment I can and cannot enjoy, etc. The right push us towards conformity, the left don't.
Agreed. I don't think anyone has ever said you can't say x,y,z. What we do see are frequent news articles from the likes of the Mail created to enrage their readers claiming that an unnamed source / organisation has been prosecuted for using the wrong term. Then allow calls of political correctness gone mad!
Original post by Rincewind_Bored
While it is true that immigration has been a central theme in political discourse in recent years, it is equally true that the Left often fails to engage in this discussion in any meaningful way. Rather than confronting the complexities of growing civil dissatisfaction and the cultural frictions that naturally arise from immigration, the Left frequently retreats to comfortable platitudes or dismisses concerns outright as the prejudices of the ill-informed.
This reluctance to grapple with the real issues has contributed to the very tensions that drive civil unrest. The critique of multiculturalism in Britain - found here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2017.1398444?needAccess=true - highlights the dangers of an approach that fosters separation rather than integration. Multicultural policies, while well-intentioned, have often encouraged parallel societies where different cultural groups exist in isolation from the mainstream, leading to a lack of shared identity and mutual understanding.
The Left’s refusal to acknowledge these problems, to engage with the realities of cultural friction and the challenges of integration, only fuels the fires of populism. When people feel that their concerns about the impact of immigration on their communities are dismissed or ignored, they turn to those who will listen—often the populists and far-right demagogues who exploit these anxieties for their own gain.
If the Left continues to close its eyes to these issues, insisting on an ideological purity that denies the validity of these concerns, we risk deepening the divisions in our society. It is not enough to wave the banner of tolerance and inclusivity if, in practice, these ideals are not accompanied by genuine engagement with the challenges of integration and the maintenance of social cohesion. To strengthen the Left, we must be willing to confront these uncomfortable truths, to engage with the grievances that are driving so many towards populism, and to offer solutions that address these issues in a way that upholds the values of equality and justice.
This reluctance to grapple with the real issues has contributed to the very tensions that drive civil unrest. The critique of multiculturalism in Britain - found here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2017.1398444?needAccess=true - highlights the dangers of an approach that fosters separation rather than integration. Multicultural policies, while well-intentioned, have often encouraged parallel societies where different cultural groups exist in isolation from the mainstream, leading to a lack of shared identity and mutual understanding.
The Left’s refusal to acknowledge these problems, to engage with the realities of cultural friction and the challenges of integration, only fuels the fires of populism. When people feel that their concerns about the impact of immigration on their communities are dismissed or ignored, they turn to those who will listen—often the populists and far-right demagogues who exploit these anxieties for their own gain.
If the Left continues to close its eyes to these issues, insisting on an ideological purity that denies the validity of these concerns, we risk deepening the divisions in our society. It is not enough to wave the banner of tolerance and inclusivity if, in practice, these ideals are not accompanied by genuine engagement with the challenges of integration and the maintenance of social cohesion. To strengthen the Left, we must be willing to confront these uncomfortable truths, to engage with the grievances that are driving so many towards populism, and to offer solutions that address these issues in a way that upholds the values of equality and justice.
When you say "the left" who are you talking about? Labour? Starmer? I think you need to be a bit more specific if you are going to be taken seriously.
I agree there has been a lack of public debate but I think it fair to also state that the right e.g. Sunak and the Tories have also failed. If anyone can be accused of "opening the flood gates" to immigration from Ukraine and Hong Kong it was the Tory government. Meanwhile they also spent close to £2 billion not sending migrants to Rwanda and even if they had been successful they scheme was only good for a couple hundred people.
I think the problem you and many others who have a polarised view on immigration is that it appears to be a simple solution. Just send them back I can hear you say. Send them where? Do you honestly believe governments around the world will take back citizens who have defected? We have done a very good job at disowning Shiama Begun but imagine if the world decided that all British expats had to return we might have something to say about it.
Immigration is not easy. There is no simple answer. Accepting that is the first step.
Original post by SHallowvale
Of course there's room to be critical of the left, I've done so in this thread and in plenty others. What I'm doing here is pointing out the ridiculousness of the idea that the Western left are in any way comparable to that of Mao's Cultural Revolution. This is utterly absurd, so I've given some much needed context by pointing out the ideological puritanism of the right and how they wish to erode the many freedoms we currently enjoy (or, sadly, have eroded freedoms we once enjoyed).
I'm not sure how you can say something like, "You mention that the Left has made a positive case for immigration while recognising public concerns. But if that were truly the case, why do we still see such deep-seated frustration boiling over into riots and unrest?". Have you been living under a rock? The left have not been in government in this country for 14 years. Do you expect them to resolve these concerns within the first month of taking power? What do you think they should be doing?
If you want to strengthen the left then you have to make the case for the left. Part of this involves pointing out the gross mismanagement at the hands of the other side, mismanagement of which has been at the root of the concerns these people have.
I'm not sure how you can say something like, "You mention that the Left has made a positive case for immigration while recognising public concerns. But if that were truly the case, why do we still see such deep-seated frustration boiling over into riots and unrest?". Have you been living under a rock? The left have not been in government in this country for 14 years. Do you expect them to resolve these concerns within the first month of taking power? What do you think they should be doing?
If you want to strengthen the left then you have to make the case for the left. Part of this involves pointing out the gross mismanagement at the hands of the other side, mismanagement of which has been at the root of the concerns these people have.
Your caustic tone is a bit tedious, but lets see if I can reach you again.
Let me clarify once again: my intent is not to cosy up to the hard right, nor to suggest that the Left should adopt anti-immigration or anti-asylum positions. Instead, my concern is rooted in a deeper issue—the Left's increasing reluctance to engage in meaningful debate and discussion, particularly on sensitive topics like immigration, identity, and cultural integration.
You ask what the Left should do. At its core, I believe the Left must reclaim its commitment to open discourse and critical debate—principles that have historically been the bedrock of its intellectual strength. However, what we observe today is a disturbing trend where certain segments of the Left refuse to engage with opposing views, often dismissing them outright as morally or intellectually bankrupt without a fair hearing.
This reluctance is not merely a matter of strategy; it stems from a fundamental shift in worldview. Adherents of contemporary leftist thought, particularly those influenced by Critical Social Justice theory, often view the entire system of liberal debate and discourse as inherently oppressive. They reject the very tools of rational argument, evidence, and open discussion as products of a "rigged" system that perpetuates dominance and marginalization.
In this view, engaging in debate is seen not as a means to truth or understanding, but as a form of complicity in maintaining an unjust status quo. The belief is that the existing structures of knowledge and discourse are so deeply biased towards Western, male, and Eurocentric norms that any participation within them only reinforces these biases. As a result, many on the contemporary Left now see debate not as a path to progress, but as a trap—a way of legitimizing a system they believe must be dismantled entirely.
This is why, when confronted with dissenting opinions or uncomfortable truths, the response is often to shut down the conversation rather than engage with it. We see this manifest in the "cancel culture" phenomenon, where individuals who express views outside the accepted orthodoxy are not debated but deplatformed, ostracized, or labeled with pejorative terms that preclude further discussion.
The consequences of this approach are severe. By refusing to engage with opposing views, the Left inadvertently cedes ground to populists and demagogues who are all too willing to exploit the frustrations of those who feel unheard. When legitimate concerns—be they about immigration, cultural integration, or national identity—are dismissed as mere bigotry, we do not solve the underlying issues; we exacerbate them.
What I am advocating for is not a shift to the Right, but a return to the principles of open discourse and critical debate that once defined the Left. If we continue down the current path, where ideological purity trumps dialogue and dissent is met with suppression rather than engagement, we risk alienating large segments of the population and driving them towards the very forces we seek to oppose.
It is not enough to simply label dissenters as racists, bigots, or deplorable and move on. We must confront the uncomfortable truths, address the grievances that are driving people towards populism, and engage in the hard work of finding solutions that are both just and inclusive. Only then can the Left regain its position as a true force for progress.
Original post by Rincewind_Bored
Your caustic tone is a bit tedious, but lets see if I can reach you again.
Let me clarify once again: my intent is not to cosy up to the hard right, nor to suggest that the Left should adopt anti-immigration or anti-asylum positions. Instead, my concern is rooted in a deeper issue—the Left's increasing reluctance to engage in meaningful debate and discussion, particularly on sensitive topics like immigration, identity, and cultural integration.
You ask what the Left should do. At its core, I believe the Left must reclaim its commitment to open discourse and critical debate—principles that have historically been the bedrock of its intellectual strength. However, what we observe today is a disturbing trend where certain segments of the Left refuse to engage with opposing views, often dismissing them outright as morally or intellectually bankrupt without a fair hearing.
This reluctance is not merely a matter of strategy; it stems from a fundamental shift in worldview. Adherents of contemporary leftist thought, particularly those influenced by Critical Social Justice theory, often view the entire system of liberal debate and discourse as inherently oppressive. They reject the very tools of rational argument, evidence, and open discussion as products of a "rigged" system that perpetuates dominance and marginalization.
In this view, engaging in debate is seen not as a means to truth or understanding, but as a form of complicity in maintaining an unjust status quo. The belief is that the existing structures of knowledge and discourse are so deeply biased towards Western, male, and Eurocentric norms that any participation within them only reinforces these biases. As a result, many on the contemporary Left now see debate not as a path to progress, but as a trap—a way of legitimizing a system they believe must be dismantled entirely.
This is why, when confronted with dissenting opinions or uncomfortable truths, the response is often to shut down the conversation rather than engage with it. We see this manifest in the "cancel culture" phenomenon, where individuals who express views outside the accepted orthodoxy are not debated but deplatformed, ostracized, or labeled with pejorative terms that preclude further discussion.
The consequences of this approach are severe. By refusing to engage with opposing views, the Left inadvertently cedes ground to populists and demagogues who are all too willing to exploit the frustrations of those who feel unheard. When legitimate concerns—be they about immigration, cultural integration, or national identity—are dismissed as mere bigotry, we do not solve the underlying issues; we exacerbate them.
What I am advocating for is not a shift to the Right, but a return to the principles of open discourse and critical debate that once defined the Left. If we continue down the current path, where ideological purity trumps dialogue and dissent is met with suppression rather than engagement, we risk alienating large segments of the population and driving them towards the very forces we seek to oppose.
It is not enough to simply label dissenters as racists, bigots, or deplorable and move on. We must confront the uncomfortable truths, address the grievances that are driving people towards populism, and engage in the hard work of finding solutions that are both just and inclusive. Only then can the Left regain its position as a true force for progress.
Let me clarify once again: my intent is not to cosy up to the hard right, nor to suggest that the Left should adopt anti-immigration or anti-asylum positions. Instead, my concern is rooted in a deeper issue—the Left's increasing reluctance to engage in meaningful debate and discussion, particularly on sensitive topics like immigration, identity, and cultural integration.
You ask what the Left should do. At its core, I believe the Left must reclaim its commitment to open discourse and critical debate—principles that have historically been the bedrock of its intellectual strength. However, what we observe today is a disturbing trend where certain segments of the Left refuse to engage with opposing views, often dismissing them outright as morally or intellectually bankrupt without a fair hearing.
This reluctance is not merely a matter of strategy; it stems from a fundamental shift in worldview. Adherents of contemporary leftist thought, particularly those influenced by Critical Social Justice theory, often view the entire system of liberal debate and discourse as inherently oppressive. They reject the very tools of rational argument, evidence, and open discussion as products of a "rigged" system that perpetuates dominance and marginalization.
In this view, engaging in debate is seen not as a means to truth or understanding, but as a form of complicity in maintaining an unjust status quo. The belief is that the existing structures of knowledge and discourse are so deeply biased towards Western, male, and Eurocentric norms that any participation within them only reinforces these biases. As a result, many on the contemporary Left now see debate not as a path to progress, but as a trap—a way of legitimizing a system they believe must be dismantled entirely.
This is why, when confronted with dissenting opinions or uncomfortable truths, the response is often to shut down the conversation rather than engage with it. We see this manifest in the "cancel culture" phenomenon, where individuals who express views outside the accepted orthodoxy are not debated but deplatformed, ostracized, or labeled with pejorative terms that preclude further discussion.
The consequences of this approach are severe. By refusing to engage with opposing views, the Left inadvertently cedes ground to populists and demagogues who are all too willing to exploit the frustrations of those who feel unheard. When legitimate concerns—be they about immigration, cultural integration, or national identity—are dismissed as mere bigotry, we do not solve the underlying issues; we exacerbate them.
What I am advocating for is not a shift to the Right, but a return to the principles of open discourse and critical debate that once defined the Left. If we continue down the current path, where ideological purity trumps dialogue and dissent is met with suppression rather than engagement, we risk alienating large segments of the population and driving them towards the very forces we seek to oppose.
It is not enough to simply label dissenters as racists, bigots, or deplorable and move on. We must confront the uncomfortable truths, address the grievances that are driving people towards populism, and engage in the hard work of finding solutions that are both just and inclusive. Only then can the Left regain its position as a true force for progress.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You raise an important point about the specificity of my critique when I refer to "the Left." To clarify, when I speak of the Left, I'm not just referring to any single political party like Labour or any particular leader such as Keir Starmer. Rather, I’m addressing a broader ideological movement that spans various political actors, institutions, academics, and activists who shape the current discourse on the Left, particularly those who have been influenced by Post-modernist Critical Social Justice theories and similar frameworks. This includes certain factions within political parties, academia, media, and activist circles that collectively push the boundaries of what is considered acceptable debate and dissent.
You’re absolutely right that immigration is a complex issue with no simple solutions. I’m not advocating for a simplistic "send them back" approach, which would be both inhumane and impractical. The question isn’t whether immigration is inherently good or bad, but rather how we address the genuine concerns and cultural frictions that arise from it without resorting to reductive labels or dismissive attitudes.
While the Right, under figures like Sunak and the Tories, certainly has its share of failures and contradictions, particularly in how they’ve handled immigration policies, my concern here is that the Left—traditionally seen as the champion of open discourse and the working class—often shies away from engaging in these difficult conversations altogether. Instead of acknowledging the valid concerns people have, these issues are too often met with silence or accusations of bigotry. This creates a vacuum in the debate, which populists are quick to fill, further polarizing the conversation.
The Left needs to do more than simply oppose the Right’s policies; it must also offer a compelling and nuanced vision of its own that engages with the real-world complexities of immigration. This means having the courage to address the cultural and economic impacts of immigration in a way that respects both the rights of immigrants and the concerns of host communities. It’s not about finding easy answers but about creating a space where these issues can be discussed openly, honestly, and without fear of social or professional retribution.
While I agree that immigration is a challenging issue with no easy solutions, I believe that the Left has a responsibility to lead the conversation in a way that fosters understanding and social cohesion, rather than allowing it to be monopolized by extremes on either side. This is not about abandoning the principles of inclusivity and justice but about ensuring that these principles are applied in a way that truly addresses the concerns of all people involved.
Original post by SHallowvale
Instead of beating around the bush, say what you actually mean and tell us what you think the left should do. If you think the left should adopt anti-immigration, anti-Islam and anti-asylum positions and cosy up to the hard / far right then just say so.
Here is a rough high-level overview of what I think Labour should do. As populist movements like Reform UK gain traction by capitalising on public frustration, particularly around immigration, it’s clear that Labour must take proactive steps to address these concerns in a meaningful way. Failure to do so risks further alienating the working-class base and ceding ground to populists who offer simplistic but dangerous solutions. To engage with the topic effectively, Labour must find a way to open up the discussion on immigration, ensuring that the public feels heard and that their concerns are being addressed with the seriousness they deserve.
First and foremost, it’s crucial to acknowledge that referendums, while seemingly democratic, are fraught with dangers. The Brexit referendum serves as a cautionary tale of how complex issues can be reduced to binary choices, leading to outcomes that are not only divisive but also deeply damaging to the nation. Immigration is a similarly complex issue that cannot and should not be boiled down to a simple “yes” or “no” vote. The nuances of immigration policy, including economic impacts, cultural integration, and international obligations, require a level of deliberation and expertise that the referendum process simply cannot provide.
Referendums often encourage emotional, rather than rational, decision-making. They can be hijacked by populists who use fear-mongering and misinformation to sway public opinion. The result is often a decision that reflects short-term passions rather than long-term national interest. Labour must, therefore, resist calls for a referendum on immigration and instead advocate for a more thoughtful and measured approach.
Rather than resorting to the blunt instrument of a referendum, Labour should propose the establishment of a governmental organisation or a multidisciplinary think-tank dedicated to investigating the immigration issue in depth. This body would bring together experts from various fields—economists, sociologists, legal scholars, and public policy experts—to conduct comprehensive research and analysis. Their mandate would be to produce detailed reports, recommendations, and suggestions on how to manage immigration in a way that balances economic needs, social cohesion, and humanitarian obligations.
This approach allows for a nuanced exploration of the issue, taking into account the complexities that are often lost in public discourse. It also ensures that policy decisions are informed by evidence and expertise, rather than by the fleeting passions of a referendum campaign.
However, it is not enough to simply gather experts and produce reports. The public must be actively engaged in this process to ensure that they feel their concerns are being taken seriously. Labour should advocate for a series of public consultations, town hall meetings, and forums where people from all walks of life can voice their concerns and ideas about immigration. These sessions should be structured to genuinely listen to the public, not just to inform them of predetermined conclusions.
Moreover, the recommendations of the think-tank or governmental body should be subject to public scrutiny and debate in Parliament. This will help to create a sense of transparency and accountability, ensuring that the public feels that their input has a real impact on policy decisions.
While it’s important to address public concerns, Labour must also ensure that principles of justice, human rights, and social cohesion guide any recommendations or policies that emerge from this process. Safety mechanisms should be in place to prevent extreme or harmful outcomes, such as policies that would violate international law or erode the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers.
This could involve setting up an independent oversight committee that reviews the recommendations from the think-tank or governmental body, ensuring that they align with core democratic values and international obligations. This committee could also serve as a check against populist measures that might emerge from public pressure but that would ultimately harm the nation’s social fabric.
The issue of immigration is not going away, and Labour must take the lead in addressing it responsibly. By rejecting the idea of a referendum and instead advocating for a thoughtful, expert-led investigation into the issue, Labour can demonstrate that it is serious about finding solutions that work for everyone. This approach will not only help to defuse the populist rhetoric but also restore public trust in the party as a responsible and capable steward of the nation’s future.
Labour’s challenge is to ensure that the public feels heard, that their concerns are addressed, and that the solutions proposed are fair, just, and sustainable. By taking this approach, Labour can reclaim the immigration debate and help to create a more united and cohesive society.
Original post by Rincewind_Bored
Your caustic tone is a bit tedious, but lets see if I can reach you again.
Let me clarify once again: my intent is not to cosy up to the hard right, nor to suggest that the Left should adopt anti-immigration or anti-asylum positions. Instead, my concern is rooted in a deeper issue—the Left's increasing reluctance to engage in meaningful debate and discussion, particularly on sensitive topics like immigration, identity, and cultural integration.
You ask what the Left should do. At its core, I believe the Left must reclaim its commitment to open discourse and critical debate—principles that have historically been the bedrock of its intellectual strength. However, what we observe today is a disturbing trend where certain segments of the Left refuse to engage with opposing views, often dismissing them outright as morally or intellectually bankrupt without a fair hearing.
This reluctance is not merely a matter of strategy; it stems from a fundamental shift in worldview. Adherents of contemporary leftist thought, particularly those influenced by Critical Social Justice theory, often view the entire system of liberal debate and discourse as inherently oppressive. They reject the very tools of rational argument, evidence, and open discussion as products of a "rigged" system that perpetuates dominance and marginalization.
In this view, engaging in debate is seen not as a means to truth or understanding, but as a form of complicity in maintaining an unjust status quo. The belief is that the existing structures of knowledge and discourse are so deeply biased towards Western, male, and Eurocentric norms that any participation within them only reinforces these biases. As a result, many on the contemporary Left now see debate not as a path to progress, but as a trap—a way of legitimizing a system they believe must be dismantled entirely.
This is why, when confronted with dissenting opinions or uncomfortable truths, the response is often to shut down the conversation rather than engage with it. We see this manifest in the "cancel culture" phenomenon, where individuals who express views outside the accepted orthodoxy are not debated but deplatformed, ostracized, or labeled with pejorative terms that preclude further discussion.
The consequences of this approach are severe. By refusing to engage with opposing views, the Left inadvertently cedes ground to populists and demagogues who are all too willing to exploit the frustrations of those who feel unheard. When legitimate concerns—be they about immigration, cultural integration, or national identity—are dismissed as mere bigotry, we do not solve the underlying issues; we exacerbate them.
What I am advocating for is not a shift to the Right, but a return to the principles of open discourse and critical debate that once defined the Left. If we continue down the current path, where ideological purity trumps dialogue and dissent is met with suppression rather than engagement, we risk alienating large segments of the population and driving them towards the very forces we seek to oppose.
It is not enough to simply label dissenters as racists, bigots, or deplorable and move on. We must confront the uncomfortable truths, address the grievances that are driving people towards populism, and engage in the hard work of finding solutions that are both just and inclusive. Only then can the Left regain its position as a true force for progress.
Let me clarify once again: my intent is not to cosy up to the hard right, nor to suggest that the Left should adopt anti-immigration or anti-asylum positions. Instead, my concern is rooted in a deeper issue—the Left's increasing reluctance to engage in meaningful debate and discussion, particularly on sensitive topics like immigration, identity, and cultural integration.
You ask what the Left should do. At its core, I believe the Left must reclaim its commitment to open discourse and critical debate—principles that have historically been the bedrock of its intellectual strength. However, what we observe today is a disturbing trend where certain segments of the Left refuse to engage with opposing views, often dismissing them outright as morally or intellectually bankrupt without a fair hearing.
This reluctance is not merely a matter of strategy; it stems from a fundamental shift in worldview. Adherents of contemporary leftist thought, particularly those influenced by Critical Social Justice theory, often view the entire system of liberal debate and discourse as inherently oppressive. They reject the very tools of rational argument, evidence, and open discussion as products of a "rigged" system that perpetuates dominance and marginalization.
In this view, engaging in debate is seen not as a means to truth or understanding, but as a form of complicity in maintaining an unjust status quo. The belief is that the existing structures of knowledge and discourse are so deeply biased towards Western, male, and Eurocentric norms that any participation within them only reinforces these biases. As a result, many on the contemporary Left now see debate not as a path to progress, but as a trap—a way of legitimizing a system they believe must be dismantled entirely.
This is why, when confronted with dissenting opinions or uncomfortable truths, the response is often to shut down the conversation rather than engage with it. We see this manifest in the "cancel culture" phenomenon, where individuals who express views outside the accepted orthodoxy are not debated but deplatformed, ostracized, or labeled with pejorative terms that preclude further discussion.
The consequences of this approach are severe. By refusing to engage with opposing views, the Left inadvertently cedes ground to populists and demagogues who are all too willing to exploit the frustrations of those who feel unheard. When legitimate concerns—be they about immigration, cultural integration, or national identity—are dismissed as mere bigotry, we do not solve the underlying issues; we exacerbate them.
What I am advocating for is not a shift to the Right, but a return to the principles of open discourse and critical debate that once defined the Left. If we continue down the current path, where ideological purity trumps dialogue and dissent is met with suppression rather than engagement, we risk alienating large segments of the population and driving them towards the very forces we seek to oppose.
It is not enough to simply label dissenters as racists, bigots, or deplorable and move on. We must confront the uncomfortable truths, address the grievances that are driving people towards populism, and engage in the hard work of finding solutions that are both just and inclusive. Only then can the Left regain its position as a true force for progress.
I have answered this point before. I don't agree that the left are reluctant to engage in meaningful debate and discussion about sensitive topics. They're already having them (as they did during the election campaign) and are not simply dismissing people as racists or bigots. To say that they are is to do nothing more than repeat a stale and tired right wing trope.
Original post by Rincewind_Bored
Here is a rough high-level overview of what I think Labour should do. As populist movements like Reform UK gain traction by capitalising on public frustration, particularly around immigration, it’s clear that Labour must take proactive steps to address these concerns in a meaningful way. Failure to do so risks further alienating the working-class base and ceding ground to populists who offer simplistic but dangerous solutions. To engage with the topic effectively, Labour must find a way to open up the discussion on immigration, ensuring that the public feels heard and that their concerns are being addressed with the seriousness they deserve.
First and foremost, it’s crucial to acknowledge that referendums, while seemingly democratic, are fraught with dangers. The Brexit referendum serves as a cautionary tale of how complex issues can be reduced to binary choices, leading to outcomes that are not only divisive but also deeply damaging to the nation. Immigration is a similarly complex issue that cannot and should not be boiled down to a simple “yes” or “no” vote. The nuances of immigration policy, including economic impacts, cultural integration, and international obligations, require a level of deliberation and expertise that the referendum process simply cannot provide.
Referendums often encourage emotional, rather than rational, decision-making. They can be hijacked by populists who use fear-mongering and misinformation to sway public opinion. The result is often a decision that reflects short-term passions rather than long-term national interest. Labour must, therefore, resist calls for a referendum on immigration and instead advocate for a more thoughtful and measured approach.
Rather than resorting to the blunt instrument of a referendum, Labour should propose the establishment of a governmental organisation or a multidisciplinary think-tank dedicated to investigating the immigration issue in depth. This body would bring together experts from various fields—economists, sociologists, legal scholars, and public policy experts—to conduct comprehensive research and analysis. Their mandate would be to produce detailed reports, recommendations, and suggestions on how to manage immigration in a way that balances economic needs, social cohesion, and humanitarian obligations.
This approach allows for a nuanced exploration of the issue, taking into account the complexities that are often lost in public discourse. It also ensures that policy decisions are informed by evidence and expertise, rather than by the fleeting passions of a referendum campaign.
However, it is not enough to simply gather experts and produce reports. The public must be actively engaged in this process to ensure that they feel their concerns are being taken seriously. Labour should advocate for a series of public consultations, town hall meetings, and forums where people from all walks of life can voice their concerns and ideas about immigration. These sessions should be structured to genuinely listen to the public, not just to inform them of predetermined conclusions.
Moreover, the recommendations of the think-tank or governmental body should be subject to public scrutiny and debate in Parliament. This will help to create a sense of transparency and accountability, ensuring that the public feels that their input has a real impact on policy decisions.
While it’s important to address public concerns, Labour must also ensure that principles of justice, human rights, and social cohesion guide any recommendations or policies that emerge from this process. Safety mechanisms should be in place to prevent extreme or harmful outcomes, such as policies that would violate international law or erode the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers.
This could involve setting up an independent oversight committee that reviews the recommendations from the think-tank or governmental body, ensuring that they align with core democratic values and international obligations. This committee could also serve as a check against populist measures that might emerge from public pressure but that would ultimately harm the nation’s social fabric.
The issue of immigration is not going away, and Labour must take the lead in addressing it responsibly. By rejecting the idea of a referendum and instead advocating for a thoughtful, expert-led investigation into the issue, Labour can demonstrate that it is serious about finding solutions that work for everyone. This approach will not only help to defuse the populist rhetoric but also restore public trust in the party as a responsible and capable steward of the nation’s future.
Labour’s challenge is to ensure that the public feels heard, that their concerns are addressed, and that the solutions proposed are fair, just, and sustainable. By taking this approach, Labour can reclaim the immigration debate and help to create a more united and cohesive society.
First and foremost, it’s crucial to acknowledge that referendums, while seemingly democratic, are fraught with dangers. The Brexit referendum serves as a cautionary tale of how complex issues can be reduced to binary choices, leading to outcomes that are not only divisive but also deeply damaging to the nation. Immigration is a similarly complex issue that cannot and should not be boiled down to a simple “yes” or “no” vote. The nuances of immigration policy, including economic impacts, cultural integration, and international obligations, require a level of deliberation and expertise that the referendum process simply cannot provide.
Referendums often encourage emotional, rather than rational, decision-making. They can be hijacked by populists who use fear-mongering and misinformation to sway public opinion. The result is often a decision that reflects short-term passions rather than long-term national interest. Labour must, therefore, resist calls for a referendum on immigration and instead advocate for a more thoughtful and measured approach.
Rather than resorting to the blunt instrument of a referendum, Labour should propose the establishment of a governmental organisation or a multidisciplinary think-tank dedicated to investigating the immigration issue in depth. This body would bring together experts from various fields—economists, sociologists, legal scholars, and public policy experts—to conduct comprehensive research and analysis. Their mandate would be to produce detailed reports, recommendations, and suggestions on how to manage immigration in a way that balances economic needs, social cohesion, and humanitarian obligations.
This approach allows for a nuanced exploration of the issue, taking into account the complexities that are often lost in public discourse. It also ensures that policy decisions are informed by evidence and expertise, rather than by the fleeting passions of a referendum campaign.
However, it is not enough to simply gather experts and produce reports. The public must be actively engaged in this process to ensure that they feel their concerns are being taken seriously. Labour should advocate for a series of public consultations, town hall meetings, and forums where people from all walks of life can voice their concerns and ideas about immigration. These sessions should be structured to genuinely listen to the public, not just to inform them of predetermined conclusions.
Moreover, the recommendations of the think-tank or governmental body should be subject to public scrutiny and debate in Parliament. This will help to create a sense of transparency and accountability, ensuring that the public feels that their input has a real impact on policy decisions.
While it’s important to address public concerns, Labour must also ensure that principles of justice, human rights, and social cohesion guide any recommendations or policies that emerge from this process. Safety mechanisms should be in place to prevent extreme or harmful outcomes, such as policies that would violate international law or erode the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers.
This could involve setting up an independent oversight committee that reviews the recommendations from the think-tank or governmental body, ensuring that they align with core democratic values and international obligations. This committee could also serve as a check against populist measures that might emerge from public pressure but that would ultimately harm the nation’s social fabric.
The issue of immigration is not going away, and Labour must take the lead in addressing it responsibly. By rejecting the idea of a referendum and instead advocating for a thoughtful, expert-led investigation into the issue, Labour can demonstrate that it is serious about finding solutions that work for everyone. This approach will not only help to defuse the populist rhetoric but also restore public trust in the party as a responsible and capable steward of the nation’s future.
Labour’s challenge is to ensure that the public feels heard, that their concerns are addressed, and that the solutions proposed are fair, just, and sustainable. By taking this approach, Labour can reclaim the immigration debate and help to create a more united and cohesive society.
You've clearly not learnt anything from the EU referendum if you think that an expert-led investigation into the pros / cons of something would stop the rise of populism. Populists do not care about what experts tell them, nor are they swayed by an 'honest debate' about immigration. What you're describing already happens, there already is a public debate about the pros and cons of immigration.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Anyone concerned about rising authoritarianism?
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- 2024 general election: the aftermath
- Michelle Donelan / Freedom of Speech
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- [Official] Riots in streets across the UK, after 3 children die in Southport stabbing
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- UK Police
- What happens if the hospital report domestic violence to police
- OCR A-level Sociology Paper 3 (H580/03) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- UK governments to ban disposable vapes
- Jeremey Corbyn is a G
- CIE igcse history predictions?
- Is the UK Sleepwalking into Authoritarianism?
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- Police Now National graduate leadership programme intake 2024
- Final year academic appeal
- Is Bradford an exciting place to live?
- Will I get prosecuted for fare evasion?
- Relationships as a police officer
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Can Labour lose the next election over the Winter Fuel allowance?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel paymentsLast reply 3 weeks ago
[Golden Thread] - Which celebrity would you choose to become Prime Minister?Last reply 1 month ago
Should the UK introduce a mandatory working gap year for 18-year olds?Last reply 1 month ago
What do you consider as the best way for resolving the nationwide housing crisis?
