Bad take. While a lot of people are parroting the trope that liberals want the talks to go badly wrong, there’s no evidence of a single person who thinks that way. Think about what it would mean that the talks “go badly wrong”. We get incinerated.
-
That looks like a terrible analogy. I don’t like Thatcher, but I’m not aware of her dismantling British institutions. Maybe I don’t know enough about UK, but I probably would have heard of something like that. And Labor in 1970s was way more left than anything of note in the US.
And Thatcher absolutely dismantled British institutions. Well that was her avowed aim. (Local government, for example. Abolished London's metropolitan authority.)
-
-
Did it make UK less democratic or less respecting of human rights than it was pre-Thatcher? Local government’s function in democracy is debatable and, in any case, London’s authority has been re-established, hasn’t it?
-
Well, it was certainly argued that it did - took away a layer of local government. GLC was left-leaning, so concern with minorities, vulnerable, etc. But it's not really relevant to our argument, because my claim is that in the 1980s...
-
in the UK, if it were the case democratic institutions were under threat (& again, it was certainly claimed they were), then bothsideism was absolutely necessary. It was the only way to protect the institutions, because it was the prerequisite for a soft left victory.
-
And you still haven't responded to my argument. In this sort of situation, assuming I'm accurately reporting it (and I am, you can check), is bothsideism justified? If it is, then whether it's justified in any particular case is largely an empirical matter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.