It's only a myth to those on the far right! For them, anyone not in that crazy club is a progressive or lefty.

We came out of a depression and WW11 on the back of progressive policies and bold economic vision to, for a period, become the third wealthiest nation on the planet and a creditor one at that!

We could engage those progressive ideas yet again except the crazies on the far right think they'll all have to lose something! Nothing could be further from the truth!

The only impediment are the crazies on the far right, who to a creaking aged white man, will die in a ditch first!

And they permeate the political landscape and the media! The beguiling myth will vote and again we will face the political roadblock to real independence and economic sovereignty! Courtesy of the (tin-eared vociferous minority) crazies on the far right and their (selectively deaf, jabbering jabberwockies) left-wing adversaries!

Both of who have combined to send this country to the nearest taxidermist!Because they're ideologically opposed to the ideas of others on political grounds only, and not because they lack merit!
Alan B.

As someone who ttbn regards as "dogmatic hard left" there is much in this article that I disagree with. The most obvious problem is Dave Pellowe's basing his opinion's of the Left's position on stereotypes rather than reality. Another problem is his failure to acknowledge the existence of possibilities beyond his very limited imagination.

>Corporate media and other "progressive" elites (including all those suddenly
>decrying political violence), celebrated and promoted the behaviour, rationalising and
>justifying it – even calling it "mostly peaceful".

ITYF they called the BLM protests "mostly peaceful" and AIUI most of them were peaceful. But there were a lot of such protests and a significant minority did turn violent.

>They claimed the Constitution, democracy and justice system were inadequate to achieve the social
>"progress" they desired, therefore political violence was at least understandable if not necessary.

...Which makes them traitors to the Left... if that's genuinely what they were saying. But because reporting on this was so polarised, I'd urge you to make sure rather than take anybody's word for it.

>It would be so much more comfortable if there was a "sensible centre", a third option
>somewhere between the lunacy of gender theory and the biological reality. There isn't.

Of course there's a sensible centre! You just have to realise:
• Biological reality is not binary; some people are intersex because of biological conditions.
• Unwillingness to accept your biological gender is an epic fail, but trying to force someone to accept their biological gender can be even worse, leading in many cases to suicide.

(tbc)

(continued)

>It would be just dreamy if there was a way to end coal mineral mining without making
>electricity unaffordable to those individuals and industries which can least afford the most
>expensive electricity in the world, and even better if such a human cost would have a
>significant slowing effect on historically inevitable changes to global climate patterns. Wake up.

You say "wake up" but you're the one who's asleep! Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere by 50% (and rising) and that's having the expected warming effect that can't be accounted for by "historically inevitable changes". You've also slept through the changes to energy economics: coal is no longer a cheap option, as the cost of renewables has plummeted due to technological progress, and lower interest rates have made high fixed cost (low running cost) options more attractive.

>Is there a middle ground somewhere between the Christian belief that all human life
>is sacred and the "progressive" dogma that a human life in utero is merely a
>disposable piece of property which can make it sometimes okay to kill? Nope.

Of course there is! You have to recognise that:
• A woman's health is important
• A human doesn't become an individual at the moment of conception
• Outlawing abortion is not sufficient, nor even the most effective way, to prevent it from occurring

So the middle ground would be to allow medical abortions under some conditions, with more restriction as the pregnancy progresses, and also to ensure there's always sufficient support that nobody finds herself in a position where abortion seems to be the only option.

>But what about law & justice? Surely there's a third philosophy which appeases the >"progressive" demand for an activist judiciary, democracy if convenient and a fluid Constitution?

No such demand exists. The real difference is where there is an ambiguity in the law or the constitution: the Progressives think the principle of justice should be more important than the intentions of the legislators/Founding Fathers. The Conservatives think it shouldn't.

(tbc)

(continued)
>Surely there's a compromise with the Conservative ideal that elected legislators make laws
>– not judges;

The obvious compromise is for the elected legislators make more laws to avoid having to put the judges in the position of having to decide. But then the conservatives complain the country's overgoverned!

>that political violence and other lawless mayhem is never justified in a liberal, inclusive democracy;

There shouldn't be any need to compromise on that, as it's something there should be universal agreement on!

Perhaps a better question is: how should law and order be achieved? Conservatives see the answer as more force and stiffer penalties; Progressives prefer to create conditions where people don't feel the need to resort to crime.

>that justice should be impartial to identity;

That's what BLM have been protesting for!

>and that the Constitution can only be
>changed through the method prescribed by the Constitution? Such a fantasy!

Not a fantasy at all - it's the status quo.

>There is no middle ground between right and wrong.

Some would say that attitude is a luxury - every decision will result in wrong being done, so the best they can go with is the lesser of two evils. What would you suggest they opt for instead?

>There is no centre point between Truth and lies.

Correct. However we don't always have sufficient evidence to determine what the truth is, and when we do, some won't accept it.

>There is no sensible balance between wisdom and folly.

True, but the difference often only becomes apparent in hindsight.

Aidan,
Can't you see that it's the people of the Left who are a major hurdle to real Justice ?

Individual,

So you can read all these posts, and reflect on what is going on around the world, and learn nothing ?

Joe