Is shifting the Overton Window the most important thing in politics?

By Overtone Window, I mean terms of debate and what can reasonably be contested in mainstream politics. Two years ago in the UK general election, both major parties accepted the terms of austerity economics. Immoral and economically illiterate though this was in my opinion, Labour felt compelled to accept the idea that cutting our already small welfare state would be a magic trick to solve our systemic economic problems.

In the 2017 election, Corbyn's Labour fought on a clear anti-austerity platform and increased its vote share by 10%, forcing the Conservatives into a weak minority Government. Now the Conservatives are divided about strategy and whether they need to adapt to Labour's ideas. This is a victory of sorts and in was achieved by bravely contesting political ground in order to change it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/01/top-tories-revolt-against-may-public-spending

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M

In terms of debate, i would say, yes it probably is important.
But we seem to have had a ten year period of government where neither side has been able to advance it's core cause.
It's hard to fight for the poor once you have a widely accepted minimum wage.
It's hard to accuse the unemployed of being lazy if their numbers are consistently dropping, because they're taking these jobs.

But nowhere in the Guardian report does it mention a failure of government strategy. It doesn't say that austerity measures have failed. Just that if they want to continue to be elected the public are unlikely to stand for any more talk of cut and 'make-do' which is generally the Tory response to everything after a prolonged period of having Labour in office.

This country does have huge problems in terms of it's social care in general.
The thing that annoys me is that ALL of it was predictable.
We knew 20 years ago there would be more folk of retirement age needing a pension; GP healthcare; hospital treatment; Nursing care; housing etc.
We also knew that the number of working age folk able to contribute would drop because the birth rate was dropping !
Governments are supposed to put policy in place to counterbalance these events.
But without folk earning more (because they set the minimum wage too low, theoretically to attract employers to hire more) They can't contribute any more.
This is why smokers are being hit with £8 a pack for their cigarettes and why drivers are paying the 7th highest price globally for their petrol !

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Picklebobble2: I do agree that the Tories are victims of their own 'success' in that they have done so much austerity that there has been a huge and under-reported backlash from the public. It was never really about shrinking the debt because austerity economics is illiterate in theory as well as immoral in practice. The Tories wanted to shrink the state for ideological reasons but people have now noticed the drop in services and are not willing to accept that.

The points you raise do indicate the right wing bias of the media. During the election, the media (even the liberal media and the Guardian) were entirely focused on leadership, Brexit and terrorism. The issue that decided the election was austerity and now it is only being discussed [i]after[/i] an election has been won on the issue.

It is being discussed though and that would not have been possible without Corbyn.