The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to complain about it.
Thanks for linking to this. I missed it to. A few thoughts for starters:Surely the fact that the British Social Attitudes Survey was last published in January 2008, presumably with data collected in 2007, and before the exogenic shock of the financial meltdown had occurred, means that its validity as a predictive tool is in doubt. Lots of people may suddenly have acquired different attitudes about equality when they realised what had been going on all these years. I know some of them.And a first bounce because of Gordon Brown's speech? Who, outside of the political classes, listens to a conference speech, or reads it then takes a view on the speech deliverer. It's all a bit more subtle than that, and I contend the bounce may have been more closely linked, though not fully causally, to the contemperaneous outpourings of captalisism-gone-wrong referred to above.The idea that Labour might be 'Churchillian' in that it takes us through the crisis and thn gets dumped in favour of a post-crisis vision is predicated on a) the Conservatives being able to articulate a new vision b) Labour not having one. Both of these assumptions are unproven.Conclusion? Prof Curtice ma bw too focused on straight cause-effects when the world is more complex than that, and Labour may be in somewhat better shape for an election than he suggests.
Post a Comment