Monbiot is right to point out how “the centre” has been redefined. This isn’t just political drift, it’s what happens when discourse is shaped by systems that reward outrage and performance over verification.
Monbiot is right to point out how “the centre” has been redefined. This isn’t just political drift, it’s what happens when discourse is shaped by systems that reward outrage and performance over verification.
Yes, outrage is weaponised & artificially inflated by the far right. But, to George's point, there are many things to be angry about right now, & the left can turn the anger into positive & real change, to improve the living conditions of the majority. See for instance @zackpolanski.bsky.social
Spot on. I have been thinking about “what gets measured gets done” & how Peter Drucker’s quote isn’t meant to be an endorsement - b’cos If you measure the wrong thing, you do or get the wrong thing. There are opps to use current measure to shift perspective, like 👇 bsky.app/profile/fair...
& also concerted efforts to complain directly to bbc, sky, etc and to Ofcom when bias or lack of effective scrutiny (eg mr Farage not being held account for Brexit), misinformation & lack of fair platforming across the parties (eg greens & Lib Dem’s excluded). There is a vast majority of the UK
who still don’t want the hellscape mr Farage is offering,. & many snowflakes can make an avalanche when they move together. There’re also prob more savvy ideas of interrupting media algorithms (tech & human) of hyping the binary, conflict & gotcha at expense of nuence, shared experience & knowledge
that I haven’t thought of, but getting plurality and equitable representation on tv & across media so when BBC‘today’ sets the news agenda (as it still does to an extent) it isn’t completely bias towards reform would be a start. Why isn’t byline times & new world included in their paper review
to the extent of mail, telegraph & times? The bbc charter has stuff about fair representation. How can we lever that to hold bbc to account? Where are the other key sources that’re nodal points? Why is govt still posting on x & not bluesky? How does that influence govt coms & ways of seeing?
I keep thinking - “we need to be more Renton & less Sick Boy”.In one of the follow ups to Trainspotting, someone points out that Sick boy gets excited about the game, the glamour & the noise around a scheme, where Renton focuses on getting the outcome. 🥹
Monbiot always gets it One of the best
I don’t see any alternative to rejecting extremism, and governing with sensible compromises. Even if incremental liberal improvements are boring and perhaps vulnerable to firebrand loudmouths that claim to fix everything with strong magic.
Social media algorithms prioritise engagement, not accuracy. That means the most aggravating and divisive content dominates public discourse. Politics is filtered through this distorted lens, not through truth.
Media behaviour follows. News sites churn out low-quality “content” harvested from GoFundMe pages, TikTok trends, Reddit threads, because that’s what the algorithm rewards. Verification becomes secondary to visibility.
Other outlets chase what’s “already trending,” mistaking algorithmic amplification for genuine public concern. This creates a feedback loop: outrage drives coverage, coverage drives politics, politics produces more outrage.
The result is institutional capture. Parties that once held the centre now chase visibility within an outrage-driven system. “Centrist realism” isn’t moderation, it’s accommodation to a discourse already warped.
I really think when one looks at what you have described the key point is the establishment (which of course includes mainstream media) just perpetuates a system that maintains the status quo. And happily so for them.
So when people say “elections are won from the centre,” they ignore the fact the centre has been redefined by an engagement-first information system. The real contest is between who can master disordered discourse, and democracy slides into authoritarianism.
I'm not sure your implicit assumption (that either right or left, with the proper strategy, can drive the narrative and succeed in elections) is correct. We're in a very alt-right moment, starting when Obama was elected and propelled by pandemic restrictions. I'm not sure the left can win much now.
Maybe my view here is shaped by my own social media consumption, but everywhere I look these days, I see horrific, gleeful anti-immigrant, anti-trans, pro "traditional" wife, anti-birth control pile-ons. Racists see no need for more Unite the Right rallies, because they've taken over the gov't.
Given all of that, I don't think it's as easy as saying, "Get control of the algorithmic narrative, drive engagement, and the left starts winning elections again." I think it's gonna take a *lot* more than that. It took me *three* posts to say this?!? Sorry, lol [/fin].
I discuss what's driving that below. The short version is that first MAGA should be seen as a coalition of disordered counterpublics, not a single movement bsky.app/profile/elio...
Thx for this. I'll finish watching the episode later today. Yes, #MAGA, like most big movements, is a coalition of smaller factions. Trump's got a pretty good grip on them all, tho, as we see with Epstein conspiracy theorists, who've been beaten down to where the "Civil War" is over, and they lost.
It's worth thinking about Tulsi Gabbard in this context, especially regarding the Iran strikes and her claims of Obama interfering with the election. It's a clear demonstration of loyalty tests within that coalition.
Centre wins by a country mile in Australia
Agree. And as we saw in 2019, elections aren't won from the centre (or left or right) - they're won by coalitions. Unless 🇬🇧 left & centre can muster an organised coalition to beat Oswald Farage-Jenrick coalition in 2029, that disorganised discourse will bring fascism to 🇬🇧 via same route as 1933 🇩🇪.
Sadly, I see little sign of such cooperation.