As the article acknowledges, it’s left wing economically while being quite right wing on social issues. Blue Labour, essentially.
As the article acknowledges, it’s left wing economically while being quite right wing on social issues. Blue Labour, essentially.
Firstly, paywalled. So only read the intro.
Secondly, as Hamartia said, The Economist only serves to shift the Overton window rightward. It’s about as reputable as The Telegraph, in that it mixes huge ladels of propaganda with the odd bit of real journalism to pretend to be of good standing. That picture being a prime example of the propaganda.
Thirdly, as Jrockwar said, how can you be left if you’re socially right? It’s as much of an oxymoron as those who say “I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative” thinking it means they’ve chosen the “correct” side of both paths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
If you’re opposed to equality, either fiscally or socially, you’re opposed to equality. Therefore, not left.
Picking and choosing which parts of equality you’re willing to grant isn’t equality and isn’t leftist.
They’re not Blue Labour, because they’re not Labour. They support capital first and foremost. They’re Red Tories.
The Economist is a mixed bag. Their actual journalism is of a high standard. But their editorial policy is very closely aligned with whatever the Conservatives are up to at a given time.
https://archive.is/lQkZs
Ta!