How long did the left stay in the power in each country since the end of the WW2?

[buritobr]

Considering the party of the president of the USA, the party of the prime minister of the other countries, and the party of the president of France when there is no coabitation and the party of the prime minister when there is coabitation, the share of the years between 1946 and 2020 each country had a left-wing head of government is (some countries have younger liberal democracies, so I started to count later)

Sweden: 77.3%
Norway: 69.3%
Canada: 65.3%
Denmark: 54.7%
Austria: 54.7%
Spain (since 1977): 54.5%
Portugal (since 1977): 52.3%
Israel (since 1948): 47.9%
USA: 46.7%
UK: 38.7%
Finland: 38.7%
New Zealand: 37.3%
Australia: 34.7%
France: 32.0%
Netherlands: 30.7%
FR Germany (since 1949): 27.8%
Italy: 21.3%
Belgium: 16.0%
Japan: 6.7%

But considering only the head of government can lead to a distorted view, considering many countries had divided government.
So, the next ranking has the following criteria:
Each country in each year receives a 1 if there is a left-wing government, 0 if there is a right-wing government, and 0.5 if there is divided government.
In the USA, there is a 0.5 when one party controls the White Houses and the other party has majority in BOTH houses of the Congress. If there is a democratic president and the democrats have majority in AT LEAST one house, the number for the year is 1. If there is a republican president and the republicans have majority in AT LEAST one house, the number for the year is 0.
In France, there is 0.5 when there is coabitation.
In Germany, there is 0.5 when there is a CDU/SPD grand coalition. The years 1970-1982 received a 1, because although FDP is not left-wing, it is not a major party.
In other countries, like Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria and Finland there were many 0.5 years because there were many years in which there was a grand coalition including the major left-wing and the major right-wing party.
So, the following ranking is a more accurate description of the balance of power in each country

Sweden: 77.3%
Norway: 69.3%
Canada: 65.3%
Austria: 56.7%
USA: 56.0%
Denmark: 54.7%
Spain (since 1977): 54.5%
Portugal (since 1977): 52.3%
Israel (since 1948): 47.9%
Finland: 39.3%
UK: 38.7%
FR Germany (since 1949): 37.5%
Belgium: 37.3%
New Zealand: 37.3%
Australia: 34.7%
Italy: 34.0%
France: 31.3%
Netherlands: 26.7%
Japan: 6.7%

Of course, this ranking doesn't show that one country is on the left/right of the other. The right-wing party of one country can be located on the left of the left-wing party of another country.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The left-wing government in the USA was often more right-wing than right-wing parties in Europe to be fair... Not now of course, but it used to be like that in the past.

[Mike88]

The Portugal number seems right. Since 1976, it has been almost 50/50 between left and right, as the PSD dominated politics between 1980 and 1995, with a grand coalition with the PS between 1983-85, and since 1995, the PS has been more dominant with the PSD/Rightwing ruling 3/4 years just twice, 2002-05 and 2011-15. Also, you started counting in 1976, right?

Just another curiosity, did you count the PS-CDS 1978 coalition as a 1 or 0.5?

[buritobr]

The Portugal number seems right. Since 1976, it has been almost 50/50 between left and right, as the PSD dominated politics between 1980 and 1995, with a grand coalition with the PS between 1983-85, and since 1995, the PS has been more dominant with the PSD/Rightwing ruling 3/4 years just twice, 2002-05 and 2011-15. Also, you started counting in 1976, right?

Just another curiosity, did you count the PS-CDS 1978 coalition as a 1 or 0.5?

No, I didn't observe the grand coalition and counted 1, but I should have considered. In this case, the left-right balance would have been almost excactly 50/50

[CumbrianLefty]

UK in the bottom half, but far from the worst - as I expected.

[cp]

There's a serious definitional problem with this analysis. 'The left' seems to be taken to mean 'the party that is not nominally right/conservative, irrespective of how the 'left' party actually governed. I'd argue that renders any comparison across time or country to be virtually useless.

Case in point: Given the neoliberal shift across democratic politics starting in the 1970s, the US/UK/Canadian (to name but a few) parties of the right during the 1950s and 60s all advocated economic policies *far* to left of those advocated by the 'left' parties in those countries during the 1990s/2000s.

Also, the 'left' parties that are presumably being included for some of these countries are really better thought of as centrist parties. The Canadian Liberals (save the Trudeau 68-79 period), UK Labour from Kinnock onward (save Corbyn's spell as leader), and France under Mitterrand were/are more creatures of their respective countries' hidebound establishment consensus than any genuine leftist reform movement.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Are we really doing the Heath was to the left of Blair meme in 2021?

[buritobr]

Yes, international comparisons are hard...

In Canada, the left ruled ~2/3 of the post-WW2 time. In Australia, the right ruled ~2/3 of the post-WW2 time. In both countries, the Liberal Party ruled ~2/3 of the post-WW2 time. But in Canada, the liberals are the party of the left. There is the Conservative Party on the right. In Australia, the liberals are the party of the right. There is the Labour Party on the left.

[PSOL]

Soviet Union and wider Comecon: to 1956

North Korea: early 1980s with the final mass cleansing of the WPK and appointment of KJI

Vietnam: Doi Moi reforms in early 1990s

Cuba: Special period beginning at 1991, a while after the Soviet Union fell

China: I’d say most likely at 1979 with the nominal accession of Deng, but 1971 (when Deng was rehabilitated) or even the time from 1969-1970 when Mao ordered the army to murder Red Guard students are underrated blemishes. 1979 is when it became “over” though

Yugoslavia: early 1950s is when they stopped advancing towards socialism and it all started becoming about Tito’s ego

Seychelles: some few would say 1977

Cambodia: n/a, ruled primarily by right wing idealist traditionalists

#justrevisionistthings

[CumbrianLefty]

Are we really doing the Heath was to the left of Blair meme in 2021?

Yeah, the "no true Scotsman" approach to what is left wing is pretty self defeating here. No reason why left of centre parties shouldn't change over time just like all other institutions do.

[cp]

Yes, international comparisons are hard...

In Canada, the left ruled ~2/3 of the post-WW2 time. In Australia, the right ruled ~2/3 of the post-WW2 time. In both countries, the Liberal Party ruled ~2/3 of the post-WW2 time. But in Canada, the liberals are the party of the left. There is the Conservative Party on the right. In Australia, the liberals are the party of the right. There is the Labour Party on the left.

The NDP is the party of the left in Canada.

Yeah, the "no true Scotsman" approach to what is left wing is pretty self defeating here. No reason why left of centre parties shouldn't change over time just like all other institutions do.

That criticism would only stand up if there wasn't a clear trajectory in one direction for said left-of-centre parties. From the 1970s until the mid 2010s, left-of-centre parties in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, and many others abandoned social democratic and socialist policies and began advocating neoliberal ones. That's to say, they adopted the policies that sought to overturn the principles of demand-side economics, tight control of financial institutions, and gradual relaxation of punitive measurements against the socially marginalized.

Though this sometimes predated the true champions of these new policies who took power in the 1980s like Thatcher and Reagan (people forget it was Carter who oversaw the Volcker Shock and Callaghan who abandoned the commitment to full employment), the unmistakable pattern was of parties of left conceding their policy priorities to an ascendant rightwing movement, with no reciprocation.

The only real exception to this is LGBT rights - a social and political reform/revolution that emerged from the radical left which was adopted, begrudgingly and belatedly, by parties of the centre and reactionary right.

Are we really doing the Heath was to the left of Blair meme in 2021?

Good point. Blair was to the left of Heath except for welfare, fiscal policy, monetary policy, immigration, criminal justice, foreign policy, education, transportation, industrial policy, workers rights, and trade.

[Estrella]

Yes, international comparisons are hard...

In Canada, the left ruled ~2/3 of the post-WW2 time. In Australia, the right ruled ~2/3 of the post-WW2 time. In both countries, the Liberal Party ruled ~2/3 of the post-WW2 time. But in Canada, the liberals are the party of the left. There is the Conservative Party on the right. In Australia, the liberals are the party of the right. There is the Labour Party on the left.

The NDP is the party of the left in Canada.

Good point.

Yeah, the "no true Scotsman" approach to what is left wing is pretty self defeating here. No reason why left of centre parties shouldn't change over time just like all other institutions do.

That criticism would only stand up if there wasn't a clear trajectory in one direction for said left-of-centre parties. From the 1970s until the mid 2010s, left-of-centre parties in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, and many others abandoned social democratic and socialist policies and began advocating neoliberal ones. That's to say, they adopted the policies that sought to overturn the principles of demand-side economics, tight control of financial institutions, and gradual relaxation of punitive measurements against the socially marginalized.

Though this sometimes predated the true champions of these new policies who took power in the 1980s like Thatcher and Reagan (people forget it was Carter who oversaw the Volcker Shock and Callaghan who abandoned the commitment to full employment), the unmistakable pattern was of parties of left conceding their policy priorities to an ascendant rightwing movement, with no reciprocation.

This is hardly an unique historical development though. It can be argued (and I certainly would argue) that these reforms went too far and they were implemented in a way that showed no regard to people who were hit the hardest, but there's a reason they happened. There isn't a secret cabal of Chicago Boys who were the puppetmasters that controlled the economic policies of most industrialized countries from late 70s onwards. Instead, it was a response to undeniable failures of economic policies that prevailed at the time. Does that mean that Keynesianism is discredited? Not at all. But it isn't a panacea either, and there are situations where it just doesn't work.

Continuing to push policies that have been proven not to work is a political suicide. It's the same reason why postwar Tory governments didn't, say, dismantle the NHS or privatize the NCB. It isn't any different from the shift of the entire political spectrum towards economic interventionism in the 1930s (spurred by the Great Depression and WW2), or the shift towards more ecologically conscious policies today (spurred by the impacts of climate change).

The only real exception to this is LGBT rights - a social and political reform/revolution that emerged from the radical left which was adopted, begrudgingly and belatedly, by parties of the centre and reactionary right.

Again, good point, though it doesn't really apply to the T part (but then that's far from a right-wing problem).

Are we really doing the Heath was to the left of Blair meme in 2021?

Good point. Blair was to the left of Heath except for welfare, fiscal policy, monetary policy, immigration, criminal justice, foreign policy, education, transportation, industrial policy, workers rights, and trade.

I don't know enough about other topics to give you an answer, but regarding immigration... the man who likely won Heath the 1970 election, Enoch "Rivers of Blood" Powell, would like to have a word.

[cp]

That criticism would only stand up if there wasn't a clear trajectory in one direction for said left-of-centre parties. From the 1970s until the mid 2010s, left-of-centre parties in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, and many others abandoned social democratic and socialist policies and began advocating neoliberal ones. That's to say, they adopted the policies that sought to overturn the principles of demand-side economics, tight control of financial institutions, and gradual relaxation of punitive measurements against the socially marginalized.

Though this sometimes predated the true champions of these new policies who took power in the 1980s like Thatcher and Reagan (people forget it was Carter who oversaw the Volcker Shock and Callaghan who abandoned the commitment to full employment), the unmistakable pattern was of parties of left conceding their policy priorities to an ascendant rightwing movement, with no reciprocation.

This is hardly an unique historical development though. It can be argued (and I certainly would argue) that these reforms went too far and they were implemented in a way that showed no regard to people who were hit the hardest, but there's a reason they happened. There isn't a secret cabal of Chicago Boys who were the puppetmasters that controlled the economic policies of most industrialized countries from late 70s onwards. Instead, it was a response to undeniable failures of economic policies that prevailed at the time. Does that mean that Keynesianism is discredited? Not at all. But it isn't a panacea either, and there are situations where it just doesn't work.

Continuing to push policies that have been proven not to work is a political suicide. It's the same reason why postwar Tory governments didn't, say, dismantle the NHS or privatize the NCB. It isn't any different from the shift of the entire political spectrum towards economic interventionism in the 1930s (spurred by the Great Depression and WW2), or the shift towards more ecologically conscious policies today (spurred by the impacts of climate change).

The only real exception to this is LGBT rights - a social and political reform/revolution that emerged from the radical left which was adopted, begrudgingly and belatedly, by parties of the centre and reactionary right.

Again, good point, though it doesn't really apply to the T part (but then that's far from a right-wing problem).

Are we really doing the Heath was to the left of Blair meme in 2021?

Good point. Blair was to the left of Heath except for welfare, fiscal policy, monetary policy, immigration, criminal justice, foreign policy, education, transportation, industrial policy, workers rights, and trade.

I don't know enough about other topics to give you an answer, but regarding immigration... the man who likely won Heath the 1970 election, Enoch "Rivers of Blood" Powell, would like to have a word.

I mean, there kind of was? The rise of neoliberal economics is a pretty well covered story: Von Mises and Hayek found the Mont Pelerin Society in the 40s, construct a web of think tanks and policy shops through the 50s and 60s (i.e., the World Economic Forum, the Heritage Foundation), and pitch their ideas to like minded reactionaries during the 70s and 80s. The demise of Keynesianism's ability to solve political and economic problems in the 70s is what gave them the political opportunity to be heard (they'd been all but shunned from mainstream policy/economics for a generation), but the fact that Keynesianism was replaced by a neoliberal policy programme was not foreordained. Other models were proposed, the NIEO for example, but were never taken up because they lacked the institutional connections to those with, or about to obtain, political power that the Chicago Boys did.

I'm highly skeptical about the link between Powell's speech and Heath's surprise win. Powell delivered his racist screed 2 years before the election, and the major issues debated during the campaign were the economy and the EEC. As for the overall point, Heath's immigration policies were considerably more generous and less onerous to incoming UK residents than Blair's were. However, it's worth noting Blair's policies were basically holdovers/tweaks from the foundation laid by the Thatcher government on the issue. Y'know, like pretty much all of New Labour's policies.

Sadly, all too true about trans rights

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Trying to fit pre-1994 Italy in a "left vs. right" dichotomy is a fundamentally futile exercise that ignores the actual history of this country.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Trying to fit pre-1994 Italy in a "left vs. right" dichotomy is a fundamentally futile exercise that ignores the actual history of this country.

GLI ANNI DEL CENTROSINISTRA

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Trying to fit pre-1994 Italy in a "left vs. right" dichotomy is a fundamentally futile exercise that ignores the actual history of this country.

GLI ANNI DEL CENTROSINISTRA

Yes man! But they don't make them like Fanfani and Moro anymore.

For the record, this is pre-1994 Italy but actually:

1946 - 1947: weird post-war grand coalition
1947 - 1957: centrism
1957 - 1962: dreary transition period where DC almost cut itself on that far-right edge before decisively shifting left
1962 - 1976: centre-left
1976 - 1979: attempts at historic compromise never fully materialized
1979 - 1981: indefinable transition period where DC was unsure about what it should do
1981 - 1992: the monster known as Pentapartito
1992 - 1994: the entire political system literally imploding

[buritobr]

I considered DC years 0, DC-S coalitions 0.5

But, yes, it is not correct to consider italian christian democrats right-wing

[CumbrianLefty]

Well, "centre right" is surely at least arguable?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Well, "centre right" is surely at least arguable?

It is arguable (although I wouldn't do so) but treating the 1960's centrosinistra the same as e.g. the grand coalitions of SPD and CDU is quite a misunderstanding of our politics.

[buritobr]

Yeah, I considered the DC+PSI coalition led by Aldo Moro similar to the CDU+SPD coalition led by Angela Merkel. This is a not so accurate comparison.

[CumbrianLefty]

I'm highly skeptical about the link between Powell's speech and Heath's surprise win. Powell delivered his racist screed 2 years before the election, and the major issues debated during the campaign were the economy and the EEC.

Immigration and Powell again became live issues during the 1970 GE campaign.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

The list confirms more or less that the phrase "natural party of government" is based on who gets in power the most. Well you probably wouldn't expect otherwise.

[Beet]

Japan is just ridiculous.

[buritobr]

The list confirms more or less that the phrase "natural party of government" is based on who gets in power the most. Well you probably wouldn't expect otherwise.

So, would you consider that the social democrat is the natural party of government in Sweden, the CDU is the natural party of government in Germany, the LDP is the natural party of government in Japan, and that there is no natural party of government in the US?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Are we really doing the Heath was to the left of Blair meme in 2021?

It was a meme ? wait were there election memes in 2000* and 2005.

*My dad voted for Blair in that election(probably the only competive election he's ever voted in).