It never was, however the mainstream media wanted you to think so
You really only need to go about 30-40min inland from some of these places to see how normal/centrist most places are.
I don't think I had ever heard of woke before the non-stop talking points from the 'Right'.
It always seemed like a drummed up issue to rile up their, Christian/Holocaust Denier/Civil War Loving, base.
I rarely hear moderate or more traditionally Republican/Conservative types rant about wokeness. It's the ones doused in right-wing propaganda.
I'm generally of the opinion most people are decent. We might have differences on things but most people can compromise and find a middle position. Our media and politicians thrive on polarization tho and it's utterly killing our ability to function as a democracy.
His view, which I broadly agree with, is that the membership of a party (Tory, Labour, etc) are further from the mainstream "centre ground" than the general population, and that's a bad thing. His solution was the leadership of the party should come from the elected representatives (the MPs) and not the 100,000 "enthusiastic" members -- in the past the parties (Tory and Labour specifically) had massive membership, but now it's just a small number. It's relatively easy for a specific group to actually take over a party.
However I don't think that the small number of votes is the only problem -- the US doesn't have that problem for example, are driven by the views of millions and still come out with the less centrist options
There are/were attempts, such as thanking the Indians who lands we stole before every Kraken game.
People get caught up in it, and then think that those opinions are normal. There is no "normative" frame of reference.
This has, of course, infected politics itself over the past 10 years.
edit: lol at the downvotes. Check the gini coefficient around the world and get back to me.
Take San Francisco as a prime example. It’s a place full of people who style themselves as progressive or “woke” or whatever but a starter home is unachievable to anyone without an exit event or a $400k salary. It has one of the widest rich/poor divisions of anywhere I’ve ever seen in the USA. Major industries include mass surveillance and addictive forms of media, and I have no idea how anyone who isn’t in a high six figure job can live well there let alone raise a family.
SF is not progressive at all, except in rhetoric.
Still I don’t think that lets them totally off the hook since they obviously don’t care that much, otherwise they would advocate for better housing and zoning policies to make housing more affordable.
So I do think this issue points to a fundamental un-seriousness in the supposed commitment to equity.
The right is not necessarily better, e.g. blaming housing costs on immigration instead of underbuilding. But they are not the ones posturing as deeply concerned about equity.
Some red areas do accidentally have better housing policies because they tend to be pro development, but this isn’t because they care about the poor. It’s because they are okay with building and that has a side effect of controlling prices. Example: Texas.
Summary: both sides suck, but blue areas are also hypocrites.