Many people, in reality, do not want a fair and equal society
Thankfully I don't live in that world, or at least the people who I associate with are not like that. I think it would be a bloody miserable existence if everyone I knew was just in it for themselves!
but only if it does not disadvantage themselves, or somehow "lessen" their own status.
To try to bring it back on topic - how on earth does calling someone a signaler instead of a signalman "lessen" your own status?
I find that younger people, who may not have much life experience, (but not exclusively), are more idealistic and far more liberal, campaigning as you say, for the cause. However, as they get older in life, and their priorities and perspectives change, most people statistically do become more conservative (and not just in the political party sense), and more protective and defensive of maintaining or enhancing their own circumstances. This cycle has been running for generations, although worryingly for the Labour / Left, the change is starting to happen at a younger age, and in larger demographics of society than before.
You suggest that is age and experience related - I disagree. It is more linked to money or wealth. The reason historically it has been seen as linked with age is because as you got older, you got wealthier - you got pay rises or better jobs, you managed to buy a house, you are part of a good pension scheme etc, then yes you will start to lean conservative. Both in terms of the party (whose policies usually favour those with money) and in general ideology (as you want to protect what gave you that wealth). My generation has seen that link between age and wealth pretty much destroyed. You aren't as likely to be able to get better paid jobs or pay rises and you aren't as likely to be easily able to afford a house (instead you'll have to be thankful for a roof whilst you pay your landlords mortgage) and you certainly aren't likely to get a good pension (you'll be lucky to get one at all). I'd love to see an actual source for that demographic change because that isn't what I am seeing at all (and yes, I am acutely aware that is partly because of the people I tend to associate with).
The "War on Woke" for example resonates with large proportions of the electorate, which is why crazy political policies result in legislation like that of specifically protecting statues (despite our laws being perfectly adequate in that regard already!) end up in the headlines.
The statues example is a hell of a lot more complex than what you give it credit for though (and that is part of the problem - the media will reduce it down to a headline or an image, but the actual issue is much more complex).
In terms of Bristol specifically, there were a lot of local reasons why it was only a matter of time for the Colston statue. And it is quite funny you talked about "revisionism" earlier as it was the local Tories and merchant ventures who were the ones trying to erase the nasty parts of Colston's history by fighting against adding a new plaque to the statue to explain his role in the slave trade. Who is being revisionist when one group wants all of our history to be told, wort's and all, but another group only wants to tell the good bits?
And in terms of the Churchill statues specifically - well lets say I think it says a lot that those "protecting" the statues last summer were basically just drunk football lads who wanted a fight (and they acted like it - including urinating on a memorial for a murdered cop in London).
