Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

If you have to work to maintain your lifestyle you are not wealthy.

Yeah - so I think that's relevant to class but distinct from wealth.

[crazy canuck]

I wonder if we have different phrases and cultural ways of looking at that As we have a phrase (particular for retirees) who are asset rich cash poor. I don't think disposable income or a "wealthy lifestyle" is the same as wealth.

But also fundamentally someone owning a house with a mortgage is building their wealth.

As I say in the UK 70% of wealth is owned by the 50-99% group (skewing to the top - who I'd imagine are often the specialists as you say, but also older and more senior). My argument is most of that group is middle class. They're not the filthy rich, or multi-millionaires (or higher) and they build their wealth over their working lives (generally) but they have it.

The next generations going to be really wild when those unearned increases in house prices etc (and pension pots possibly) start getting inherited.

Edit: And I think that divide is what's key. In the UK and I think everywhere in the developed West except at the very extreme filthy rich/multi-millionaire scheme of things the gradations of wealth and how much you need to be wealthy is less important than the almost 50% who do not have wealth at all (and I suspect there are very few middle class types in that group - the ones who are are young and at the start of careers that will see them, over time, build wealth).

You have introduced a new concept.  Those who are able to build wealth.  You have put into that categorie everyone who is able to invest in some way.

Would you agree that people who are investing are not necessarily wealthy?

[Sheilbh]

You have introduced a new concept.  Those who are able to build wealth.  You have put into that categorie everyone who is able to invest in some way.

Would you agree that people who are investing are not necessarily wealthy?

Yeah - of course. Also I didn't say they were able to or they could - but that they were building wealth (which I don't think is a particularly new concept).

I think for most of the middle class it's about life stage as much as anything else.

Although even for those who are investing, saving or monthly paying down their mortgage, it does depend on your perspective. Again a large chunk of the 50% do not have wealth. They're people who are renting and living on credit cards and at best saving the statutory minimum for retirement. In looking at our society that is where you need to start in what is "not wealthy".

[Sheilbh]

By the by - back to the riots - now up to over 700 arrests and over 300 charged. It does look like a fair few of the sentencing remarks are being broadcast, I don't think I've seen quite so many on news channels before.

I also thought this was really interesting on Twitter - the problem with it and why it endures:

Labour needs X to get its message out however much it may wish it didn't
Jessica Elgot
Deputy political editor
Thu 8 Aug 2024 18.50 BST
Last modified on Fri 9 Aug 2024 02.30 BST

When Keir Starmer was running to be Labour leader in 2020, his aides seriously considered whether they should leave Twitter for good.

A number of those who remain close to Starmer as prime minister were then enthusiastic about moving off the platform. The party was still feeling wounded by the brutal election campaign and by the bitterness of the way it had been conducted on social media.

Even in the era before Elon Musk took ownership of Twitter – renaming it X, reinstating far-right figures like Tommy Robinson and overseeing a steady increase in misinformation – there was a feeling that the essentially combative nature of the platform was fuelling something dark in politics.

Starmer himself has long been a sceptic of the usefulness of the platform and repeatedly frustrated by the headaches caused by his own MPs when they get into trouble for posts.

But that early idea of a boycott never materialised – it was just too hard to do in opposition. Now the dependence on X is even greater. Politicians, government departments and public figures all use it as a conduit for major announcements. Rishi Sunak, as prime minister, courted Musk with a soft-soap interview at his AI summit.

For years, Labour has had a "tweet first" strategy, meaning announcements and responses were posted on X even before official press releases were sent out. But there are now murmurs in government about how long that can go on, with Musk this week openly taunting Starmer, calling him "two-tier Keir" and sharing misinformation with millions of followers.

In the official language used by government ministers, X is not singled out. The problem of disinformation on the platform is mentioned alongside Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and WhatsApp as a generalised problem.

But there is private acknowledgment that X is different for two reasons – first as it is the platform of choice for politicians and journalists, meaning there is a particular premium on accuracy, and second because of the overt influence of its owner in boosting misinformation.

Starmer's spokesperson took the decision to criticise Musk's comment that "civil war is inevitable" under a post showing video of riots in Liverpool, saying it had "no justification". The video was initially posted by Robinson, though on another user's feed.

But since then the billionaire has clearly enjoyed goading the prime minister, with multiple tweets highlighting grooming gangs, or calling him "two-tier Keir" to suggest that far-right rallies have been more harshly policed than protests by Black Lives Matter or over Gaza.

On Thursday, Musk amplified a faked headline, purportedly from the Telegraph, which said convicted rioters would be sent to detention camps, first posted by the leader of Britain First. He deleted the post after about 30 minutes but not before it had received 2m views.

Musk will probably soon lose interest in provoking Starmer and return to focus on the US election. But it has been a difficult situation to navigate for the new government. For now, the first port of call is more engagement with the social media companies, though there will be a re-examination if more can be done with the Online Safety Act.

But if that proves fruitless, the next option can only be to review how the government uses the platform. It is a vicious cycle: most high-profile users will not quit X because that is where key dissemination of information is. Many politicians would be against abandoning the platform: Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, said on Thursday he viewed it crucial to be a player there because of how it could be used to counter disinformation.

But some public bodies are already opting out. On Thursday, an NHS trust quit X, saying the platform was "no longer consistent with our trust values".

And some Labour MPs are reconsidering how they use it. Andrew Lewin, the MP for Welwyn Hatfield, said he had not decided to leave but added: "After the reprehensible behaviour of Elon Musk this week, I will be here less. Musk is using his platform to sow division and fan the flames of hate. It is indefensible." His fellow new MP Yuan Yang said Lewin's comments felt "increasingly relevant".

The uncomfortable reality is that no other platform offers quite the same immediate access to influential figures or acts like a breaking news network in the same way. Meta's Threads platform comes closest, but so far Mark Zuckerberg does not seem to be courting government or media to jump ship. Indeed, political content is not boosted at all by its algorithm and is opt-in only.

For now, X is pretty much the only social media space where people do come specifically to listen to politics – and that might be too valuable to relinquish.

None of the other players want to be the platform for politics - for very good reason (see Twitter even before Musk).

[Sheilbh]

Last few days really strongly giving this vibe:


Lots of far-right American types (including Musk) getting outraged over British laws - and some American centrists too. While in the UK there is pretty broad support.

Part is very bad-faith descriptions of what's going on. For example, Andy Ngo has been very active. Drawing attention to "a 69-year-old retiree with no criminal history [...] the oldest anti-mass migration English riot arrestee to be convicted so far. He was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison for refusing to disperse and holding a stick at a library riot". An alternative view - predominant here - is that he was at the mob burning a library and community centre and threatening the police trying to disperse them with a wooden cosh.

Similarly lots of outrage about someone being convicted for Tweets. He was convicted for incitement to riot. There were riots ongoing at the time and this guy was tweeting out the address of a hotel being used for asylum seekers and law firms who do immigration law (in the towns with riots) encouraging people to burn them down. He even tagged in the police about it because of his strong view that he couldn't be done for online posting. I'm not even sure if that would be protected speech in the US as, from my understanding, most American states have laws against incitement to riot most of which carry heavier sentences in the UK (unclear if they maybe only apply in person).

All of this is getting picked up by American far-right types and the "prison for tweeting" by centrists too - and Musk is amplifying it all. From what I can see it's not really picking up here but it's wild again how much Britain is the failed state for the American far-right.

Meanwhile about 70-80% support in the UK for these prosecutions. Starmer actually being criticised for not cracking down enough or quickly enough. Very broad consensus that these were riots, eg:


And, as in this word cloud of people's thoughts, not much sympathy:

[garbon]

Are you doing an academic study on American discourse on Twitter? If not, why give it that much attention?

[Sheilbh]

Is posting here giving attention?

Because Musk posted a fake Telegraph headline about the UK setting up detainment camps for these "protesters". The Telegraph immediately put out that it was a fake headline and they had never published a story or headline like that. Musk deleted it (though didn't explain that he was doing so) half an hour later, by which point it already had 2 million impressions. And this divergence has happened before, especially over covid (both lockdowns and vaccines).

It may be more of an American issue than for this thread - but I feel like this isn't the first time I've seen Andy Ngo especially making stuff up about the UK - as this doesn't see to be cutting through in the UK. But it looks like it is in the US, as I say, I think both Noah Smith and Matt Yglesias have done things about "arrested for bad tweets". But I think it's very striking - and, frankly, some of the stuff I've seen from Musk over the UK riots has been extraordinarily racist.

I think especially that stuff from Musk that Europe allows North American far-right types to be more "mask off" racist because the "nation of immigrants" stuff applies a lot less. They can really let out their blood and soil stuff - which I suspect is how they also see the US but are more discreet about it. All of which makes me think the narratives they're telling about Europe - and the UK particularly lately - are interesting and important, even if they're far-removed from actual discourse in Europe.

From a UK perspective the concern is this stuff picks up. Which I think did happen at the start of the riots. The initial lie about it being an attack by a Muslim was from someone in the area. From Gups, according to Channel 4 analysis 50% of social media about "Muslim" and "Southport" was originating in the US, 30% from the UK. There is plenty of attention on Russian bot farms etc (and no doubt there's truth to that). But I think the voluntary American far-right is probably as big a risk in the information sphere, and possibly bigger - because America's an ally, Britain's on American social media (including ones owned by someone actively pushing lies and racism) and that wing of American politics may soon again have a protector in the White House. American far-right types may be using Europe as a dystopia/warning in their narratives (Britain, previously Sweden, the "camp of saints stuff") or as a utopia (Hungary, Poland, Meloni) for their own American ends - but that, sadly, doesn't stop at the Atlantic.

[Josquius]

Amazing the amount of reform voters that still support that shit. It really is being tied to them.

[garbon]

Is posting here giving attention?

It is you giving it attention and bringing it to our attention.

Meanwhile I'd say, wow, Musk's cesspit has people posting inane things that can have real world consquences. We know it is trash and maybe our government's should do something about it. Or barring that, maybe people should actually boycott it like they said they would.

[Sheilbh]

It is you giving it attention and bringing it to our attention.

Fair

Meanwhile I'd say, wow, Musk's cesspit has people posting inane things that can have real world consquences. We know it is trash and maybe our government's should do something about it. Or barring that, maybe people should actually boycott it like they said they would.

But that's partly what I think is interesting.

I posted that Guardian piece on Twitter which gets why not only are people not abandoning but the key userbase for Twitter who are not leaving are government, politicians and journalists - because there isn't an alternative for them. I find the argument that if they're not on there there's no-one to counter things less convincing. But that there is no other platform really for governments and politicians to do their comms and journalists to tweet their pieces etc more of an issue. Labour considered leaving it, the owner is posting wildly racist stuff and a lot of nonsense specifically about the UK - but the Labour government is still not able to leave, still has a "Tweet first" policy for announcements (because it's where the journalists and activist types are) and the journalists are still there because they need to be professionally even from, say, the Guardian.

But also it is sort of what we're seeing here. A lot of the messaging from the CPS etc on this is what's always been true: the law does not distinguish between online and offline. A guy tweeting addresses of places at rioters and telling them to burn them down (with an address) is incitement. If he was doing it in person to a crowd of rioters it would clearly be incitement, just because he is doing it online to a crowd of rioters does not (in UK law) suddenly make it okay. I'm not sure on the position in the US which is why I find the centrists joining in on "arrested for tweeting" thing a bit interesting - my understanding is most US states have laws against incitement to riot and that feels like it would clearly fall within it. So I wonder if there is a distinction in the US between in person speech v printing or posting?

[Valmy]

Donald Trump made an alternative and everybody seems to notice his garbage. If the entire UK government moved to their own website well people who cover the UK government would be there. Or Threads or whatever.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure the UK government has as strong a set of fans and sycophants as Donald Trump

It would just be them making statements and journalists reading. They'd have just invented press releases again - and maybe there is an argument for that.

(I mean that seriously - similarly I feel like technology now actually means cabinet government is a possibility again, though not sure if anyone wants to try it...)

[Valmy]

It would just be them making statements and journalists reading. They'd have just invented press releases again - and maybe there is an argument for that.

I mean that is basically all tweeting is. Fast access press releases.

And they can do that anywhere.

[Tamas]

I am growing more and more convinced that the reason for the freshly found (or at least freshly flared up) International far right hatred of Britain is because of the Labour victory. I am not sure how conscious an effort this is, but, after all, their ilk just got ousted from power. If this later shows as a good idea, by the UK seen as a success from the outside, thst can really damage their little international movement.

I have reached that conclusion after going back to Twitter to use it for Ukrainian OSINT. What I have found instead is that even the list I was using for that has been overrun by filth, most of it raging at the UK for tolerating Islamist chaos while unleashing the police state on innocent patriots.

Absolutely mental.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think so. The contempt that Republicans and others of the international far-right hold the Tories in is pretty profound. They are squishes who are basically as bad as Labour in their minds.

Remember the Tories did lockdown, love vaccines, talked about net zero, passed gay marriage and were big early backers of Ukraine - and (particularly relevant to the far-right) head record high levels of immigration. In the waters the international far-right are swimming in the Tories are - to nick a Blair line - weak.

There's an awful lot of stuff about the Tories being basically like Romney style Republicans and look where that leaves you.

That may say something about those lists - I'm not sure what. As I say the "arresting people for Tweets" stuff has been picked up by centrist Americans like, say, Noah Smith so I think it's got pretty broad purchase. Again my understanding is that incitement to riot is illegal in most of the US and I don't know if it excludes the internet.

Report on the killings in Nottingham by Valdo Calocane who should not have been discharged from mental health care out yesterday - Health Secretary saying he understands the anger of victims' families as it was preventable if the NHS "had done its job". On the one hand I think it is clear there were a series of failures at various points and it was systemic - on the other it does feel like another one of those classic British inquiries were everything failed and no-one is responsible. Hopefully the proposed mental health reform will actually improve things.

Edit: Or more broadly it's been building for a while and it is Islamophobia particularly and distinctively. I also don't think it's entirely focused on Britain - I went away to Marseille recently and it was striking how much online (by and for Americans) was basically "you probably won't get killed". It was very odd.