Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah which is just a huge dog-whistle.

And another example of just transplanting politics from the US because, in actual fact I think it is likely to hurt the Tories most as the largest group without any form of photo ID is the elderly. They are also the most likely to vote and the most likely to vote Tory - so they will be the people being turned away. I've no issue with it in principle if we have universal photo ID that is more or less free or very cheap for everyone. To Tamas's continued outrage, we don't - so it's wrong.

Is it really transplanting though? Or just a similar cultural behavior in both countries. I have a few older British people as Facebook friends and I see a lot of posts and rhetoric from them about the decline/loss of their country and sharing of various culture war videos (popular ones are people supposedly being prohibited from displaying the union jack by globalists) that would fit in with any Republican yokel we have here.

There are signs of Tory discontent about it though - David Davis, back on the backbenches, has already called it an "illiberal solution to a non-existent problem". On the other hand something that will be very bad for Labour - and unclear if it'll pass in time for the next election) is the next constituency boundary review

What's interesting is the GOP embrace of voter ID and other voting laws has been done in the absence of any real evidence it helps them. Liberals have been up in arms about it for years--and I agree when the motivation of legislators changing election laws is to help their reelection, we should cry foul--but a lot of these laws are very ill proven to help a specific party. In many areas of the country where people claim the laws massively target black voters for example, blacks vote at higher turnout rates than whites in the same area.

On the flipside the 30 year push for more mail voting in Florida was actually data driven--the Florida GOP found that its elderly voters were much more likely to vote if mail voting was easy, and they spent multiple decades on educating their voters about mail voting and then making it easier to vote by mail in Florida. Trump undid all of that work in a few angry tweets, Trump's actual opposition to mail voting as far as I can tell was never based in logic, and very likely developed from some "scare piece" he watched during a Fox News binge. I actually don't think it is that unlikely that Florida's election law changes end up have a larger impact on Republican voters than Democrat ones.

[Razgovory]

I haven't been following UK politics much lately, in fact the last thing I saw, I think, was rubber version of Boris Johnson shoveling lard into his mouth.  Has the economy been harmed by Brexit or was that all overwhelmed by recent catastrophe?

[Sheilbh]

Is it really transplanting though? Or just a similar cultural behavior in both countries. I have a few older British people as Facebook friends and I see a lot of posts and rhetoric from them about the decline/loss of their country and sharing of various culture war videos (popular ones are people supposedly being prohibited from displaying the union jack by globalists) that would fit in with any Republican yokel we have here.

I agree that's a big factor and I think both groups on Facebook are probably following each other.

But with voter ID, it's never been an electoral issue as far as I'm away. There's been no scare stories about it for example. It is something that I think Tories support because they see the Republicans do it.

What's interesting is the GOP embrace of voter ID and other voting laws has been done in the absence of any real evidence it helps them. Liberals have been up in arms about it for years--and I agree when the motivation of legislators changing election laws is to help their reelection, we should cry foul--but a lot of these laws are very ill proven to help a specific party. In many areas of the country where people claim the laws massively target black voters for example, blacks vote at higher turnout rates than whites in the same area.

On the flipside the 30 year push for more mail voting in Florida was actually data driven--the Florida GOP found that its elderly voters were much more likely to vote if mail voting was easy, and they spent multiple decades on educating their voters about mail voting and then making it easier to vote by mail in Florida. Trump undid all of that work in a few angry tweets, Trump's actual opposition to mail voting as far as I can tell was never based in logic, and very likely developed from some "scare piece" he watched during a Fox News binge. I actually don't think it is that unlikely that Florida's election law changes end up have a larger impact on Republican voters than Democrat ones.

Yeah - it's similar here. There is evidence of fraud in postal and proxy voting - there have been cases. It's still very rare, but it does exist. It's also not at all affected by new voter ID laws. In person voting has far less evidence of fraud. But as I say all the evindence is this will disproportionately hurt the Tories

I haven't been following UK politics much lately, in fact the last thing I saw, I think, was rubber version of Boris Johnson shoveling lard into his mouth.  Has the economy been harmed by Brexit or was that all overwhelmed by recent catastrophe?

There's been an impact - especially in certain sectors like food and drink which are disproportionately affected. It is difficult to disaggregate what's Brexit and what's covid, especially because we went into a second full lockdown at about the same time as Brexit happened. On the other hand the economic effect of the second lockdown is far smaller than the first lockdown - not least because people and companies adjusted last spring.

In Europe last year we were one of the worst hit economies, because we were one of the worst hit by covid. Though it is worth noting that there is some statistical querying of this because of how the UK measures public sector productivity which I understand is in line with accounting best practice, but not common - so my understanding is we try to measure output as a sign of productivity. So for example health care productivity fell because we base that on things like discretionary procedures, but clearly healthcare productivity didn't fall last year; there's similar issues with how we measure productivity in education. So if you break down the UK's stats the public sector was one of the worst hit by the pandemic, which is clearly wrong.

Because the UK was particularly badly hit the BoE and other forecaster are expecting that the UK economy will grow very rapidly this year as we bounce back. The BoE have moved forward their prediction of when we get the economy back to the size it was pre-pandemic. They now anticipate that we should be at that point by the end of this year.

So there's definitely an impact, it's not spread evenly but both in terms economic hit and now economic growth/bounce-back it has been utterly overwhelmed by the pandemic. Which makes sense no adjustment to your trading relation is likely to cause as much impact as basically trying to shut the country down/press pause for six months.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on Starmer - interesting piece by Stephen Bush in the Times that basically says the concern Labour MPs have had since Starmer was Shadow Brexit Secretary is that he is not very good at politics. That was kind of temporarily allayed by the very ruthless and effective leadership campaign but those worries are now back and being discussed widely by Labour MPs.

In addition they are also concerned he doesn't really have a politics beyond the sort of vague politics of the average Labour member (which is possibly why he won the leadership so easily), which means he doesn't really have a clear vision of where he wants Labour to get to/what he wants Labour to do and many not be competent at getting there.

Together those are pretty big concerns to have about a leader of the opposition

[Tamas]

Is it really transplanting though? Or just a similar cultural behavior in both countries. I have a few older British people as Facebook friends and I see a lot of posts and rhetoric from them about the decline/loss of their country and sharing of various culture war videos (popular ones are people supposedly being prohibited from displaying the union jack by globalists) that would fit in with any Republican yokel we have here.

I think its hard to appreciate the level of impact US politics have on the zeitgeist around here due to the shared language. I mean, US politics are a matter of interest and discussion elsewhere as well (in Hungary for sure) but the language barrier is an actual barrier to how much of it is consumed directly (i.e. very little). No such trouble here.

[Tamas]

Incidentally on Starmer - interesting piece by Stephen Bush in the Times that basically says the concern Labour MPs have had since Starmer was Shadow Brexit Secretary is that he is not very good at politics. That was kind of temporarily allayed by the very ruthless and effective leadership campaign but those worries are now back and being discussed widely by Labour MPs.

In addition they are also concerned he doesn't really have a politics beyond the sort of vague politics of the average Labour member (which is possibly why he won the leadership so easily), which means he doesn't really have a clear vision of where he wants Labour to get to/what he wants Labour to do and many not be competent at getting there.

Together those are pretty big concerns to have about a leader of the opposition

Fair points but it comes down to the electorate-FPTP system producing moronic results. I mean, I guess you can say Johnson is good at politics, although the only time he could grab the PMship when nobody sane wanted it, but also what politics does he have/shown other than "Boris should be PM"?

[Sheilbh]

I think its hard to appreciate the level of impact US politics have on the zeitgeist around here due to the shared language. I mean, US politics are a matter of interest and discussion elsewhere as well (in Hungary for sure) but the language barrier is an actual barrier to how much of it is consumed directly (i.e. very little). No such trouble here.

Yeah. UK politicians and advisors are obsessed with American politics - they all rave about Caro's LBJ biography and love the West Wing (who can forget "let Miliband be Miliband" ). They stay up all night to watch American elections. And American politics influences UK politics more directly - in recent years Australians have dominated the polling/strategy advice for UK parties, but in the 90s and 2000s anyone who worked for a Presidential election would easily be hired by one of the UK parties. I think the peak of that was probably when David Axelrod and Jim Messina were advising competing parties in, I think, 2010 or 2015

In fairness I think it used to go the other way - I know that John Major's relationship with Bill Clinton was always hurt because the Tories had sent strategists from their surprise election victory in the 1992 to help out the Bush team

By contrast there is almost zero interest in the politics of our far more similar and analogous neighbours in Europe. Even in terms of just cultural consumption, Borgen had a moment in the 2010s because it seemed to mirror Nick Clegg and coalition politics but that's about it. It is particularly striking given that in the last few years British politics has become more multi-party European than it has American.

[Sheilbh]

Fair points but it comes down to the electorate-FPTP system producing moronic results.

If a party lose it's their fault not the voters. Also Labour had a chance to reform the voting system and they considered it (the Jenkins report) but chose not to - because, historically FPTP benefits them as well. For most of the 2000s it looked like the Tories would need electoral reform to ever win again - how could it be fair in 2005 that they won 32% of the vote and Labour won 35% but had a majority of 50.

I think we need electoral reform. But that's more because of the rise of multi-party politics which I think is a long-term trend. I think the last two elections which are the best results for the two big parties since the 70s are exactly the type of elections FPTP is meant to deal with and it's produced the sort of result FPTP is meant to deliver - strong, single-party government.

I mean, I guess you can say Johnson is good at politics, although the only time he could grab the PMship when nobody sane wanted it, but also what politics does he have/shown other than "Boris should be PM"?

I think it's fair to say Johnson's good at politics. I don't think many other Tories can become Mayor of London, I don't think Brexit wins without him and despite the mistrust and dislike of a lot of his MPs he's won - and after 2019 he's now got the best majority the Tories have had since 1987.

In terms of whether he has a politics - I think he does. There are a lot of continuities from his time as Mayor. I think he is fundamentally a relatively liberal Tory (as a man with "at least six" children with multiple women should be). I think he's a fairly profligate/let the economy run hot Tory who loves a grand projet (regardless of cost/benefit analysis - and I think there is something to George Eaton's comment that whatever you think of them in Brexit and the vaccines the Tories have delivered two national projects). I also don't think he's particularly wedded to any Tory doctrines about state ownership or investment or fiscal balance etc. And I think he's booster-ish, I don't think he likes delivering bad news and will always present the more (often laughably) up-beat/optimistic spin on something.

Now with all of that there is the personal side which is that he isn't someone who takes responsibility, he will delegate everything he can and take the credit. He isn't good on detail (so again will delegate) or particularly personally competent. They key to his time in London was that he had a record number of Deputy Mayors who actually did most of the work - a lot of them are now in Number 10. But when he was at City Hall those Deputy Mayors were basically with him for 8 years and it ran reasonably well. Number 10 seems a lot more chaotic and there's a lot more of a revolving door - if he can't get a grip on that then it'll hurt him because he might actually have to do something and may be held responsible for it. I think that's a big risk for him (and the country).

But I think combined he is an unusual Tory - but perhaps one who's very well placed to lean in to the re-alignment that's underway. It's certainly a contrast from May who was far, far less liberal in approach or Cameron whose core purpose in office was fiscal restraint/austerity. It's also a shift for the Tories from Thatcher who defined most of her successors in one way or another, the nearest I can think of to the politics of Johnson is probably MacMillan. And voters can tell - it's why just attacking him as the "same old Tory" or for the risk of austerity won't work because they're both obviously not true.

I also think he will burn his way through Chancellors and end up with a lot of quite resentful senior MPs on the backbenches by the end of his premiership. And I think the thing that is most likely to end him with the Tory party will be fiscal policy/role of the state - I think there will come a point when fiscal hawks and Thatcherites will get very uncomfortable. That may play into potential Blue Wall issues if a lot of Home Counties voters think they're basically subsidising loads of projects in the West Midlands and Tees Valley.

[Jacob]

I always enjoy your analysis, Sheilbh

[Josquius]

Incidentally on Starmer - interesting piece by Stephen Bush in the Times that basically says the concern Labour MPs have had since Starmer was Shadow Brexit Secretary is that he is not very good at politics. That was kind of temporarily allayed by the very ruthless and effective leadership campaign but those worries are now back and being discussed widely by Labour MPs.

In addition they are also concerned he doesn't really have a politics beyond the sort of vague politics of the average Labour member (which is possibly why he won the leadership so easily), which means he doesn't really have a clear vision of where he wants Labour to get to/what he wants Labour to do and many not be competent at getting there.

Together those are pretty big concerns to have about a leader of the opposition

The first of those is very worrying.
The second... I don't see the problem there. Keeping the policies pretty similar to as they were under Corbyn but without a loony left face on them should be a good path to follow.
Alas competence is the key worry. Especially since thats where johnson is failing

[Sheilbh]

I think there are specific issues for Starmer - he's still new and people are still forming their opinions, he's had to be leader of the opposiiton during a pandemic which is really challenging. But this is pretty bad


Edit: Also only barely beating him on physical or mental health is a bit mad given that Johnson was literally in intensive care last year and has done a video where he says "I was too fat"

[OttoVonBismarck]

That topline item is at the core of a lot of Trump's success, it is a widely held view in America that the establishment has not looked out for American interests, whereas Trump chest thumped heavily about that as a core ethos. It's somewhat sad because I think a lot of it is lack of education and information. In a great many ways, Trump did not look out for America's interests and I'd argue Johnson maybe even less so Britain's (in many ways he's taken actions that all but guarantee Britain's dissolution, and he championed Brexit largely on platitudes and other nonsense.) So it isn't actually important that the leaders really work to the national interest--it's only important, sadly, that they can claim they are in simple ways that simple people recognize.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think its hard to appreciate the level of impact US politics have on the zeitgeist around here due to the shared language. I mean, US politics are a matter of interest and discussion elsewhere as well (in Hungary for sure) but the language barrier is an actual barrier to how much of it is consumed directly (i.e. very little). No such trouble here.

Yeah. UK politicians and advisors are obsessed with American politics - they all rave about Caro's LBJ biography and love the West Wing (who can forget "let Miliband be Miliband" ). They stay up all night to watch American elections. And American politics influences UK politics more directly - in recent years Australians have dominated the polling/strategy advice for UK parties, but in the 90s and 2000s anyone who worked for a Presidential election would easily be hired by one of the UK parties. I think the peak of that was probably when David Axelrod and Jim Messina were advising competing parties in, I think, 2010 or 2015

In fairness I think it used to go the other way - I know that John Major's relationship with Bill Clinton was always hurt because the Tories had sent strategists from their surprise election victory in the 1992 to help out the Bush team

By contrast there is almost zero interest in the politics of our far more similar and analogous neighbours in Europe. Even in terms of just cultural consumption, Borgen had a moment in the 2010s because it seemed to mirror Nick Clegg and coalition politics but that's about it. It is particularly striking given that in the last few years British politics has become more multi-party European than it has American.

This is a genuine surprise to me. It was always my thought American cultural shit like TV / films / music loomed large in other English speaking countries because of our sheer size and volume of production out of Hollywood etc, but I had frankly assumed that Brits had a sort of indifference to our politics.

It is interesting how it goes in the other direction, I would say by and large America ignores the politics of all other countries to an almost total degree. But there is usually some vague awareness of who the current British PM is, maybe moreso than the current Canadian PM which is odd due to our proximity. Culturally I feel like Britain punches far above its weight in the United States, at times it often feels cinema / tv are dominated by British actors and performers, and there's a huge list of television shows that have massive audiences in the U.S. dwarfing even their viewership in their home country. There's also a weird and almost confusing to me obsession in the U.S. with the British royals, which is probably how Harry and Meghan got what was supposedly a $100m deal out of Netflix, while that seems extravagant I actually think the royal-obsession is so strong here it's not even a bad bet by Netflix.

[Sheilbh]

That topline item is at the core of a lot of Trump's success, it is a widely held view in America that the establishment has not looked out for American interests, whereas Trump chest thumped heavily about that as a core ethos. It's somewhat sad because I think a lot of it is lack of education and information. In a great many ways, Trump did not look out for America's interests and I'd argue Johnson maybe even less so Britain's (in many ways he's taken actions that all but guarantee Britain's dissolution, and he championed Brexit largely on platitudes and other nonsense.) So it isn't actually important that the leaders really work to the national interest--it's only important, sadly, that they can claim they are in simple ways that simple people recognize.

Yeah - I think that reflects a disconnect between establishment/elite views of the national interest and the views of a significant number of voters. In the UK we had all the current and former MPs and Nick Clegg giving speeches on the theme that Brexit would damage Britain's interest and weaken its influence. That we would cease to be a country that punches above its weight. Now looking at those PMs, with fairly broad bipartisan support those interests and influence were expressed in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and (a little bit) Syria - which is a mixed bag. I think there is a disagreement with that vision of "Great Britain not Little England"/"punching above our weight" national interests and what a lot of voters, especially Leave voters, see as the UK's interests. It's one of the reasons I don't think this was a vote of imperial nostalgia but nation-building nationalism. I personally lean to the elite view, but I don't think it's crazy to look at that record and say if that's what British influence is, we don't want it. I think there's a similar trend in the US - so you had the weirdness of Republicans campaigning against the risk of hawkish Democrats.

People always that Acheson about Britain losing an empire and not yet finding a role, but with the US and the UK I wonder if there's an element of them winning the Cold War and not yet finding a cause. I think without that there's quite a lot of disagreement around what Britain's interess are - I think Miliband polled his best when his MPs blocked Cameron from intervening in Syria (in part because it was standing up to the US). Similarly despite pundits (and me) loving Hilary Benn's speech in favour of intervening against ISIS, most people supported Corbyn in opposing it.

I think that many people who are used to speaking broadly about the US and UK's interests to each other, need to work out a way to re-build broad public consensus as well as consensus at an elite level between lawmakers and think-tankers. I think something is possibly emerging on China - there's huge support for the visa route for Hong Kongers and for reducing dependence on China.

On the union I think it's not clear that dissolution is inevitable to me and I think that is slightly different because polls show that British people basically do accept the view that it's not a union of law or force, but consent. So most people are either indifferent or want the union to continue - but think it's a democratic decision for the nations.

There's also a weird and almost confusing to me obsession in the U.S. with the British royals, which is probably how Harry and Meghan got what was supposedly a $100m deal out of Netflix, while that seems extravagant I actually think the royal-obsession is so strong here it's not even a bad bet by Netflix.

Yeah I've noted before that CNN have launched a weekly royal newsletter which is probably more content than you'd get in most UK papers over the course of a week - it's baffling

[Jacob]

Hey Sheilbh, I just heard someone say that the voter ID is only supposed for first time voters, in which case it probably won't inconvenicence Tory-voting pensioners.