Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

Probably because I watched an ITV clip, but now I have got my first GB News recommendation on YouTube, apparently they have a show called Woke Watch. They are laying it on thick aren't they?

What's very strange is I just watched the start of a clip from the 7th. One of the stories they highlighted was about a woman who got compensation (by tribunal) after being fired and it was noted in clip that she made a harmless joke "Should we really be selling this toy? Black Lives Matter."

Except that if you find any article on it, she claims she wasn't making a joke but rather was being sensitive about BLM + she was actually fired because a colleague claimed she had said "I'm offended Black Lives Matter?" and manager thought that was racist.

Now I've no idea if she was actually standing up for BLM but this misrepresentation clearly highlights the agenda of GB News.

[Tamas]

Probably because I watched an ITV clip, but now I have got my first GB News recommendation on YouTube, apparently they have a show called Woke Watch. They are laying it on thick aren't they?

What's very strange is I just watched the start of a clip from the 7th. One of the stories they highlighted was about a woman who got compensation (by tribunal) after being fired and it was noted in clip that she made a harmless joke "Should we really be selling this toy? Black Lives Matter."

Except that if you find any article on it, she claims she wasn't making a joke but rather was being sensitive about BLM + she was actually fired because a colleague claimed she had said "I'm offended Black Lives Matter?" and manager thought that was racist.

Now I've no idea if she was actually standing up for BLM but this misrepresentation clearly highlights the agenda of GB News.

From what very little I have read and heard of it, it appears to be a parody of Fox News. If it manages to get anywhere with the British public we are probably hopeless anyhow.

[Sheilbh]

Apparently it's a section on Andrew Neil's show not an entirely separate show.

I am still relatively sanguine about GB News because it is subject to the Ofcom code on accuracy, objectivity etc which applies to broadcasters but doesn't apply to the print media. So I don't think it can become Fox or even fully a TV version of the Mail because they'd be taken off the air - the most they can do is become a right-wing version of Channel 4 news or a TV version of the LBC talk radio shows/call-ins.

So far their viewing figures are horrendous too (they are averaging below the BBC's Welsh language broadcasting) - I'm not convinced they really matter, certainly not in comparison to the print media. And I slightly worry this sort of conversation is playing into their hands because almost all I see of them online is being shared by someone who really disagrees with them/is making a joke - but they're still sharing it and spreading them which I think is the point.

Woke is so rampant that 59% of Britons don't even know what it means 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/18/what-does-woke-mean-britons

I'm sure that a sizable number can be convinced that it is destroying British life though 

This is one of the reasons I'm not convinced it's a massively helpful term in the UK. But I think it you look at the underlying numbers I am dubious about if we're in for an American style culture war because we are just not as divided.

And "culture war" is, again, a term most people don't necessarily recognise because it's a predominately media term. But only about 32% of people in the UK think there's a culture war going on (which is similar to Canada, Sweden, Australia, Singapore) compared to about 60% in the US. Basically about 75% of people think hate speech and racism/sexism/homophobia are a problem in the UK; and about 75% of people think excessive political correctness is a problem in the UK. There is strong support across all groups for, for example, more education around the British empire and its effects whether they are positive or negative. But there is equally strong opposition across all groups for, for example, the BBC editing "Fairytale of New York" to remove the word "faggot".

But I think language matters - so there is broad strong support "that it is easier to get ahead in Britain if you are white" (which people think is a bad thing), but asking about "white privilege" gets a different lower and more divided response. I think part of that is because in the UK I think privilege is far more closely associated with class - so if you mean race you need to call that out. But with all that I feel like there is actually a broad middle which includes the majority of white people and the majority of minority communities who agree and don't live in the very online/discourse culture war that I think our elites do.

But, sadly, the media love this stuff and are stoking it. I saw the article about how "wokeism" was a top three concern for people. But the poll was about which "-ism" people are most concerned with and wokeism was number three (behind racism and religious fundamentalism). If you ask people about what issues they care about - then the culture war isn't even in the top ten. But the media will run with the "it's a top three issue" because it's a narrative they can all rile their readers with and probably shift copy:

[Sheilbh]

Interesting comparison with the recent US ranking thread:

Theresa May joint worst post-war prime minister, say historians and politics professors in new survey
July 6, 2021 1.58pm BST
Authors
    Kevin Theakston
    Professor of British Government, University of Leeds
    Mark Gill
    Visiting Senior Research Fellow, Department of Political Economy, King's College London

Theresa May has been rated as one of the worst two post-war prime ministers in a survey of UK university academics specialising in British politics and contemporary British history. She comes bottom in the prime-ministerial "league table" alongside Anthony Eden, whose short premiership was destroyed by the Suez crisis of 1956.

Even Alec Douglas-Home, prime minister for only a year before he was evicted from office in the 1964 general election, was given a higher rating.

These results come from the fourth in a series of surveys carried out by the University of Leeds in conjunction with the research company Woodnewton and prior to that MORI. Similar polls, producing prime ministerial rankings, were conducted in 2004, 2010 and 2016.

The survey was completed by 93 academics working across 44 universities in the UK, between June 1 and June 16 2021. Respondents were asked to rate the performance of each prime minister during their tenure on a scale of zero to ten, with ten representing the top score of "highly successful" and zero representing "highly unsuccessful".

League table of post-war British prime ministers with scores allotted by a panel of academics.

As in previous surveys, Labour's Clement Attlee was rated as the most successful post-war prime minister, with Margaret Thatcher in second place, just ahead of Tony Blair. Also replicating the previous run of survey results, Anthony Eden and Alec Douglas-Home featured in the bottom rungs of the prime-ministerial league table – now joined by May with her dismal 2.3 rating. More than a third of academics (37%) rated her performance as either zero or one out of ten and only one was prepared to rate her premiership higher than six.

The results confirm the notion that "takeover" prime ministers – who first enter Number 10 following the resignation of their predecessor rather than by winning a general election victory – spend, on average, less time in office. They also tend to have less successful administrations and are generally rated as worse-performing.

Of the group of 14 prime ministers up to and including Theresa May, eight were "takeover" leaders" while six won general elections to become prime minister. The average rating for the first group was 4.37 compared to 5.25 for the second group.

The top four ranked prime ministers, between them, won 12 of the 20 general elections held between 1945 and 2017 and clocked up 35 years in Number 10, while the bottom three in the league table managed only two election victories between them and a total of only six years in office.

In many ways, assessments of prime ministerial performance are relatively stable. If you exclude Winston Churchill's wartime administration, Attlee and Thatcher are always rated first and second in the league table. Blair, meanwhile, seems to have cemented third position. But reputations can go up as well as down. The failures and successes of later prime ministers – and the passage of time and the later development of events – can change perspectives and evaluations.

Table showing rankings of post-war British prime ministers and how this has changed in previous surveys 2004-2021.

Asked to give their assessment of how well Boris Johnson is doing so far, respondents gave him a relatively low score of 3.5. Of course this can only be seen as a provisional rating given he had been in office just less than two years at that point.

Overall impact

May also fared badly when respondents were asked to rate the impact of each prime minister from Thatcher onwards. They were judged on their impact on British society, the economy, foreign policy, democracy and the constitution, and their own party. Each leader was given a net score across these issues – the percentage of academics rating them positively minus those who rated them negatively.

Table showing academics' assessments of the impact Britain's post-war prime ministers had on key policy areas.

Cameron and May are the only two of these prime ministers to be rated negatively across all five areas. May scored particularly badly in terms of her perceived impact on Britain's foreign policy and role in the world. She was also judged harshly on her effect on her own party and on British democracy and the constitution. Under all three of those headings she had the worst net scores of any of any prime minister in the past four decades.

Implicit bias?

Surveys like this one can reveal as much about the academics as about the prime ministers. Our sample was heavily Labour supporting – 60% of those academics expressing a party preference said they would vote Labour in a general election, compared with 13% who would vote Conservative, 13% who would vote Liberal Democrat and 11% would vote Green.

This was also a cohort that was heavily Remain in the 2016 European Referendum: 86% said they voted Remain compared to only 14% voting Leave (among those answering). And they are still in favour EU membership, albeit not quite as much as before. Now 60% would vote to rejoin the EU, 20% vote to stay out, while 20% are unsure.

The extent to which these factors, and particularly views on Brexit, influenced the ratings for Cameron, May and Johnson is open to debate. Though this group of academics also rated Thatcher as one of the post-war greats.

Nevertheless, both Cameron and Johnson receive higher ratings among those academics who say they would vote to stay out of the EU if another referendum was held "tomorrow" – and, in the case of Johnson, the difference is stark. Among this relatively small cohort of academics, his average rating is 6.2, which would place him among the top five post-war prime ministers.

It's worth noting that the general public has also put May at the bottom of the prime-ministerial league table. In an Ipsos MORI poll of 1,124 adults in March 2021, asking whether prime ministers since 1945 had done a "good job" or a "bad job", Cameron and May occupied the bottom two slots in the league table with net scores ("good" minus "bad" ratings) of -17 and -23 respectively, with Churchill (+55), Attlee (+16) and Wilson (+16) rated by the public as the top three prime ministers.

Future academic historians and political scientists may come to a different verdict. But whether she is seen as not up to the job or as someone who was dealt an impossible hand and overwhelmed by events (or a combination of the two), opinion on Theresa May's premiership is, for now, damning.

I would quibble strongly with the idea that Blair was a net positive for British democracy/the constitution.

[Valmy]

At the time I seem to recall you were a big Blair fan

Gordon Brown better than Churchill? I guess. Sort of like saying Chester A Arthur was a better President than FDR. I mean I guess you could make a case that essentially just sort of being there not breaking anything is overall better than the dude who did controversial things during a crazy time.

[Sheilbh]

At the time I seem to recall you were a big Blair fan

I was and am (I think he would have been an excellent covid leader for a start - also my number one indicator of a good leader is beating the Tories and keeping them out of office ). Although I'm not a Blairite ultra - I think now requires a different analysis than Blair's in the mid-90s so the solution to Labour's problem isn't just to copy Blair.

But in terms of democracy and the constitution - parliament was far weaker when Blair was PM (partly because he had a very strong, solid majority but also for structural reasons that he didn't fix). I think House of Lords reform is unfinished, I think devolution is unfinished (excluding Northern Ireland). He was a Presidential Prime Minister - he centralised decision making in Number 10 and was not good at cabinet government, I think all of his ministers felt undermined by him at some point or other. Plus I think the way he made the case for Iraq - bringing in the intelligence services, which turned out be wrong - was politicising and corrosive (in a similar way to the way George Osborne used the Treasury to make the case for Remain).

On the other hand I think the Human Rights Act is a genuine, lasting achievement. Obviously peace in Northern Ireland and, I think, the court reform was very good. I think it's far more finely balanced than a +30 rating would suggest.

Gordon Brown better than Churchill? I guess. Sort of like saying Chester A Arthur was a better President than FDR. I mean I guess you could make a case that essentially just sort of being there not breaking anything is overall better than the dude who did controversial things during a crazy time.

It's post-war. So The Crown Churchill, 1951-55 v I think a pretty impressive crisis Prime Minister who, in my view, genuinely did "save the world". I think Brown was the first world leader to get a grip on the scale of the financial crisis and work out the sort of policies that were necessary. I think the global response to the financial crisis would have been weaker if Brown wasn't in office - it's a rare of example of exactly the right man being in exactly the right place at the time (and getting nothing from it from the voters ).

[Valmy]

Ah. I was not aware that were were only counting 80 year old Churchill. Though I guess that would just be entering your prime for 21st Century Democratic politicians.

I was also not aware of the nation saving actions of Mr. Brown.

[Sheilbh]

Ah. I was not aware that were were only counting 80 year old Churchill. Though I guess that would just be entering your prime for 21st Century Democratic politicians.

Yes he would just be entering his prime in the US. The age of senior politicians there is crazy it would be like if John Major (aged 78) was still a thing.

I was also not aware of the nation saving actions of Mr. Brown.

Yeah it's a shame - it was a slip of the tongue. He'd meant to say "we have not only saved the banks and led the world" but actually said "we have not only saved the world". The Commons totally fell about laughing and the Tories ran with it for ages as a constant joke because there was a sense he probably meant it. Trouble is, I think he was probably right

Edit: And looking at Wiki - my view is not totally niche! Apparently Paul Krugman wrote a piece in October 2008 asking if Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling had saved the world noting that their policies "defined the character of the worldwide rescue effort, with other wealthy nations playing catch-up". End result: Gordon Brown became a joke and was badly beaten in 2010

[Josquius]

Needless to say any ranking that puts thatcher so highly is dubious at best.
I see its foreign policy where she scored particularly highly - sigh, I get that the general public still swallows it but you'd think academics would look beyond the contemporary propeganda and see the Falklands for the lucky mistake that it was.

Strange to see Churchill so high if we are only looking at the 50s too. Not quite Eden levels of shit, but, he wasn't great.

Nice to see recognition for Blair and Wilson on the rise I guess. And brown not totally dismissed.

[celedhring]

I find impressive that if you add up all her impact scores Tatcher gets a net negative impact, yet she places as second best. 

[Sheilbh]

Needless to say any ranking that puts thatcher so highly is dubious at best.
I see its foreign policy where she scored particularly highly - sigh, I get that the general public still swallows it but you'd think academics would look beyond the contemporary propeganda and see the Falklands for the lucky mistake that it was.

Yeah but you can't discount lucky Prime Ministers - most of the good ones are lucky. I can see the case for more for Thatcher on foreign policy - first Western leader to meet Gorbachev and report back that he was someone they could do business with, Anglo-Irish Agreement which is the first step on the peace process, pushing for the European single market, agreement on Hong Kong handover with China. Also she was the first PM to start passing environmental legislation and helping establish international frameworks like the IPCC - which I think may be part of her legacy/reputation that grows in importance in the future (and would probably fall under foreign policy on that list? ).

I don't think you can avoid putting Thatcher in the top two. The two PMs who've shaped post-war Britain most are Attlee and Thatcher. Practically if you get an "ism" named after you that people are still referring to and writing books about 30 years after you left office - you're going to rank highly

Strange to see Churchill so high if we are only looking at the 50s too. Not quite Eden levels of shit, but, he wasn't great.

He's at the same level as John Major and James Callaghan so I'm not sure he's getting that highly rated

I find impressive that if you add up all her impact scores Tatcher gets a net negative impact, yet she places as second best. 

Yeah I can't work out the link between their ratings on each of those categories and the score.

[The Brain]

I find impressive that if you add up all her impact scores Tatcher gets a net negative impact, yet she places as second best. 

Have you ever been to the UK?

[Josquius]

A thought - given covid could brexit have inadvertently given the UK a bit of a boost (albeit one we largely squandered) in preparation for the new economic realities of bringing stuff back onshore?
Strikes me the UK shoukd have been in a prime place with already having a head start in preparing for being cut off from the world. Of course as we saw not too many businesses actually used this, some did however.
In the long term it wouldn't have meant much but for the short term recovery numbers it's a wonder.

[Tamas]

A thought - given covid could brexit have inadvertently given the UK a bit of a boost (albeit one we largely squandered) in preparation for the new economic realities of bringing stuff back onshore?
Strikes me the UK shoukd have been in a prime place with already having a head start in preparing for being cut off from the world. Of course as we saw not too many businesses actually used this, some did however.
In the long term it wouldn't have meant much but for the short term recovery numbers it's a wonder.

If Britain couldn't afford to be cut off from the world in 1940, I doubt it can afford it now.

[Sheilbh]

If Britain couldn't afford to be cut off from the world in 1940, I doubt it can afford it now.

Britain was very unusual because empire in the 30s and 40s. People always talk about going back to the 50s to signify a less global economy/fewer imports, but Britain imported far more stuff (especially food) in the 50s than we do now - I think that was true basically until we joined the EEC (which is obviously fairly supportive of domestic farmers).

A thought - given covid could brexit have inadvertently given the UK a bit of a boost (albeit one we largely squandered) in preparation for the new economic realities of bringing stuff back onshore?
Strikes me the UK shoukd have been in a prime place with already having a head start in preparing for being cut off from the world. Of course as we saw not too many businesses actually used this, some did however.

I'd put it the other way round. I think because of Brexit most businesses will have examined their supply chain very carefully and I think that probably helped in dealing with covid. They'd done the work for a chaotic Brexit but it was really helpful for a pandemic instead.