Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

On the flags business....
The inevitable happens as a 'colourful' and 'well known' football hooligan falls off a lamppost.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/well-known-bristol-football-fan-10699651

I think I might do something I never expected and vote Green in the local elections. Though at the same time I've never felt more ick about a Green leader.

It comes and goes with me. Sometimes I hear him and I'm definitely like "Yes, this is what we need, exactly", other times....I can sense an uncanny valley. Clearly a politician and playing that game but trying to sound real and coming across.....other.

As I say though I support him for his impact on others. I'm already on board with the left-green worldview.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It seems that he was a painter and decorator by trade; which is close, but with the name Paul Lumber he really should have trained to be a plumber.

Re his accident; I'm surprised that a painter and decorator was the first to have a fatal accident, as they often work on ladders anyway. Anyway, RIP Mr Lumber, I'm sorry that you lost your life for such a silly thing.

[Valmy]

I think this is an example, which I've mentioned to Raz before, of a lot of "identity politics" not being driven by the left but by the centre left.

Yeah. This is an easy way to appear progressive even if you actually have center-right politics in other respects. And better it rarely requires you to actually pass any laws.

[Sheilbh]

In fairness I wouldn't describe her as centre-right, she's solidly soft left and as I say in other ways quite an interesting MP. It's partly why I'm disappointed. But also just such a pathetic argument.

Few things that caught my eye recently.

I saw that the old Talking Politics team got together to talk British and European politics again so obviously I listened (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-the-uk-became-ungovernable/id1802535276?i=1000740284861). It's worth a listen - I like David Runciman and Helen Thompson a lot. But I was taken aback at just how coruscating they are of Starmer and Reeves - it makes me feel like my view has perhaps been too generous to them. Particularly struck that in my query of whether Starmer is very naive or just a very cynical liar, they clearly think the latter - also the description Runciman has of Starmer personally (presumably from senior people) is brutal.

Also saw some stuff on Reform - someone leaked their training for candidates in London for the council elections. What was really striking was that an awful lot of it would basically be not a million miles from the Lib Dem strategy for local elections. It's another sign of them professionalising/actually trying to build a party. Although interesting story that their canvassing etc strategy is quite different/distinctive. Also leaking today is Labour's membership numbers which is done to beloe 250,000 - that makes Reform the biggest party in the country on over 260,000 (Greens on about 180,000, Tories on about 125,000 and Lib Dems on 85,000).

Separately from Ben Ansell who's a political scientist at Oxford a really fascinating (if difficult to read) chart:


Broadly it is breaking down each party's vote (with party colours) by education - this is then mapped onto cultural and economic questions like the classic political quadrant thing.

So what's interesting is that the educational divide on Britain's left is "vertical". It's cultural. Lower education groups are more socially conservative than their fellow voters with higher education. That's true for Labour, Lib Dem and Green voters - interestingly it's also true for the "don't knows".

By contrast the educational divide on the right is economic. There is some verticality/a slight slope. But the bigger divide is that lower education voters are more left-wing, while higher education voters are more right-wing.

I'm not fully sure what this means or might mean - but it's really interesting. The obvious thing is that it probably helps explain "how painful is it to talk about this issue". The right are happier talking about culture war stuff because they broadly agree on it; Labour's happy place is talking about the NHS and tax/spend because they broadly agree on it.

I also think it sort of goes to one of the reasons I think Badenoch is actually doing okay - and is a vastly better option for the Tories than Jenrick. Because there's not much variation with Reform voters (or Tory voters) on "cultural" issues - but there is on economics. It probably also makes sense for Labour to heighten Reform's economic tensions (although this would require Labour to work out what it's own message is... )

[Admiral Yi]

I think this is an example, which I've mentioned to Raz before, of a lot of "identity politics" not being driven by the left but by the centre left.

Please elaborate.

[Valmy]

I think this is an example, which I've mentioned to Raz before, of a lot of "identity politics" not being driven by the left but by the centre left.

Please elaborate.

How often does Bernie Sanders mention being a jew? Usually it is the centrist Democrats who are like "The first XXX to be XXX! Look at our progress!" I used to joke that if they were around in the 1850s they would be celebrating the first trans plantation owner without actually doing anything to end slavery.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah on Sanders the line that always sticks out for me was Clinton's: "if we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?" I think she did the same through LGBT+, sexism, immigration etc.

As I say Olufemi Taiwo's Elite Capture is a very good book on this - and it's about 100 pages so readable in an afternoon.

On the representation point there's a particularly weird and I think very tone-deaf side to that with Reeves. In part I think because Labour absolutely hates the fact that it's on its second leader called Keir while the Tories are on their fourth woman leader (three of whom have been PM) and second ethnic minority leader. Plus the Tories had various "firsts" in the last government: first British Asian Chancellor and Home Secretary, first Muslim Home Secretary, first Black Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary etc.

Because of this Labour or at least Reeves seem to make a weirdly big deal of Reeves being the first woman Chancellor (and also because it's the last "great office of state" not held by a woman). So in her big pre-budget interview with The Times she had a line about how "I'm sick of people mansplaining how to be chancellor to me". There's been a couple of moments where she's suggested she's treated differently than Gordon Brown or George Osborne would be. There was a line in the FT about this from a profile of her:

"At a genteel "meet and greet" over sandwiches and tea with local business leaders, the chancellor is robustly challenged — she believes rudely — over her punitive taxes on North Sea drilling. Suddenly the mood changes. "Talk to me with respect," Reeves says, glaring at her interlocutor. Eyes shift nervously towards the floor. "I'm the chancellor of the exchequer."

There are no cameras to record the extraordinary exchange. Is everything all right? Surprisingly, Reeves seems to have enjoyed the moment. "He wouldn't have spoken like that to George Osborne or Gordon Brown," says Britain's first female holder of the 800-year-old office, referring to two of her predecessors. "He deserved it," she guffaws, heading out to the waiting car. Reeves demands respect — and she believes that with her Budget, in spite of everything, she will earn it."

This was part of Badenoch's response to Reeves, which I think was fairly effective on this point: "Madam Deputy Speaker, let me explain to the Chancellor. Woman to woman. People out there aren't complaining because she's female. They're complaining because she is utterly incompetent." And I think there is something to that. She came in and there was lots of "Iron Chancellor" stuff. The jokes about her and "lack of respect" have developed because she's bad at the job - and I have lots of issues with Brown and Osborne but they absolutely stamped their authority over the Treasury. There was always a clear sense of what they were trying to do. I also think demanding "respect" is not something that goes well for any politician in Britain.

But to the GD Politics podcast I think there is a weird tone-deafness to Starmer and Reeves on this sort of stuff. David Runciman says that Starmer apparently has repeatedly told his cabinet that without him and his team none of them would be in a job because they wouldn't have won the election (which I think vastly overstates his role v the collapse of the Tories). But there's another story of an away day when apparently Starmer told the cabinet they were the most working class cabinet in British history - apparently Shabana Mahmood pushed backon that by asking, even if it's true is it how they're seen? His metric seems to be that none of them went to private school - but I think "most working class" is challenging.

It is the point Runciman and Thompson made on the podcast that Starmer's entire career in politics has shown a breathtaking disinterest in the truth, but also there's been a fair bit of dishonesty by Reeves both about her own career (plus plagiarism in a book she wrote) and how she frames budget decisions. Which might be fine if they were clearly cynical Machiavels - like Lord Mandelson - but appparently Starmer in particular is very, very vain and quite sanctimonious with people. And I think the combination of very obviously cynical and dishonest, with sanctimony, demands for respect  and incompetence is perhaps uniquely toxic.

[Josquius]

That is a funny one on we hate you cos you're shit not because you're a woman.
Related.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlowsToRachelReeves

[Jacob]

That's really fucking unfortunate for Britain