Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

I'm reading that Sunak is veering hard to the right on culture war stuff. Is this a sign of desperation? Does Truss have it in the bag already?

Yes and yes. I limit myself to the Guardian in terms of political news so that's not the best way to gauge Tory zeitgeist, but they seem to have lost all interest in saying anything about Sunak. It's Truss this and Truss that. Especially since she is keeping her focus on coming up with new and new ways to make the economy, civil service, and democratic checks and balances less effective at the earliest opportunity.

Again, maybe I'd have a more favourable view if I found a different news site, but she seems just as stupid for running a country as Johnson, but without the good sense of just sitting around doing nothing.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Sunak engages with reality every now and then; this characteristic is no longer acceptable in a Tory party leader.

[Josquius]

It does seem almost certain that in a month Lizz Truss will be replacing Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

If I wasn't living here I'd find this tremendously funny.

our words are backed by nuclear weapons.

[Sheilbh]

I'm reading that Sunak is veering hard to the right on culture war stuff. Is this a sign of desperation? Does Truss have it in the bag already?

Probably yes and yes.

I think Ganash's point on vibes basically explains Sunak's approach:

Allow me a speculation. Sunak's views are rightwing but what you might call his effect is liberal. Truss, an actual Liberal Democrat for a while, is the opposite. He presents as: know-it-all, at ease abroad, richer than God. She presents as no-nonsense and what the British call "regional". So, on the basis of accent and a few biographic facts, one Oxonian of public-sector middle-class stock appeals to the metro-snobs and the other to the bumpkin-cranks: two tribes into which our unsubtle age triages so many of us. Policies matter, of course. But so do tribal signifiers. He has to try much harder to seem the same level of rightwing.

I went with "effect" but social media has its own word. "Politics is mainly about vibes." "Nothing exemplifies the purely vibes-based nature of British politics than Brexiteer MPs rallying around Liz Truss." "Remember, it's ALL about vibes." Wince at the modern-ism all you like: the insight into how people form loyalties is sound. Think of the popular and unexamined hunch that Lionel Messi is a humbler guy than Cristiano Ronaldo (ask Barcelona's accountants about that). Or that John Lennon, who passed his prime years in the stockbroker belt, was edgier than Paul McCartney, who was going to atonal recitals. Or that Tony Blair, that intense believer in things, was a PR man, while Gordon Brown, the most media-obsessed head of government I had covered until Boris Johnson, was deep.

Sunak engages with reality every now and then; this characteristic is no longer acceptable in a Tory party leader.

Yes, but it slightly depends which bit of reality. I think faced with the cost of living crisis and energy prices that we have a sense of what Sunak will do. It's what he's already done, it's what Osborne would do. There'll be fiddling round the edges to give some people entirely inadequate levels of support.

I think the thing with Truss is she's the higher risk/higher variance candidate. Because I could see her doing something on the scale that is necessary (like furlough) or not lifting the price cap and stepping into the wholesale market.

I don't think it's necessarily going to happen but in terms of which candidate I think is most likely to grasp the seriousness of the crisis/reality and to deal with it - I think the chances with Truss are far higher.

Yes and yes. I limit myself to the Guardian in terms of political news so that's not the best way to gauge Tory zeitgeist, but they seem to have lost all interest in saying anything about Sunak. It's Truss this and Truss that. Especially since she is keeping her focus on coming up with new and new ways to make the economy, civil service, and democratic checks and balances less effective at the earliest opportunity.

Yes. It's like reading the Telegraph on Labour politics/governments. Trust, but verify.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm indifferent to which of them gets elected. You are right that Sunak would just be more of the same though; whereas with a year or two of Truss at least we have the chance of bloody revolution or a nuclear holocaust to put an end to our troubles 

[Josquius]

Related to  the Oxford ppe thing in the other thread, truss would have a wonderful symmetry with starmer too.

Oxford (The South) educated posho nutter from Leeds
Vs
Leeds educated working class dullard from London.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah, Sunak did PPE at Oxford as well of course; so whatever happens we get one of those fuckers as PM.

[Valmy]

Rome is relevant due to the cataline conspiracy and Rome devolving into decadence and stagnation after defeating carthage and creating a unipolar world which is bad.

WTF? Rome became decadent and stagnant after defeating Carthage? It was still centuries from its peak at that point. Sort of like saying the US descended into decadence and stagnation after the war of 1812 or some shit. It sounds like they are taking the conservative hand wringing of Romans seeing the ancient social mores change as time moved on and confusing those developments with degeneration and taking that as fact.

Anyway if anybody is decadent and stagnant it is Russia. Things seem pretty dynamic, in many ways both positive and negative, over here these days.

[Josquius]

Rome is relevant due to the cataline conspiracy and Rome devolving into decadence and stagnation after defeating carthage and creating a unipolar world which is bad.

WTF? Rome became decadent and stagnant after defeating Carthage? It was still centuries from its peak at that point. Sort of like saying the US descended into decadence and stagnation after the war of 1812 or some shit. It sounds like they are taking the conservative hand wringing of Romans seeing the ancient social mores change as time moved on and confusing those developments with degeneration and taking that as fact.

Anyway if anybody is decadent and stagnant it is Russia. Things seem pretty dynamic, in many ways both positive and negative, over here these days.

I can only guess its one of those things posh people do when they make lots of references to the classics that normal people haven't a clue about so just assume are valid.

[Tamas]

Rome is relevant due to the cataline conspiracy and Rome devolving into decadence and stagnation after defeating carthage and creating a unipolar world which is bad.

WTF? Rome became decadent and stagnant after defeating Carthage? It was still centuries from its peak at that point. Sort of like saying the US descended into decadence and stagnation after the war of 1812 or some shit. It sounds like they are taking the conservative hand wringing of Romans seeing the ancient social mores change as time moved on and confusing those developments with degeneration and taking that as fact.

Anyway if anybody is decadent and stagnant it is Russia. Things seem pretty dynamic, in many ways both positive and negative, over here these days.

I think in general its a problem with judging Rome (politics and society) mostly by the writings of posh patricians. It's like painting a picture of the UK by relying solely on articles from The Telegraph.

[alfred russel]

Rome is relevant due to the cataline conspiracy and Rome devolving into decadence and stagnation after defeating carthage and creating a unipolar world which is bad.

WTF? Rome became decadent and stagnant after defeating Carthage? It was still centuries from its peak at that point. Sort of like saying the US descended into decadence and stagnation after the war of 1812 or some shit. It sounds like they are taking the conservative hand wringing of Romans seeing the ancient social mores change as time moved on and confusing those developments with degeneration and taking that as fact.

Anyway if anybody is decadent and stagnant it is Russia. Things seem pretty dynamic, in many ways both positive and negative, over here these days.

I think in general its a problem with judging Rome (politics and society) mostly by the writings of posh patricians. It's like painting a picture of the UK by relying solely on articles from The Telegraph.

I think the archeology is rather clear that the peak was reached during the early stages of the empire. It isn't just posh patricians writing stuff.

[Valmy]

Rome is relevant due to the cataline conspiracy and Rome devolving into decadence and stagnation after defeating carthage and creating a unipolar world which is bad.

WTF? Rome became decadent and stagnant after defeating Carthage? It was still centuries from its peak at that point. Sort of like saying the US descended into decadence and stagnation after the war of 1812 or some shit. It sounds like they are taking the conservative hand wringing of Romans seeing the ancient social mores change as time moved on and confusing those developments with degeneration and taking that as fact.

Anyway if anybody is decadent and stagnant it is Russia. Things seem pretty dynamic, in many ways both positive and negative, over here these days.

I think in general its a problem with judging Rome (politics and society) mostly by the writings of posh patricians. It's like painting a picture of the UK by relying solely on articles from The Telegraph.

I think the archeology is rather clear that the peak was reached during the early stages of the empire. It isn't just posh patricians writing stuff.

Even if this is true that is still about 150 years after the fall of Carthage.

But what is the basis for this? Besides the three one year civil wars the Empire was pretty peaceful and prosperous until the 3rd century crisis, certainly far more than it ever was during the late Republic. The archeology really looks at the Baths of Caracalla and the Pantheon and is like "shitty, they did it much better 100 years before"?

Besides many of the provinces were added early on in the Empire. Surely they would reach their Roman peak after being part of a Rome a few decades at least, not five seconds after being incorporated.

[The Brain]

Everything went downhill with the Gnocchi.

[Sheilbh]

WTF? Rome became decadent and stagnant after defeating Carthage? It was still centuries from its peak at that point. Sort of like saying the US descended into decadence and stagnation after the war of 1812 or some shit. It sounds like they are taking the conservative hand wringing of Romans seeing the ancient social mores change as time moved on and confusing those developments with degeneration and taking that as fact.

Anyway if anybody is decadent and stagnant it is Russia. Things seem pretty dynamic, in many ways both positive and negative, over here these days.

I mean this is literally the only paragraph on Rome:

This particular concept — balance of power — has ancient roots. In his classic work, The War with Catline, in which he mines the history of the Catiline Conspiracy of 63 BCE, one of ancient Rome's most famous figures, the historian Gaius Sallustius Crispis (better known as Sallust), bemoaned Rome's lapse into moral turpitude, decadence and the obsession of its rich and ruling class with with luxury and ostentation. This he blamed on the city's conquest of the Mediterranean and destruction of its rivals, such as Carthage.

I don't know if that's fair - I have less than zero interest in the classical world - but the Roman comparison is not a massive part of the piece

I think in general its a problem with judging Rome (politics and society) mostly by the writings of posh patricians. It's like painting a picture of the UK by relying solely on articles from The Telegraph.

I mean in terms of posh patricians that would also apply to solely looking at Guardian articles In terms of class and education journalists are far less likely to be from a working class background and far more likely to be privately educated than even, say, law firms or banks.

I can only guess its one of those things posh people do when they make lots of references to the classics that normal people haven't a clue about so just assume are valid.

Maybe in relation to Seumas Milne (son of BBC Director-General, Winchester, Oxford - PPE) but I don't know about the random Medium poster

Yeah, Sunak did PPE at Oxford as well of course; so whatever happens we get one of those fuckers as PM.

Although there's only been three British PMs who actually did PPE (Cameron, Wilson, Heath - admittedly, not an inspirational trio ). I think it's bigger influence is with SpAds, civil service, media and other politicians who are also rans - I think it's more the degree of a chunk of the establishment rather than actual leaders.

But I do also think a factor is stuff like this spoof tweet:

THREAD🧵: Boris' stubbornness exemplifies an attitude I often saw at Oxford (University). At the University of Oxford, which I also went to, Boris would have been taught - just like I was - that after matriculating (as I did, but I'm one of the good ones) 1/16

[Sheilbh]

I'm indifferent to which of them gets elected. You are right that Sunak would just be more of the same though; whereas with a year or two of Truss at least we have the chance of bloody revolution or a nuclear holocaust to put an end to our troubles 

As I say - high variance

Separately, I am once again angry about building/planning. From the Guardian editorial on housing:

But transparency will not solve the affordability crisis. Currently a fifth of homes are owned by private landlords, and changes to the tax system, including council tax and capital gains rates, are needed if rich buyers are to be discouraged from turning homes into financial assets. Increasing the supply of socially rented properties, and boosting tenants' rights, should be viewed as urgent necessities. It is dismaying that housing policy overall is not a higher-profile issue than it is. Liz Truss's pledge to "rip up the red tape that is holding back housebuilding" sounds more like a threat than a promise, to anyone who cares about the UK's net-zero target and thinks that meeting human needs, not deregulation, should be the government's aim.

I might not back Truss's plan but I think this is going to be the holding position for the next few years. Conservatives will oppose new housing because of areas of natural beauty, impact on their property prices, general conservatism/dislike of change; left and liberals will oppose it because net zero, it's not "meeting human needs" (such as housing) and, quietly, impact on their property prices.

I saw it because it was called out by the head of the Priced Out campaign because apparently they called him but then quickly stopped showing any interest when it became clear that he didn't agree with their priors and thought the solution was to build more houses

Edit: And incidentally on Truss - given Sunak's big pitch was electability, this sort of poll is not helpful:


Again it makes me think of the Tory focus groups - that what they want this time is authenticity/trust and someone who "understands people like me" (understandable after Johnson and given cost of living crisis). Sunak fails on both for various reasons, not least being richer than Croesus - but Starmer does pretty badly on authenticity/trust especially (and he is under constant attack from the left over this - see the Owen Jones "confront him in the streets" tweet).

And there's a big divide on how worried about Truss Labour should be. I think I'm instinctively in the "if you can't beat Liz Truss, you shouldn't be in politics" camp. But obviously a  party that's lost four elections and a referendum is not in a position to be complacent - and I think there is something to the point that Truss has survived in the cabinet for about a decade and risen through the ranks under three very different Tory goverments/PMs which isn't something to write off - and she's done that when lots of more hyped men have failed....