Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

He's consistently Britain's worst columnist. It's just incredible

He's also very anti-new housing/building anything anywhere and related to that I saw from Jen Williams (the great Northern correspondent for the FT), who noted that in local byelections the Lib Dems are doing really well in cities and look like they're starting to recover. Apparently this is largely on the back of campaigning against new housing

[The Larch]

He's consistently Britain's worst columnist. It's just incredible

Apparently he has co-written a book on the Falklands, I guess that's why he published that piece. Did you read it? Do you agree that at least some of his proposals are not that far out there, like rekindling some pre-war 70s era relations with Argentina?

[Josquius]

Incidentally the current wave of Falklands stuff on TV irritates me. The standard flag waving rewriting of history continues to hold with thatcher being the hero of the piece rather than the incompetent fool who let it happen.

[Sheilbh]

Apparently he has co-written a book on the Falklands, I guess that's why he published that piece.

He wrote that book with Max Hastings in 1984 - they were both journalists with the British task force. I think it's being re-issued for the 40th anniversary.

Did you read it? Do you agree that at least some of his proposals are not that far out there, like rekindling some pre-war 70s era relations with Argentina?

But the context of the pre-war relations was the UK trying to get rid of the Falklands because they're very expensive. The issue they had consistently was that the islanders didn't want to become part of Argentina (I think at one point the FCO looked at the idea of giving each islander £1 million as a one off payment for transferring sovereignty). And I think he's just a little bit hand-wavey about that and before the war you could try to bring the islanders along but hand-wave their concerns away and make decisions over their heads.

After the war, needless to say, the islanders are even less keen on joining Argentina (there's been two referendums on it in 1986 and 2013 and in both only three people voted for joining Argentina). And, after the war, there is zero chance of any UK government doing anything in relation to sovereignty or re-establishing links with Argentina and the islands without the support of the islanders.

He links to a piece by the Argentine foreign minister in the Guardian last week - which lays out that Argentina considers this an issue of sovereignty and that they have proposals to re-establish links with the islands. The problem, I think, is that in that piece he mentions the inhabitants once. I think to get back to the 1970s, those are the people you need to convince - not London - and that's difficult when your position is that they should be part of your country, against their will, because they're nearby.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally the current wave of Falklands stuff on TV irritates me. The standard flag waving rewriting of history continues to hold with thatcher being the hero of the piece rather than the incompetent fool who let it happen.

But isn't she both?

[Tamas]

Incidentally the current wave of Falklands stuff on TV irritates me. The standard flag waving rewriting of history continues to hold with thatcher being the hero of the piece rather than the incompetent fool who let it happen.

But isn't she both?

If it wasn't for Thatcher, Josq would be working in a state-subsidised coal mine. It's hard to remain objective when you are robbed of such a life.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Argentina needs to convince c.1500 islanders that becoming part of Argentina is in their interest; then the UK can leave.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Incidentally the current wave of Falklands stuff on TV irritates me. The standard flag waving rewriting of history continues to hold with thatcher being the hero of the piece rather than the incompetent fool who let it happen.

But isn't she both?

If it wasn't for Thatcher, Josq would be working in a state-subsidised coal mine. It's hard to remain objective when you are robbed of such a life.

I would blame Michael Foot and the Labour party; their 1983 manifesto (aka "the longest suicide note in history") included such gems as leaving the EEC asap....thus guaranteeing electoral defeat.

[Josquius]

But isn't she both?

I wouldn't say so.
The war wasn't a tough decision for her. It was a gift.

I would blame Michael Foot and the Labour party; their 1983 manifesto (aka "the longest suicide note in history") included such gems as leaving the EEC asap....thus guaranteeing electoral defeat.

They deserve to be remembered poorly for making a complete pigs ear of opposing thatcher when victory was theirs to lose, but a bit odd to blame them.

Incidentally the current wave of Falklands stuff on TV irritates me. The standard flag waving rewriting of history continues to hold with thatcher being the hero of the piece rather than the incompetent fool who let it happen.

But isn't she both?

If it wasn't for Thatcher, Josq would be working in a state-subsidised coal mine. It's hard to remain objective when you are robbed of such a life.

Unlikely.
I would however have grown up in a less deprived area.
Honestly it didn't affect my family too much. But then other people matter than just me.

[Sheilbh]

I would blame Michael Foot and the Labour party; their 1983 manifesto (aka "the longest suicide note in history") included such gems as leaving the EEC asap....thus guaranteeing electoral defeat.

I'd defend Michael Foot - partly because I just really like him.

But also because I think Labour had been in office - on and off - for 13 years by 1979. They'd largely been led by Harold Wilson, who many in Labour thought was a glib PR man and that he'd betrayed the left (he is now seen as second only to Attlee - who was also seen as a traitor to the left by some ). I think there was a lot of pent-up emotions and frustrations and divisions in Labour by 1979.

The SDP left but I think Foot was probably the only leader who could hold together the rest of the Labour party. I love Dennis Healey but I think the divisions would have been even worse and Labour would've fallen apart even more under his leadership. I think the nastiness of Benn's 81 Deputy Leadership challenge would have been something all through the party (and my villain in 80s Labour history is Benn - who shouldn't be a national treasure ).

Also it didn't help that for much of the 80s lots of people on the left hated Thatcher in a really visceral way and thought she was basically building a fascist state. I understand that and I think it's fine for motivating campaigning/activism, but I think it's a little bit alienating when you're actually trying to persuade people. There was a bit too much of a sense that you'd have to be actively evil to vote for Thatcher to win overr swing voters I always think John O'Farrell's Things Can Only Get Better memoir of the 80s and 90s is really good on this and very funny.

It's all a bit plus ca change

[Richard Hakluyt]

I agree with you that Foot is a sympathetic figure whereas Benn was something of a self-regarding villain; but electability has to come into it somewhere.

...and yes, we are back to 1979-83 in terms of visceral politics; something which I weirdly almost enjoy as it makes me feel young again to detest the ruling party so much 

[Sheilbh]

I agree with you that Foot is a sympathetic figure whereas Benn was something of a self-regarding villain; but electability has to come into it somewhere.

Oh I totally agree - but I just think in 79-83 (a bit like 2015-19 - and the early 50s), Labour weren't that interested in electability

...and yes, we are back to 1979-83 in terms of visceral politics; something which I weirdly almost enjoy as it makes me feel young again to detest the ruling party so much 

I've started to feel that it's more like the 90s. But an 80 seat majority is hard to overturn so I've got a horrible feeling it'll be like 1992

[Josquius]

Could be my usual optimism for such things but imo the "80 seat majority is hard to overturn stuff" is just a old mental model from before the current wild west times at work.

A huge number of those seats are very flimsy holds. I think we are realistically actually just looking at half that number with the other half effectively being labours by default now the Corbyn factor is gone and their new populist MPs have failed to deliver unicorns.

[Sheilbh]

I mean I'm an optimist too. The polling of the combined anti-Tory parties is at the highest level since 1997, for the first time since 2005 the polling of Labour (plus possible allies) is higher than Tories (plus UKIP and other allies).

Opinion swings and there's recently been a pan-European poll of Germany, the UK, France, Denmark and Spain. The UK is now the most pro-immigration and most likely to say government should increase taxes and spend more money. As always happens people have had enough of this type of government on policy.

There's also signs that Scottish Labour is reviving - they're up to about 30% in some recent polls. And I think their campaign against the SNP ("it's not enough to oppose the Tories - it's time to replace them") is pretty effective. And a revival of Scottish Labour into a living political party again is really important for Labour's chances. The other point on that is that it looks like Sturgeon is going to step down before the next Scottish election - probably with enough time to give a successor time to establish themselves as First Minister. So she's probably going to step down at some point in 2023/4 and it'll be interesting to see what or who is next for the SNP especially as it's now increasingly clear Sturgeon will have failed to get a second referendum which may cause a bit of a ruckus between the moderates and the hard-line.

There's all sorts of other polling that is going in the right direction - there's more trust in Labour on the economy, taxes and debt (which is a bit like the Tories being more trusted on the NHS - it is very unusual) etc.

But - at the back of my head I think an 80 seat majority is still really difficult to overturn in one election and it needs a swing as big as 97. So I'm optimstic but I do keep worrying that it'll be like 1992 when Labour are very confident things are going very well only for the Tories to pull a surprise victory

It's not as big a deal as the polling but I'm noticing a bit of cultural nostalgia for New Labour era which is also possibly helpful. Those nostalgia sites/accounts are now doing "remember this" about New Labour TV ads from 1997 (which are painfully 90s in their styling ), Things Can Only Get Better seems to be having a bit of a comeback etc. I think people are starting, culturally, to move past New Labour as war and the crash and associate it more with those hopeful now rather distant late 90s/early 00s vibes.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The tory majority is very reliant on conning social classes D and E these days; these people are going to be absolutely hammered by the "cost of living" crisis 

I'm therefore optimistic that the 80-seat majority can be overturned.

I just hope that Starmer and co can come in with some reforming zeal rather than providing us with tory-lite policies for one parliament.