Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

As Joan says neither are really channelling Thatcher in that there is no suggestion of raising VAT or duties to pay for reductions in direct taxation. Truss seems somewhat monetarist in her opposition to QE and alleged  Bank of England orthodoxy.

[Sheilbh]

But in the UK context where Thatcher still looms so large in the Tory consciousness - in a way Reagan used to but no longer does in the US - its important to keep in mind that Thatcherism wasn't just about tax cutting, it was about restructuring the fiscal system to be more regressive, with more "flat" taxation.  Neither current candidate seems to be invoking that critical aspect, which is essential to the traditional supply side creed.

Sure - but I think the point the Newsnight piece was making is that there are two sides to the Thatcher myth. Both candidates are claiming her mantle (Truss quite literally) but they are emphasising those two different sides of Thatcher.

It's true that Sunak isn't planning to double VAT - although he has frozen tax thresholds and imposed some windfall taxes - but he's pointing to the Thatcher/Howe era. Truss has referenced Thatcher and Nigel Lawson - and in emphasising tax cuts over deficit reducttion (I think Howe called "Lafferism" a "dogma") she's more pointing at late era Thatcher in her pomp.

It's true that neither is suggesting to fully impose Thatcherite policy, but they're both claiming her as an inspiration and also true that both have an argument on that.

Separately I love and totally, absolutely agree with this piece - I'd just bold the whole thing, so I've bolded none of it

The vibes theory of politics
Our 'beliefs' are often just unexamined tribal loyalties
Janan Ganesh
Janan Ganesh July 22 2022

Rishi Sunak, who wanted to leave the EU before that cause was popular, is trailing with the Conservative grassroots. Liz Truss, who campaigned with some vigour to remain, polls better among them.

This oddity takes explaining. One theory cites his not being white. Another his reluctance to promise tax cuts. Yet a third his mutiny at the outgoing leader. But all three things are true of Kemi Badenoch, a now-eliminated hopeful, and she is liked on the right.

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.

Twenty years in and around politics have left me sure of one thing. Most people's ideological commitments are extraordinarily soft. What they think of as a belief is often a post-hoc rationalisation of a group loyalty. Crucially, this is more true, not less, of degree-holding, "high-information" voters. What education can do is estrange people from parents and home town. It leaves them casting around for an alternative identity. Political tribe is as good as any.

Why should someone who is pro-Net Zero also be pro-European Convention on Human Rights, well-disposed to Meghan Markle and squeamish about Dave Chappelle's standup gigs? A clever progressive could find a philosophic thread that links those positions. But an honest one would admit to being carried along in the herd.

I am alive to this habit because I possess it. Why do I side with Sunak over Truss? Or with Emmanuel Macron, a protectionist with a weird thing for Russia going back several years? There are reasons of substance to cite. But in all candour, it is also a matter of vibes and tribes. At a base, atavistic level, these are my people. They dress and act like the average of my 10 best friends. If there are some awkward policies in the way, I will reinterpret them. I can hardly complain if Tories look at Sunak, run the same heuristic and vote Truss.

For a sense of how little I believe in belief, here is an experiment that I have been running in my head for two years. Imagine, at the start of the pandemic, that Donald Trump had shut his country down and Angela Merkel had kept hers open. He justified his action as a protector of the homeland while she stressed liberal ideals. ("As a girl in East Germany, I saw the human cost of draconian . . . ")

I bet the pandemic culture war we have seen since 2020 would have been exactly inverted. It would have been a badge of rightwing pride the world over to mask up or stay in. It would have been a progressive statement to bare your face and party. People don't work out what they think and then join the corresponding tribe. They join a tribe and infer from it what they think. Sunak is intellectually Tory but tribally not. Such is the team sport of politics today. It is fiercer and fiercer, about less and less.

[Duque de Bragança]

Massive queues at the Channel crossings as the first post-Brexit and post-pandemic summer holiday kicks off.

I hope every Leave voter in the queue gets stuck in there until their holiday is ruined.

What if some of them are refugee Remain voters leaving the country for the last time?

:tongue:

Brexit means Brexit.

[Josquius]

Massive queues at the Channel crossings as the first post-Brexit and post-pandemic summer holiday kicks off.

I hope every Leave voter in the queue gets stuck in there until their holiday is ruined.

Don't worry, France is to blame, if they'd opened those other 5 passport control boothes for more of the time then there'd be no issue.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm rereading the Plantagenets by Dan Jones, and I'm wondering is there any precedent for Phillip Battenberg getting stiffed on a new dynasty name when he marries the female heir?

[Sheilbh]

And on the symbolic signaling it looks like my example of Labour and nationalisation has actually happened this morning.

Starmer in his leadership campaign pledged to keep the Corbyn commitment to nationalising rail, energy and water. This is one of several pledges Starmer made as a Corbynite without Corbyn candidate for the leadership that he's now dumping - which either shows an utter lack of principle and integrity, or an admirable ruthlessness and focus on winning depending on your perspective.

This morning the shadow Chancellor (who's very close to Starmer) basically announced Labour would not be nationalising rail, energy or water. They seem to be walking back that line a little bit now, in relation to rail saying they didn't hear the "rail" bit of the question and that "we are pragmatic about public ownership as long as it sits within our fiscal rules –a point Rachel was underlining in the interview by referencing this framework. For example, we know there is a positive role for rail in public ownership".

Not sure I agree with separating out rail. There's a case for nationalising but from everything I've read it feels like water is the utility with the best justification for nationalisation, but rail is totemic.

[Josquius]

Labour REALLY don't want me voting for them next election. This will doubtless mean they win of course.

As to rail vs water and energy. I guess with rail is so much easier to underdtand how the privatised system works and how its broken.
Also its far more visible and immediately impactful on people's lives and holidays.
Honestly for me rail is the one I care about the most.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not that bothered by nationalisation or not, but I think Labour have space to be bolder on the economy which is where they want to fight the next election. I'm not sure they're really taking it and am slightly worried that their attack lines - Truss and Sunak being fiscally irresponsible and believing in a "magic money tree" - will basically just enable and reinforce Tory attacks on Labour instead.

I think with a couple of exceptions - like the net zero investment - it's all a bit too much in a defensive crouch at the minute.

Also I think I've mentioned this before but it seems like they're doing the things that Labour did in the 80s and 90s because that's what Labour did in the 80s and 90s on their route back to power. But that was based on the analysis by Kinnock, Blair etc of Labour's position at that point - what I'm not sure about is whether Starmer and his team really have a similar analysis of what Labour needs to do to win now, or if there's just an element of cosplaying what worked last time. It slightly worries me.

[Maladict]

I'm rereading the Plantagenets by Dan Jones, and I'm wondering is there any precedent for Phillip Battenberg getting stiffed on a new dynasty name when he marries the female heir?

The House of Orange did it three times in a row last century.

Edit: not a precedent

[Josquius]

So I've read starmers actual comments on nationalisation... And they're just very reasonable political speak, not speaking against nationalisation.
Basically nationalisation for nationalisations sake isn't the goal. What gives the best end result is.
Ie nationalisation remains the goal.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe - that's obviosly correct but I think also a politician's way of saying "no"

[Gups]

Labour REALLY don't want me voting for them next election. This will doubtless mean they win of course.

As to rail vs water and energy. I guess with rail is so much easier to underdtand how the privatised system works and how its broken.
Also its far more visible and immediately impactful on people's lives and holidays.
Honestly for me rail is the one I care about the most.

But rail is effectively nationalised already since the franchise system was abolished in 2020. Network Rail is a state owned company. Four of the operators are run by the state. The rest are run on concessions just as the London bus and rail systems are. Apart from branding you would see hardly any difference if there was nationalisation.

[Sheilbh]

Oh RIP Lord Trimble

Leader of the Ulster Unionists who negotiated the Good Friday Agreement and won the Nobel Prize jointly with John Hume for it (who also died relatively recently).

[Josquius]

But rail is effectively nationalised already since the franchise system was abolished in 2020. Network Rail is a state owned company. Four of the operators are run by the state. The rest are run on concessions just as the London bus and rail systems are. Apart from branding you would see hardly any difference if there was nationalisation

There's little reason to trust the tories left to themselves would leave it so. Especially if thatcherites come back into power.
Indeed the current system is explicitly not permanent, its more just trying to make the husk of the old one work where there's no profits to leech.

Maybe - that's obviosly correct but I think also a politician's way of saying "no"

I think it's more just setting up defences against the inevitable tory attack lines where they do their typical projection thing and go on about labour putting ideology before common sense.
He's setting out in advance "I'm the sensible one who jsut wants to do what works"

Potentially along similar lines also trying to kick the far left into action so he can be seen to be at odds with them by centrists too?

[Sheilbh]

Watching the debate and I'm not sure. Sunak is talking over and interrupting Truss a lot - but I think is also making by far the better points. My suspicion is it's coming across badly though - but I'm not sure

First 20 minutes on tax/cost of living/defiit then 10 minutes on levelling up. Five minutes on China and now Ukraine.

Slightly weird that after saying Truss became a Conservative because she saw wasted potential in her state school and now saying levelling up is personal because she grew up in (a very leafy, pleasant bit of) Leeds - because she also grew up in the 80s when that wasted potential and urban hellscape was under a Conservative government

Edit: Ukraine was very brief as they were both very complementary to each other and basically said it makes no difference who wins - which is positive. Now we're onto climate.