Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Duque de Bragança]

Melenchon and Syriza have replaced the centre-left parties in their countries.

That's partially true.
Mélenchon and Macron, have replaced the PS in France. See how many former PS types are in Macron's clique. Open to all opportunists, truth be said but with definitively a PS slant.

[Sheilbh]

What is strange about Corbyn is not that his ilk exist, they always have been there floating around the fringe. But that they successfully managed to take over the party....and then completely fall flat with their populism with the public at large. I guess that shit only works from the right.

Yeah I think the energies that Corbyn harnassed to win the leadership - and then win more decisively again in 2016 - were basically left populism. There were lots of people around him who are still very interested in that as a future for the left. I think Corbyn has an interest in it in a general sense - if for no other reason than that I think there are probably very few MPs with as much of a history of engagement and interest in Latin American politics and social movements.

But, I think while Corbyn benefited from that and gestured towards it, at heart he is a Bennite. He is just the latest iteration of the Labour hard left with all their preoccupations and flaws, which I think became clear the longer he was leader. I've mentioned it before but Corbyn's ratings recover for 2017 and hold up until Salisbury and after his response to the Salisbury attacks they never recover.

2017 was comparatively successful for Labour - almost 10% swing, highest share of the vote since 2001 and a recovery back to the 2010 position in terms of MPs. I'm not sure why it was different but it makes me think a left populist approach without Corbyn's baggage, or a more traditional Labour leader running a decent campaign would have done very well against May - whether any of the alternatives (Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Smith) were capable of that I'm less sure.

Edit: Also centre left populism was very much Blair's style (before the messianism got the better of him) and it delivered the longest serving Labour government. But the People's Party, the People's Prime Minister, leading "nothing less than the political wing of the British people" against vested interests is a very populist style. I think Thatcher is also the great populist right model in the UK. In terms of whether it can work from left or right, I'd say it's a score draw.

[Jacob]

What is strange about Corbyn is not that his ilk exist, they always have been there floating around the fringe. But that they successfully managed to take over the party....and then completely fall flat with their populism with the public at large. I guess that shit only works from the right.

The thing with populism is that you need your propaganda machine to be running at full steam. I think the reactionary right does a better job here than the reactionary left by a fair margin.

[Tamas]

What is strange about Corbyn is not that his ilk exist, they always have been there floating around the fringe. But that they successfully managed to take over the party....and then completely fall flat with their populism with the public at large. I guess that shit only works from the right.

The thing with populism is that you need your propaganda machine to be running at full steam. I think the reactionary right does a better job here than the reactionary left by a fair margin.

Also I have recently heard a compelling argument on this one: far right views are simply far more "pleasant" for people - they talk to animal instincts of fear and aggression. Leftist views apart from the most rabid and violent far-left ones are not like that, they are a much more intellectual (as in non-instinctual) approach to politics.

[Sheilbh]

Also I have recently heard a compelling argument on this one: far right views are simply far more "pleasant" for people - they talk to animal instincts of fear and aggression. Leftist views apart from the most rabid and violent far-left ones are not like that, they are a much more intellectual (as in non-instinctual) approach to politics.

I'm always suspicious of anything that sounds like a very comforting explanation for the left (or any side in politics) to tell itself

Edit: If, with the left, for no other reason than it sounds like it's already preparing for another "noble defeat" - which is maybe part of the problem.

[Jacob]

Also I have recently heard a compelling argument on this one: far right views are simply far more "pleasant" for people - they talk to animal instincts of fear and aggression. Leftist views apart from the most rabid and violent far-left ones are not like that, they are a much more intellectual (as in non-instinctual) approach to politics.

I think that's true now but I don't think it's a fact inherent in the broad ideological positions. Without getting too much into definitional arguments over what is left and what is right, I think you can do relatively uncomplicated stuff with "everyone - including you and your family - should have a fair shot at happiness, should not fear poverty, should have opportunities for a better life" and "the rich are taking more than their fair share" and "people should be allowed to be who they want to be" and "helping other people is okay."

I mean, some of those wells have been fairly thoroughly poisoned by right wing propaganda so don't yield much right now, and some of them have reasonable counter arguments or complicated nuance if you get into it. But "we help each other and society prospers" is pretty instinctual IMO.

[Josquius]

I've definitely heard the argument before that right wing rhetoric relies on "fast" thinking whilst left wing rhetoric tends to rely on "slow" thinking (see Kahnemans work) which puts the left at an immediate disadvantage if tensions can be inflamed.
It does line up with reality as I've seen it.

Of course there's unthinking cultists on the left too. Particularly with the Corbynesque core-America is bad ergo Russia must be good and all that.
But when appealing to the middle by nature the left tends to rely on holistic thinking rather than "common sense".

[Barrister]

Also I have recently heard a compelling argument on this one: far right views are simply far more "pleasant" for people - they talk to animal instincts of fear and aggression. Leftist views apart from the most rabid and violent far-left ones are not like that, they are a much more intellectual (as in non-instinctual) approach to politics.

I'm always suspicious of anything that sounds like a very comforting explanation for the left (or any side in politics) to tell itself

Edit: If, with the left, for no other reason than it sounds like it's already preparing for another "noble defeat" - which is maybe part of the problem.

While there certainly is a intellectual leftism, it certainly isn't exclusively so.  I mean "blame the rich" is a pretty populist argument.

[Jacob]

I've definitely heard the argument before that right wing rhetoric relies on "fast" thinking whilst left wing rhetoric tends to rely on "slow" thinking (see Kahnemans work) which puts the left at an immediate disadvantage if tensions can be built.
It does line up with reality as I've seen it.

Jesus christ what a load of bullshit.

"The left can't win because we're too intellectual and don't go for easy sounding solutions to complicated problems"

[Josquius]

I've definitely heard the argument before that right wing rhetoric relies on "fast" thinking whilst left wing rhetoric tends to rely on "slow" thinking (see Kahnemans work) which puts the left at an immediate disadvantage if tensions can be built.
It does line up with reality as I've seen it.

Jesus christ what a load of bullshit.

"The left can't win because we're too intellectual and don't go for easy sounding solutions to complicated problems"

Not really. It's a theory that has been  researched.
Eg
https://www.psypost.org/2017/06/study-people-left-right-use-different-cognitive-systems-make-moral-judgments-49187
Not proven fact by any means but a perfectly sensible theory.

And, well, look at the arguments of the modern right and left and it's clear they're very often appealing to different places e.g. "get brexit done" vs "negotiate a sensible brexit deal then put it to a confirmatory vote" and then for a third option of left wing fast thinking from the lib dems "cancel brexit"

This was pretty heavily discussed back when trump won his election.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/trump-s-victory-and-the-neuroscience-of-rage/

[Jacob]

While there certainly is a intellectual leftism, it certainly isn't exclusively so.  I mean "blame the rich" is a pretty populist argument.

I agree with the honourable languishite from Alberta.

[Jacob]

Not really. It's a theory that has been  researched.
Eg
https://www.psypost.org/2017/06/study-people-left-right-use-different-cognitive-systems-make-moral-judgments-49187

And, well, look at the arguments of the modern right and left and it's clear they're very often appealing to different places e.g. "get brexit done" vs "negotiate a sensible brexit deal then put it to a confirmatory vote" and then for a third option of left wing fast thinking from the lib dems "cancel brexit"

This was pretty heavily discussed back when trump won his election.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/trump-s-victory-and-the-neuroscience-of-rage/

There's a long way from "people who self-identify as leftists are slower to make moral decisions compared to self-identified rightists when they have to pay attention to scrolling numbers on a screen at the same time" or even "one way for populism to succeed is to appeal to rage and offer simple solutions" to "people on the left don't go for easy sounding solutions and that's why the left can't win."

And there's an even longer way to go from there to mapping it to Brexit of all things.

In fact... it's a very good example of you - a leftist - going for an easy sounding explanation

[Josquius]

Not really. It's a theory that has been  researched.
Eg
https://www.psypost.org/2017/06/study-people-left-right-use-different-cognitive-systems-make-moral-judgments-49187

And, well, look at the arguments of the modern right and left and it's clear they're very often appealing to different places e.g. "get brexit done" vs "negotiate a sensible brexit deal then put it to a confirmatory vote" and then for a third option of left wing fast thinking from the lib dems "cancel brexit"

This was pretty heavily discussed back when trump won his election.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/trump-s-victory-and-the-neuroscience-of-rage/

There's a long way from "people who self-identify as leftists are slower to make moral decisions compared to self-identified rightists when they have to pay attention to scrolling numbers on a screen at the same time" or even "one way for populism to succeed is to appeal to rage and offer simple solutions" to "people on the left don't go for easy sounding solutions and that's why the left can't win."

And there's an even longer way to go from there to mapping it to Brexit of all things.

In fact... it's a very good example of you - a leftist - going for an easy sounding explanation

So what's your explanation for trump and brexit then if not tapping into system 1 thinking?

As said its all just a theory, it's not absolute fact, but it is a pretty convincing one that makes a hell of a lot of sense.
To say a single factor alone can be counted on for anything is daft but I'd place money on this being in the mix (if it was provable and gambling wasn't dumb)

[Barrister]

So what's your explanation for trump and brexit then if not tapping into system 1 thinking?

There's a definite populist trend in the right these days, and you picked two decent examples of them.

It's when you say that all right wing thinking is that way, and all left-wing thinking is intellectual and complicated, that you fall into error.

Left wingers can be dumb populists too.

[Josquius]

So what's your explanation for trump and brexit then if not tapping into system 1 thinking?

There's a definite populist trend in the right these days, and you picked two decent examples of them.

It's when you say that all right wing thinking is that way, and all left-wing thinking is intellectual and complicated, that you fall into error.

Left wingers can be dumb populists too.

We are talking about recent UK politics (with a side of America). Not all politics ever.

It's interesting though that Corbyn was a dumb populist... Yet still relied heavily on overly complex rhetoric and being fluffy about everything rather than simple soundbites.