Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

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

Yeah.

I basically think populism is a style of politics - it positions the people/the people's will against elites/the establishment/vested interests, and x party/leader can fix it. There's nothing left or right about it, it can be either and it can even be centrist. But, in my view, there's no there there. It is just a style.

I think there's been a bit of people using populism to mean Brexit and Trump, but that's the only thing they're looking at to define what populism is that kind of excludes any populism that isn't on that model/doesn't fit that criteria.

I don't think the left is more intellectual (though some leftists are - to their and the wider left's detriment ). In Western Europe I think there were big structural and real factors that formed the basis of the left - industrial centres, unions, working class institutions. Those don't exist in the same way and that's been discombobulating for the left which has needed to construct a new coaltion without those solid foundations - I think the left in some countries have found that easier than others. I think a similar process has either happened or is happening to the right now and they'll face the same challenges.

For both sides in Western Europe the way that we did politics was through mass political parties - and I think that's also collapsed since the end of the Cold War. In the UK, the Tories alone had over a million members until 1990, they're now maybe about 150,000. I think without that link and mass membership, party politics will become more disconnected with highly unrepresentative weirdos fighting over things. I suspect that will make voters engage less and probably lead to lower turnout, more populism, more anti-politics and maybe more people voting for candidates with a media brand rather than for parties. I think that's certanly been the trend (across Europe) of the last 30 years. I think the parties acted as almost the tendons of the political system connecting everyday people and voters to elite decision makers. I'm not sure what happens now that connection has largely gone.

I don't think we can go back to what we had, although - under Corbyn - Labour briefly had a claim to being a mass party again. But I think it's a really key difference with the US that there what seems to be happening is a deepening polarisation and politics moving into every area of life, while the story in the UK and - from what I've read - across Europe too is of increased volatility. It's the collapse of party loyalties and people pinging from Lib Dem to Labour to Leave to UKIP to Tory or Socialist to Forza Italia to M5S to Lega to Fratelli d'Italia.

[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.

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.

But that's the thing about Corbyn (as seen from afar): he took a very populist approach, but the causes he promoted weren't actually very popular!

[Barrister]

I don't think we can go back to what we had, although - under Corbyn - Labour briefly had a claim to being a mass party again. But I think it's a really key difference with the US that there what seems to be happening is a deepening polarisation and politics moving into every area of life, while the story in the UK and - from what I've read - across Europe too is of increased volatility. It's the collapse of party loyalties and people pinging from Lib Dem to Labour to Leave to UKIP to Tory or Socialist to Forza Italia to M5S to Lega to Fratelli d'Italia.

It's kind of a general change in society as a whole.  Back in the day people joined groups, societies, etc.  There's no internet so you couldn't actually socialize without going outside of your home.  So it goes well beyond just political parties - it extends to service clubs, fraternal organizations, churches, sports clubs, etc.

People just aren't joining groups any more.

And yes I can remember how our family identified as being Conservative (well, Progressive Conservative).  Voted the same way every election, same as my grandparents.  I really don't think anyone has such loyalties any longer, for good and bad.

[Josquius]

]

But that's the thing about Corbyn (as seen from afar): he took a very populist approach, but the causes he promoted weren't actually very popular!

I wouldn't agree that was the issue with Corbyn at all.
Polling consistently shows that taken in isolation most of labours policies were popular. It's worth remembering that corbyn wasn't a dictator pushing his views. Labours manifesto under Corbyn was pretty much from the centre of the party and went against his personal views in a lot of areas.

The problems with him were far more..

1: he was toxic. He kept putting his foot in his mouth and completely failing to handle the media.
He, along with Diane abbot (black woman boo) became built up as the embodiment of the culture war threat from the left, even when he didn't have those views-eg he is personally anti EU and followed a pro brexit policy post refereneum... Yet became painted as an arch remoaner.

 Rather than giving clear political answers when the time was right for them he'd dally and try to give a balanced answer, even on stuff where one wide was clearly correct. The handling of the anti semitism thing is a big example here.

2: the manifesto was unfocused. Taken in isolation a lot of its contents are very popular but the way they were presented as a big mess of stuff, combined with Corbyns lack of credability....
Up against this were simple slogans of get brexit done and levelling up that lacked any meat but who cares.

I really do think that the bulk of the 2019 manifesto with better messaging and a centre left leader would have been a winner.

Corbyn as a populist for unpopular issues... I'd say its true about him as a person and his general career. But not so much his time in power. Which is a problem. He was trying to present system 2 arguments as a system 1 guy with completely different priorities and no particular single target.

[Josquius]

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

Yeah.

I basically think populism is a style of politics - it positions the people/the people's will against elites/the establishment/vested interests, and x party/leader can fix it. There's nothing left or right about it, it can be either and it can even be centrist. But, in my view, there's no there there. It is just a style.

I think there's been a bit of people using populism to mean Brexit and Trump, but that's the only thing they're looking at to define what populism is that kind of excludes any populism that isn't on that model/doesn't fit that criteria.

I don't think the left is more intellectual (though some leftists are - to their and the wider left's detriment ). In Western Europe I think there were big structural and real factors that formed the basis of the left - industrial centres, unions, working class institutions. Those don't exist in the same way and that's been discombobulating for the left which has needed to construct a new coaltion without those solid foundations - I think the left in some countries have found that easier than others. I think a similar process has either happened or is happening to the right now and they'll face the same challenges.

For both sides in Western Europe the way that we did politics was through mass political parties - and I think that's also collapsed since the end of the Cold War. In the UK, the Tories alone had over a million members until 1990, they're now maybe about 150,000. I think without that link and mass membership, party politics will become more disconnected with highly unrepresentative weirdos fighting over things. I suspect that will make voters engage less and probably lead to lower turnout, more populism, more anti-politics and maybe more people voting for candidates with a media brand rather than for parties. I think that's certanly been the trend (across Europe) of the last 30 years. I think the parties acted as almost the tendons of the political system connecting everyday people and voters to elite decision makers. I'm not sure what happens now that connection has largely gone.

I don't think we can go back to what we had, although - under Corbyn - Labour briefly had a claim to being a mass party again. But I think it's a really key difference with the US that there what seems to be happening is a deepening polarisation and politics moving into every area of life, while the story in the UK and - from what I've read - across Europe too is of increased volatility. It's the collapse of party loyalties and people pinging from Lib Dem to Labour to Leave to UKIP to Tory or Socialist to Forza Italia to M5S to Lega to Fratelli d'Italia.

This isn't about being more intellectual. Nobody said that. It's fundamental psychology.
Look to trade unions for instance.
Fast thinking... Don't upset the cart. Keep your job. Be a scab.
Slow thinking however... United the workers can get much more.

Though I will say the intellectual left has always been a thing in labour from its very foundation. The browns love to whinge about how Labour has lost its way and become all metropolitan liberal elite but thus has it ever been. Its the entire reason the party exists to combine working class and urban middle class socialism.
Lots of great labour figures come from this side of things. Attlee for instance.

[Admiral Yi]

This isn't about being more intellectual. Nobody said that. It's fundamental psychology.
Look to trade unions for instance.
Fast thinking... Don't upset the cart. Keep your job. Be a scab.
Slow thinking however... United the workers can get much more.

Though I will say the intellectual left has always been a thing in labour from its very foundation. The browns love to whinge about how Labour has lost its way and become all metropolitan liberal elite but thus has it ever been. Its the entire reason the party exists to combine working class and urban middle class socialism.
Lots of great labour figures come from this side of things. Attlee for instance.

Even slower thinking: if we demand too much our employer will go bust and we will be out our jobs.

What is a brown?

[Jacob]

What is a brown?

Fascists and fellow travelers.

[Jacob]

This isn't about being more intellectual. Nobody said that. It's fundamental psychology.
Look to trade unions for instance.
Fast thinking... Don't upset the cart. Keep your job. Be a scab.
Slow thinking however... United the workers can get much more.

Though I will say the intellectual left has always been a thing in labour from its very foundation. The browns love to whinge about how Labour has lost its way and become all metropolitan liberal elite but thus has it ever been. Its the entire reason the party exists to combine working class and urban middle class socialism.
Lots of great labour figures come from this side of things. Attlee for instance.

Sounds little too much just so.

[Sheilbh]

It's kind of a general change in society as a whole.  Back in the day people joined groups, societies, etc.  There's no internet so you couldn't actually socialize without going outside of your home.  So it goes well beyond just political parties - it extends to service clubs, fraternal organizations, churches, sports clubs, etc.

People just aren't joining groups any more.

Yeah I think Bowling Alone is twenty years old now.

I'm not so worried about people not joining. I think that's one side of what's going on with politics - but I think there's been a mutual withdrawal. People pulling back from parties, voters turning out less and politiicans doing well if they can position themselves as outside politics or their party.

I think that is part of why populist politicians do well. In the Corbyn example he was a backbencher for 30 years - but he was always opposed to the Labour leadership, always a rebel. Similarly I think it's why the ur-populist in Europe, Berlusconi, promised to run Italy like a company and called on his business and football experience. Neither were really tainted by party politics.

But I think it's also tied to appeals to the "people" or everyone as opposed to the old sectarian interests - and while it wasn't class war, the tradition in Western Europe was you broadly had one big party advancing the interests of organised labour and the working class and one big party advancing the professional and middle class. The parties clearly represented a constituency. Now I think all parties are trying to appeal to everyone - I think that's where populism as a style comes in as helpful.

I think without those tendons we swing from people who are positioned as able to serve everyone/the people/the public interest rather than those distinct constituencies. On the one hand you have people who pose as apolitical experts/technocrats who have identical policies and no politics and populists who offer politics but no policies. And sometimes you get both in one person - like Macron. So we sort of swing from a model of democracy where voters are just one set of stakeholders among many to manage v another that's basically media democracy rather than particularly participative, it's people performing on TV.

And maybe that is the future. Perhaps Central and Eastern Europe is where we're aiming for. Because of Soviet occupation, they weren't democracies in the heyday of European party democracies. So they don't have those traditions. Instead you have parties that rise and fall relatively quickly and it seems (from the outside) to involve a lot of coalition building from a relatively disinterested voterbase. You look at M5S as maybe a model for that of people who want a lot of the political class but aren't willing to do more than read Beppe Grillo's blog and vote in the odd M5S party votes. Or the model of Macron where his party doesn't have members - it's top down - but people can declare their support and volunteer.

And yes I can remember how our family identified as being Conservative (well, Progressive Conservative).  Voted the same way every election, same as my grandparents.  I really don't think anyone has such loyalties any longer, for good and bad.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that's getting more common in the US though? Including the down the line voters rising and party swing mattering more than local factors.

But that's the thing about Corbyn (as seen from afar): he took a very populist approach, but the causes he promoted weren't actually very popular!

Corbyn's team were the most successful I've seen in British politics at using social media which he would do on genuinely popular issues.

For example his approach to PMQs used to annoy the rest of the parliamentary Labour Party. He would basically give a mini-speech about how wonderful the NHS is and then some ridiculous question like "why is the Prime Minister evil?" In the House it didn't work because they were really easy to bat back. But that wasn't what they were doing - they were clipping his questions and putting them on social media.

Similarly in the UK you have opposition days when the opposition gets parliamentary time to do whatever it wants. Again the clever way to use these from a parliamentary perspective is to force a vote that would cause issues for the government (the Truss fracking vote for example). Corbyn tended not to do that and would have very broad motions basically condemning the government for killing people through austerity. The Tories just started not attending and not voting - which again on social media led to photos of the Commons with captions like "no Tories here to talk about the NHS" etc.

They were good at the popular stuff. Similarly in 2017 the Manchester attack happened during the election and my expectation was that it would lead to people pulling back from Corbyn because of his views on foreign policy etc. It didn't. Instead the Labour line that austerity had cut back public services including the police and we needed x thousand more officers really landed. So there was really popular stuff - I think especially around anti-austerity in the last few years.

But Corbyn is someone who's been an MP since 83. He has very fixed views on some issues especially foreign policy - he isn't really interested in domestic policy. And that meant that while the people around him were always trying to push the more popular bits of the agenda, he would absolutely get into massive fights with much of the rest of Labour about withdrawing from NATO, Syria or unilateral nuclear disarmament because that's the stuff he really cared about.

[Sheilbh]

Also really good piece on Starmer's positioning on Europe - which, personally, I think is not only the right approach but probably the one rejoiners should get behind, for now:

Keir Starmer daren't tell us he'll align with Europe
Worries about alienating Red Wall voters mean the cautious Labour leader is ignoring the call of New Labour ghosts
Patrick Maguire
Monday December 05 2022, 12.01am, The Times

Thirty seconds of grainy film from the Oxford Union are perhaps the most powerful testimony to what Europe can do to a Labour politician's sense of self. It is the eve of the 1975 referendum on Britain's membership of the European Economic Community and Barbara Castle, one of only seven cabinet ministers to have endorsed withdrawal, has just concluded a televised jeremiad against the ills of the Common Market. Across the floor, Jeremy Thorpe plays the smart alec. Surely, the Liberal leader smirks, she will resign if Britain votes to stay in? "If the vote goes 'Yes'," Castle growled in reply, "my country will need me to save it even more!"

Thorpe thought her messianic tone hilarious. He rolled his eyes and drew a halo around his head with his finger. For pro-Europeans it seemed the perfect case study in the derangement of their opponents. Yet Castle really meant it. Or at least she did on that night in Oxford.

After the vote went Yes — by the sort of crushing margin that seemed to vindicate the derision of cosmopolitan smoothies such as Thorpe and Roy Jenkins — something curious happened. Within four years she was Labour's leader in the European Parliament. Within a decade she had recanted the old religion entirely. Old comrades on the left denounced her as an apostate, but Castle was unbowed. Remorselessly pragmatic, she had reconciled herself to a new reality in pursuit of power. Just as Nixon went to China, Castle went to Strasbourg, and found she rather liked it.

Sir Keir Starmer wants voters to think he has been on a similar journey, albeit in the opposite direction. Remainers once believed the Labour leader would save them. Though never the conviction Europhile of Corbynite myth, Starmer gave them every reason to believe he would oblige. It won him the leadership in 2020. Indeed, he really won two years earlier, when he broke ranks and told the Labour conference that nobody was ruling out Remain as an option in a second referendum. Boris Johnson may have subsequently got Brexit done, but Starmer promised that his Labour Party would defend that most cherished of Europhile shibboleths: the free movement of people.

As with the rest of the ten pledges he made to the Labour membership, that commitment lasted about five minutes. Starmer, who this time three years ago couldn't leave the house without a People's Vote march forming in his wake, now refuses to entertain any meaningful discussion on Brexit. Not in public, anyway.

When word surfaced in The Sunday Times a fortnight ago that Rishi Sunak was considering Swiss-style alignment with the EU, it was denounced most viciously not by any Tory but by Starmer, who rejected out of hand the prospect of a Labour government rejoining either the single market or customs union. That, the Labour leader would like us to believe, is the beginning and end of any discussion he or his party are willing to entertain on Europe.

Given how badly Labour lost in 2019 (very), where it lost (Brexit country), and who was the face of its divisive Brexit policy (Sir Keir Starmer), it is no surprise that its leadership thinks engaging in any conversation on Brexit amounts to a kamikaze mission, even as economic growth stalls and public opinion appears to curdle. It helps that Labour MPs, dozens of whom contemplated quitting the party over Europe, now agree. There is no latter-day Tony Benn or Ian Mikardo decrying Starmer's supposed treachery, as they did Castle's. As one senior shadow cabinet minister tells me: "There is a genuine belief across the party that we're going to win. These poll leads have created a new discipline. What's the point of complaining?"

Into this cosy consensus burst Sir Tony Blair and David Miliband. Both called for Britain to pursue a closer relationship with the EU. It is tempting to write off such interventions from these jet-setting New Labour veterans as political pyrite: readily occurring but ultimately worthless. There is certainly more than a touch of the Mandy Rice-Davies about it: they would say that, wouldn't they? But they merit a closer look precisely because Starmer, who listens to these very people, isn't saying what they're saying. Politics, as nature, abhors a vacuum, and the habitual caution of the Labour leadership leaves it needing to be filled by someone. "There's a nervousness in the Labour Party," Blair said, "that they will be painted as wanting to reverse Brexit." And he is right.

But why the anxiety, given most of Starmer's inner circle are convinced that victory at the next election is a matter of when, not if? And why the timidity, given that Labour have already committed themselves to softening Brexit by aligning to EU rules on agriculture, medicines and veterinary standards and will, I'm reliably told, soon promise more?

This is what Starmer meant when he told the CBI he would reduce trade barriers with the EU. In time, Labour will go "a bit further" in setting out how it will soften Brexit at the edges. That will mean a Labour government aligning with Brussels on environmental standards and workers' rights. That much is more or less a given. In private, shadow cabinet ministers say things like this: "We're not going to get into bed with China — we just want closer ties with Europe."

There's an ineluctable logic at play here but it's not the argument Labour will make in Bolsover and Barnsley come 2024. Starmer's rhetoric on this stuff is not quite as uncompromising as it may seem. He calls it making Brexit work, but it is really a recognition that Labour thinks it doesn't.

Going any further, the leadership fears, and supposedly settled questions rear their ugly heads with a new vengeance. Is Starmer really in control of his own destiny, or is he a prisoner of Blair, Gordon Brown and focus groups? Is he really reconciled to Brexit? Is Labour willing to countenance the return of free movement?

These questions, friends say, are the ones that really terrify him. Electoral logic points to one answer, even as Blair et al insist that Britain's economy demands another. Migration, in particular, haunts the front bench. "Look at Europe," a shadow minister says. "When the right fights the left at an election on migration, the right wins."

All of this invites the much bigger question faced by Labour members in 2020, to be posed in turn to the electorate in less than two years: which Keir Starmer is Britain getting? That question, like Europe, is one he cannot avoid for ever.

Patrick Maguire is Red Box editor

[Josquius]

Avoiding brexit is the right approach.
The tories will seek to use brexit as a handy disreaction from any actual issues - it fits nicely with the current channel refugee nonsense they're boosting.

I would say though that I think starmer is going too far in denying any prospect of a sensible brexit is on the cards.

Was the Swiss agreement stuff a trap? Perhaps. But his denial sat a bit too strong.
I suppose we can hope he does his term then leaves and the next leader in 6 years isn't beholden to this so can get us into a Swiss style situation. But starmers words will hurt.

]

Even slower thinking: if we demand too much our employer will go bust and we will be out our jobs.

What is a brown?

As said its not impossible to apply rational thinking to voting for a conservative party, and likewise just screaming about the elites is very possible from the left.

Nonetheless so many the working class tories and trumpies of today tend not to be doing this. Instead they've had their thought patterns hijacked with rage and bullshit that doesn't pass the most basic of scratch tests.

By hijacking this core surface level stuff then even if they do sit down and put some thought into it then they're working from a totally wrong set of facts.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure.

I think one of the weirdest things about politics in the UK right now is that there's instincts on both sides that are basically all in on false consciousness - and I'm not sure it's right

So the left looks at working class Brexit and Tory voters who've been, as you say, hijacked with rage and bullshit, while the right looks at young professionals who've been indoctrinated by cultural Marxism at university.

I'm not convinced on either. I think lots of working class Brexit and Tory voters are homeowners who have done relatively well in the last 10 years when we've had more or less full employment and cheap credit. They've maybe got working class income but, because of cheap credit, "Tory" lifestyles and as they're oftenin the 50% who don't go to university they're not experiencing 40%+ marginal tax rates on relatively low incomes.

Similarly young professionals are on 40% marginal tax rates on relatively low incomes. They're often based in cities where it's more difficult/expensive to get on the property ladder so they're exposed to the rental market and they're not really benefiting from cheap credit because they can't save enough for a deposit to get a mortgage and, living in urban areas, benefit less from, say, car loans.

It seems to me that both have very good material reasons for voting Tory or Labour and I'm not sure how much the cultural Marxism or the rage plays into it. People who are doing well or badly are voting for those parties, which is parly why I think Trussonomics and the implications for the cost of credit were lethal for the Tories.

[Tamas]

Voting Tory or Labour is one thing, but voting for Leave was an objectively foolish thing. I get it that they had reasons they thought were legitimate, but if those reasons are mistaken/misinformed, the decision made is still a mistake.

[Gups]

Well the Gove's given in to Theresa Villiers and her motley crew of anti-growth nimbys. Good luck ever becoming a part of a property-owning democracy kids.

Zack Simons nails it again

https://www.planoraks.com/posts-1/notes-on-reform-the-government-gives-up

Exceprt:

Turn the lights off on your way out, friends.

The weirdest bit of all is that until just months ago, fixing our obviously and painfully broken housing market was orthodox Conservative party policy. For instance:

"Our broken housing market is one of the greatest barriers to progress in Britain today. Whether buying or renting, the fact is that housing is increasingly unaffordable – particularly for ordinary working class people who are struggling to get by [...] The starting point is to build more homes."

Who said that? What out-of-touch developer-friendly Yimby monster? None other than the Rt Hon Theresa May MP when she was Prime Minister introducing that Government's attempts to fix the broken housing market.

Ready to play again? Ok:

"Debates about housing numbers tend to dominate this process, and a standard method for setting housing requirements would significantly reduce the time it takes to establish the amount of land to release in each area. This has historically been a time-consuming process which ultimately has not led to enough land being released where it is most needed (as reflected by worsening affordability). A standard requirement would differ from the current system of local housing need in that it would be binding, and so drive greater land release."

Which Green Belt-loathing urban hipster produced that errant nonsense? You guessed it: Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Secretary of State Robert Jenrick only a couple of years ago making a case for mandatory housing targets. They called that case "Planning for the Future".

What on earth, then, do we call the series of announcements this week. Most of which sketch an agenda which is just about the exact opposite. Well, Toto, we aren't planning for the future anymore. Which means, I guess, that we're planning... for the past.

[Tamas]

To be fair, the Tories have been big on talk of fixing the property market ever since I have come to this island. But then the most they actually do is further fuel demand by various subsides and tax breaks.

I am really getting resigned to having to live in this neo-feudalist setup if we want to stay in the UK. And needless to say there are lots of good reasons to stay. But the best I really hope for is to not be too much in negative equity when the whole thing inevitably breaks 1-40 years from now.