Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

Lol I had no idea the progressives' latest saviiur, Polanski, was advocating for breast expansion by hypnosis.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/09/zack-polanski-politics-green-party-leader

Not unhinged at all.

Shelf will be gutted that he made a major misstep last week, by changing his mind about appearing on 'Have I Got News For You' the show that gave Boris his first national exposure and from subsequent appearances on it, endeared himself with large sections of the voting public.

[Jacob]

I mean breast expanding hypnosis is pretty weird, sure, but that Guardian piece just seems like a "I'm not woke myself, but THIS is what woke people should be mad about! Why aren't they mad about the thing I think they should be mad about? Bunch of hypocrites! How can this guy be good when the people who like him should hate him according to me!" attack by a partisan of another party.

[Tamas]

Yeah as far Marina Hyde articles go (I like her) this is very weak. But still.

[Jacob]

Yeah as far Marina Hyde articles go (I like her) this is very weak. But still.

Yeah I don't have an opinion on the Greens, Polanski, or Hyde for that matter. So she may still be making a decent point. I guess the real question is the degree to which this is "the one weird thing from the past" (in which case it really doesn't matter IMO), or whether it's indicative of a deeper strain of weirdness that will come out should Polanski get political influence.

[Josquius]

Hypnoboobs is one the main smears about him. Back when the Greens were having their leadership election I heard about this one and as I wasn't really following the election for a long while it was all I knew about him.

His explanation for it makes sense and seems reasonable enough. He was working as a regular hypnotherapist and some tabloid journalist decided they wanted to put a fun angle on it so asked him if he could hypnotise their boobs bigger to which iirc he said he'd give it a shot.

The way I first saw it presented was he was himself pushing hypnotising boobs bigger as a thing he was eager to do and it would work. I also didn't know he was gay at the time so all sounded extra sleazy.

The other main empty attack you hear is the name change one. And his explanation again sounds a lot more reasonable than Yaxley Lenon.

He's been getting some more reasonable attacks lately though about his favourite economists. Also I'm not a fan of his definition of populist.

[Sheilbh]

Shelf will be gutted that he made a major misstep last week, by changing his mind about appearing on 'Have I Got News For You' the show that gave Boris his first national exposure and from subsequent appearances on it, endeared himself with large sections of the voting public.

Wut?

On the Hyde piece. I like Marina Hyde and I think she's basically right, particularly this point:

Listen, nobody's perfect. People have always held their nose at aspects of politicians' characters in order to be able to put a cross in one box or another. But across the political spectrum in recent years, that sort of realistic clearsightedness has evaporated in favour of something much more like stan culture, where your idol has to be ferociously defended even when they're in the wrong, simply because they're your idol. In fact, because they're your idol, they are axiomatically incapable of being in the wrong. This tendency is most definitely not limited to the left of that spectrum – you get it with Donald Trump or Nigel Farage or anyone whose supporters frequently refuse to be honest with themselves in the face of inconvenient revelations. But these are dangerous waters for a political culture. Wilful blindness enables bad politics.

I've said before and I think it was true of Corbyn too - as well as those obvious examples on the right - that we seem to be in fan/stan culture territory towards (some) political leaders. The point on it that worries me is that I think it is intrinsically personalist rather than ideological, or about a shared agenda. But I think it is where Hyde is quite useful as she started as an entertainment writer and I think we are in an age when understanding how sports or celebrity fandoms work is pretty useful in understanding our politics. Many of the strongest supporters have their support for, say, Corbyn or Trump as core a part of their identity as a sports fan or a Swiftie - which makes persuasion impossible. How do you try to convince Jos to abandon Sunderland, say?

FWIW I think she's also right. Does it matter - probably not (personally I think his previous history performing in the Liberal Democrat Glee Club is significantly more disqualifying on multiple counts). It's been known for a while. People who like Polanski won't care. People who don't like Polanski will probably make a nickname out of it because it is quite funny. People who haven't heard of him yet will probably respond based on how they react to Polanski more generally. I have no doubt that people who would make a lot of jokes about a Reform candidate with a history of hypnotherapeautic boob-growth will be quite po-faced about this and vice versa.

I'd add that like Hyde I also have a lot of problems with the argument that we need immigration to have a class of lower-paid people to do "demeaning" jobs. And again I have wider issues with the way we as a society treat those who need care - whether elderly or because of disabilities - so I don't like his framing on that. On both of those points I find the framing pretty morally repugnant - we don't value or respect the weak or the people who care for them (naively I had genuinely hoped covid was a break in how we perceive work). But I think on both points it's not specific to him - although I think it is sort of adjacent to the Little Britain/Benefit Street era contempt for the poor.

[Josquius]

But I think it is where Hyde is quite useful as she started as an entertainment writer and I think we are in an age when understanding how sports or celebrity fandoms work is pretty useful in understanding our politics. Many of the strongest supporters have their support for, say, Corbyn or Trump as core a part of their identity as a sports fan or a Swiftie - which makes persuasion impossible. How do you try to convince Jos to abandon Sunderland, say?

The club being taken over by an ultra conservative authoritarian dictatorship would do it.
Incidentally I really should get a Gateshead shirt.

I'd add that like Hyde I also have a lot of problems with the argument that we need immigration to have a class of lower-paid people to do "demeaning" jobs. And again I have wider issues with the way we as a society treat those who need care - whether elderly or because of disabilities - so I don't like his framing on that. On both of those points I find the framing pretty morally repugnant - we don't value or respect the weak or the people who care for them (naively I had genuinely hoped covid was a break in how we perceive work). But I think on both points it's not specific to him - although I think it is sort of adjacent to the Little Britain/Benefit Street era contempt for the poor.

On this too.... I recently noticed a case on BBC news of a male nursery worker in London being convicted for abusing children.
This really upset me. I mean, on a kids being abused the story itself level it did obviously.
But also on a deeper level that this is a huge problem in the UK, though we're making good progress on getting women into "men's jobs", "women's jobs" seem less suitable for men than ever. Which hurts the overall respect they get and damages staffing issues.
Compare to Switzerland where male nursery workers are pretty standard. Women are still the majority but most nurseries will have at least a man or two as well.


On the Hyde article and Polanski....
I think thats a problem with the 'populist' approach and trying to term things as the man on the street would. You will end up offending people. When you're on the far right this is fine. Offending inferior people is the name of the game. When you're trying to present yourself rather as a far left person who stands up for the weak though....It is a tight rope.
I never saw the bum wiping bit but I get the cringe. On the other hand his bit on the last leg about penguins choosing to identify however they want....I've not seen any trans outrage about that. It was a pretty nicely put way of ridiculing the anti-woke arguments.

He really needs to work on his framing with that one. Quite a complex issue where these jobs are considered undesirable thus not many Brits want to do them, as a current reality that needs addressing.... But we shouldn't keep propagating it.

He often gets attacked for just being a left wing Farage but....honestly I'm fine with that. Not my taste but that's the name of the game and if some those people who might be swayed by Farage can be swayed towards positive ends instead? This is fine.

She repeats the dodgy interpretation of the boob job story though. I'd like to see a good neutral writeup around that but his explanation definitely sounds believable.

[Tamas]

This is the stuff where human rights organisations seem out of touch not just witb the zeitgeist bit rational thinking as well: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/dec/10/keir-starmer-hierarchy-of-people-constraining-human-rights

This "risk of creating hierarchy of people" thing/ the entire idea of nation states or heck even tribes or families is based on creating a hierarchy. The state IS supposed to prefer the interests of its own citizens over non-citizens. It's basic stuff.

[Josquius]

Correct in terms of stuff like citizen of country X can access the social system of country X, work in country X, buy property in country X, etc...
In terms of what they're doing and constraining fundamental rights of non citizens.... No. That's something that is meant to be universal.

[Tamas]

Correct in terms of stuff like citizen of country X can access the social system of country X, work in country X, buy property in country X, etc...
In terms of what they're doing and constraining fundamental rights of non citizens.... No. That's something that is meant to be universal.

Yes but clearly a revision of practical applications of that is needed in the modern world. The current rules were clearly made with European conflicts in mind. Not when technology and global crisis intertwine to turn those old processes and interpretations into effective vehicles for immigration.

[Sheilbh]

Disappointed in myself, but I got slightly infuriated by a Labour MPs tweet on the start of the process to remove jury trial from many cases But prompted a couple of thoughts.

I was slightly disappointed at it from Natalie Fleet because I think she's an interesting MP - but she is very much classic soft left MP too. Broadly in line with the mass of the PLP under Starmer.

Natalie Fleet MP
@NatalieFleetMP
Spot the difference: Court Reform

Gov benches: Women fighting for swifter justice for victims let down by those opposite

Opposition: Men in suits clinging on to a Magna Carta myth...

Glad to be on side of @sarahsackman & gov, fighting for victims already failed for too long

I think this is an example, which I've mentioned to Raz before, of a lot of "identity politics" not being driven by the left but by the centre left. Olufemi Taiwo's Elite Capture is fantastic on this. But it just seems like such a weak argument here remove jury trial in certain cases because....woke? Or worse remove jury trial because opposition to it is "not a good look". Not great.

Two slightly wider points this made me think of though is the thing about Magna Carta. Which I think is interesting in a wider way because I actually think that "myth" is our constitution in many ways. I think it's Linda Colley who makes the argument (I think it's in her book on constitutions: The Gun, The Pen and The Ship) that the British constitution is fundamentally the Whig narrative of history - and I think she's absolutely right. It's not Magna Carta, or the Bill of Rights or the Great Reform Act - each of these matter in their moment but are, as Fleet points out, of specific significance. What makes them matter is that they form a wider narrative with meaning - that may be a myth but the myth is really significant (just like the myths of, say, the French or American revolutions are in those countries). But Whig history has been in decline for over a century, it is now broadly recognised as "myth" in a perjorative sense and I'm not really sure how our system works without that intellectual underpinning. It feels like a lot of form without any substance or feeling for what works and what doesn't and where the edges are. I think similarly we've embraced many of the forms of a more American constitutional order (Supreme Court, advancing political arguments through the courts etc) without there being an underlying, shared, agreed, consensual basis like the US constitution/Bill of Rights.

Other thing is it reminds me of Blair in a weird way. In that Blair always liked to cast his politics (and I think genuinely thinks in these terms) between forces of modernity and progress (him) v their opponents (vested interests, unions, Tories). Whether it's all of his constitutional reforms (Human Rights Act, FOIA, Supreme Court) or embrace of almost unfettered globalisation, public-private partnerships, "cool Britannia" or his desire to join the Euro, I think Blair saw it all as having modernised the Labour Party, New Labour's job was to modernise the country. Ultimately peaking in his absolutely mad conference speech about Britain being a "young country" which seems like nonsense in basically any way you look at it

I think it's often an effective framing but I think it is a problematic as the experience of this country since Blair left office shows. I'd add that he is still very much of the same view but what constitutions progress has, possibly, shifted. So he's now very focused on embracing tech and AI as the coming wave. I think one of the big problems is the lack of politics in ideas of "progress" or "modernity" - so who is benefiting, where will the gains in power and wealth accrue etc. I think for Blair that was a detail and you just re-distribute the issue away, whereas I think in the last 10 years especially it's become very clear that who has the power matters and it's not just a case of re-distribution.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

In terms of what they're doing and constraining fundamental rights of non citizens.... No. That's something that is meant to be universal.

That is western thinking though and much, probably most, of the world doesn't follow that philosophy. It is, in other words, wishful thinking.
And something that can be weaponised against against the west.

[Josquius]

Correct in terms of stuff like citizen of country X can access the social system of country X, work in country X, buy property in country X, etc...
In terms of what they're doing and constraining fundamental rights of non citizens.... No. That's something that is meant to be universal.

Yes but clearly a revision of practical applications of that is needed in the modern world. The current rules were clearly made with European conflicts in mind. Not when technology and global crisis intertwine to turn those old processes and interpretations into effective vehicles for immigration.

I'm not sure what you mean here.
All are equal before the law is a concept that long predates the 20th century. I don't think European conflicts had much to do with it.

In terms of what they're doing and constraining fundamental rights of non citizens.... No. That's something that is meant to be universal.

That is western thinking though and much, probably most, of the world doesn't follow that philosophy. It is, in other words, wishful thinking.
And something that can be weaponised against against the west.

Not really.
Its pretty standard the world over that this is how the law works in theory at least.
In practice of course in some countries there's lots of corruption and other shit going on, and even in the west data suggests there's a lot of unconscious(?) bias, so a foreigner might face harsher treatment than a local. But in theory all are equal before the law.
Quite the opposite of this being unique western thinking, the main exception example that comes to mind was western extraterritoriality in Qing China.

I think this is an example, which I've mentioned to Raz before, of a lot of "identity politics" not being driven by the left but by the centre left.

The Right.
Identity politics is the weapon of the Right.

Olufemi Taiwo's Elite Capture is fantastic on this. But it just seems like such a weak argument here remove jury trial in certain cases because....woke? Or worse remove jury trial because opposition to it is "not a good look". Not great.

Wanting rapists put in jail is woke?

Two slightly wider points this made me think of though is the thing about Magna Carta. Which I think is interesting in a wider way because I actually think that "myth" is our constitution in many ways. I think it's Linda Colley who makes the argument (I think it's in her book on constitutions: The Gun, The Pen and The Ship) that the British constitution is fundamentally the Whig narrative of history - and I think she's absolutely right. It's not Magna Carta, or the Bill of Rights or the Great Reform Act - each of these matter in their moment but are, as Fleet points out, of specific significance. What makes them matter is that they form a wider narrative with meaning - that may be a myth but the myth is really significant (just like the myths of, say, the French or American revolutions are in those countries). But Whig history has been in decline for over a century, it is now broadly recognised as "myth" in a perjorative sense and I'm not really sure how our system works without that intellectual underpinning. It feels like a lot of form without any substance or feeling for what works and what doesn't and where the edges are. I think similarly we've embraced many of the forms of a more American constitutional order (Supreme Court, advancing political arguments through the courts etc) without there being an underlying, shared, agreed, consensual basis like the US constitution/Bill of Rights.

Other thing is it reminds me of Blair in a weird way. In that Blair always liked to cast his politics (and I think genuinely thinks in these terms) between forces of modernity and progress (him) v their opponents (vested interests, unions, Tories). Whether it's all of his constitutional reforms (Human Rights Act, FOIA, Supreme Court) or embrace of almost unfettered globalisation, public-private partnerships, "cool Britannia" or his desire to join the Euro, I think Blair saw it all as having modernised the Labour Party, New Labour's job was to modernise the country. Ultimately peaking in his absolutely mad conference speech about Britain being a "young country" which seems like nonsense in basically any way you look at it

Its funny though, as this whig view of history is held to by those who have absolutely no interest in progress. They see things as settled and sorted by the turn of the 20th century and any more progress is not wanted.

I think it's often an effective framing but I think it is a problematic as the experience of this country since Blair left office shows. I'd add that he is still very much of the same view but what constitutions progress has, possibly, shifted. So he's now very focused on embracing tech and AI as the coming wave. I think one of the big problems is the lack of politics in ideas of "progress" or "modernity" - so who is benefiting, where will the gains in power and wealth accrue etc. I think for Blair that was a detail and you just re-distribute the issue away, whereas I think in the last 10 years especially it's become very clear that who has the power matters and it's not just a case of re-distribution.

That's definitely something Blair had and we're missing now. Even under Thatcher it was there despite the super-regressive government, this belief in civilization moving forward. Wilsons white heat of technology....
Now....yeah. Its just a desperate scrabble to turn back the clock. Nobody is interested in actually making something better. Just battling for who gets what share of the scraps.

[Tamas]

Yes that's a huge problem. We need a progressive vision for the future that doesn't involve highlighting minorities in a negative but also positive manner. Like it or not it's the economy. If people (think they) are prospering or expect to be prospering they will put up with not being allowed to pick on vulnerable minorities.

[garbon]

On the Hyde article and Polanski....
I think thats a problem with the 'populist' approach and trying to term things as the man on the street would. You will end up offending people. When you're on the far right this is fine. Offending inferior people is the name of the game. When you're trying to present yourself rather as a far left person who stands up for the weak though....It is a tight rope.
I never saw the bum wiping bit but I get the cringe. On the other hand his bit on the last leg about penguins choosing to identify however they want....I've not seen any trans outrage about that. It was a pretty nicely put way of ridiculing the anti-woke arguments.

He really needs to work on his framing with that one. Quite a complex issue where these jobs are considered undesirable thus not many Brits want to do them, as a current reality that needs addressing.... But we shouldn't keep propagating it.

He often gets attacked for just being a left wing Farage but....honestly I'm fine with that. Not my taste but that's the name of the game and if some those people who might be swayed by Farage can be swayed towards positive ends instead? This is fine.

She repeats the dodgy interpretation of the boob job story though. I'd like to see a good neutral writeup around that but his explanation definitely sounds believable.

I think I might do something I never expected and vote Green in the local elections. Though at the same time I've never felt more ick about a Green leader.