Brexit process

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 25 Oct 2019, 12:53

Meanwhile:

Question - Has Corbyn lost control of the Labour Party? | MOATS Ep 18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7herx0 ... e=youtu.be

Answer - Yes, of course he has.

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 25 Oct 2019, 12:59

Little John wrote:It's not a culture war. It is an economic war. The culture war is proxy for that.

Maybe. Not convinced of that yet. There are lots of very wealthy people on the 'populist' side of the culture war - especially wealthy retired people - and lots of poor people on the 'elitist' side - especially the 18-25 group. The largest group of Brexiteers is the retired group, who have little economic skin in the game any more. Indeed, they are clear that they are willing [for other people] to suffer economic damage in order to secure sovereignty.

When we pick our tribe, there's more going on than simply what we think will bring economic benefit to ourselves (or to society as a whole). There's an identification with 'people like me who think like me' or who I want to be accepted by, and then we take views based on what those other people also say. So I think economic drivers are 'a' motivation, but not the fundamental one.

I'd concede that maybe 'culture' isn't fundamental either, but then I'm not sure what is.

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 25 Oct 2019, 13:12

Little John wrote:Castro was a populist

Evo Morales is a populist

Or, do you only define "populists" as politicians who are popular but whose policies you do not like?

Some politicians and their policies are popular and some are not

Some politicians lie and some do not

These variables may or may not be independent of one another. There is no inevitable dependence between them.

It's a good question. I was once a fan of Hugo Chavez because I felt the ends justified the means, and then later I realised they absolutely didn't.

So no, I do not define populists as people with policies I don't like. Populism is a particular style of politics that I deplore (as I also deplore oligarchy/elitism). One of the reasons I am not a fervent Green Party supporter is because I know that if they were in power, they would probably succumb to all the same problems of populism or elitism. I approve their policies (mostly) but I have read Animal Farm et al and watched the news, and I know what happens when revolutionaries take power and become that which they once opposed. "Strike down your father and take his place at my side!"

I absolutely agree with you that lying & populism are independent variables. Populism's besetting sin is not lying, but a tendency to portray every opponent as traitors and enemies of the people, and to treat them accordingly.

stumuz1 · Post by **stumuz1** » 25 Oct 2019, 13:12

In the populists and elitists theory, where would you put the the people who were parallel with the elephants eye on the graph (60-70 percentile of global wealth, middle class workers, decent incomes) and who are now at the bottom of the elephants trunk (5-10 percentile of global wealth, jobs outsourced to Asia now on min wage)

Imho, it is these people who caused the Brexit, trump, AFD phenomenon.

ReserveGrowthRulz · Post by **ReserveGrowthRulz** » 25 Oct 2019, 14:25

stumuz1 wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:Can some locals please explain to me the validity, or not, of this particular The Atlantic (American perspective) article on Brexit?

I have been watching this thread for weeks, and not being familiar with UK politics, it is difficult to understand the nuance apparent in the posts. I get the basics, but not enough to venture whether or not this article makes a good point, or doesn't, or has a clue, or not.
It misses the basic point about Brexit....and Trump...and Le pen....Afd.

The Elephant graph.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37542494

Isn't this contained within the article as it discusses the populism that seems to be one of the driving mechanisms? Populism being a form of anti-globalization.

stumuz1 · Post by **stumuz1** » 25 Oct 2019, 15:38

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
Isn't this contained within the article as it discusses the populism that seems to be one of the driving mechanisms? Populism being a form of anti-globalization.

Yes, fair point.

However, populism seems to have an ignorant, racist, unenlightened tag attached to it.

Whereas, i think populism has quite a logical tag to it.

An example. A family man in the 60's,70's could support a family and provide for their future from his share of the wealth cake he received in exchange for his labour. Plus he may well have a pension looking after him in his dotage.

Next generation does not have these benefits, but know their parents did. From here it is pretty logical to blame globalisation.

So it comes down to agreeing what populism is.

Is it a ignorant, racist, unenlightened policy to ensnare thick people? or

Is it a logical ,therefore reasonable, answer to neo-liberal governments (globalisation) which have swept the west since Thatcher-Reagan era.

ReserveGrowthRulz · Post by **ReserveGrowthRulz** » 25 Oct 2019, 22:37

stumuz1 wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
Isn't this contained within the article as it discusses the populism that seems to be one of the driving mechanisms? Populism being a form of anti-globalization.
Yes, fair point.

However, populism seems to have an ignorant, racist, unenlightened tag attached to it.

Words have connotations, but populism in the States doesn't appear to be quite that strong in any of the characterizations you mention.

stumuz1 wrote: Whereas, i think populism has quite a logical tag to it.

An example. A family man in the 60's,70's could support a family and provide for their future from his share of the wealth cake he received in exchange for his labour. Plus he may well have a pension looking after him in his dotage.

Next generation does not have these benefits, but know their parents did. From here it is pretty logical to blame globalisation.

So it comes down to agreeing what populism is.

And globalization.

stumuz1 wrote: Is it a ignorant, racist, unenlightened policy to ensnare thick people? or

Is it a logical ,therefore reasonable, answer to neo-liberal governments (globalisation) which have swept the west since Thatcher-Reagan era.

For some reason here in the States, "neo-liberal" doesn't appear to be an operative descriptor of any time. I had to look it up the first time I ever bumped into it, as I never would have thought of the Iron Lady as much of a liberal of any type. Turns out, it isn't really a US type liberal at all.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 25 Oct 2019, 23:44

"neo-liberalism" has got nothing to do with social liberalism. It is about economic liberalism. Though, of late, some neo-liberals, have jumped on the bandwagon of some aspects of social liberalism to provide a more acceptable face to their economic policies and activities.

ReserveGrowthRulz · Post by **ReserveGrowthRulz** » 26 Oct 2019, 01:36

Little John wrote:"neo-liberalism" has got nothing to do with social liberalism. It is about economic liberalism.

I don't know what economic liberalism is. Neoliberal as I read it was more of a free market, globalization type angle, and didn't appear to include a relationship to the liberal social policies that seem to be attached to anything with the word "liberal" in it, here in the States.

I don't know what economic liberalism is. If I was going to spitball an answer off the top of my head, I would think that it would just be social liberalism, but that guess would be based on just having, again, the word liberal in there.

Little John wrote: Though, of late, some neo-liberals, have jumped on the bandwagon of some aspects of social liberalism to provide a more acceptable face to their economic policies and activities.

So can there be a social liberal and neoliberal wrapped in the same package, or is that impossible?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 26 Oct 2019, 05:03

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:...So can there be a social liberal and neoliberal wrapped in the same package, or is that impossible?

Yes there can.

Social liberal does not necessarily equal economic leftist. This is the mistake a lot of people are (currently being encouraged to) make.

Things are pretty mixed up at the moment in political terms, I would say. Indeed, I would argue, the primary political dichotomy of our time is no longer Left versus Right. It is globalism versus localism and people of both the Left and Right are to be found on both sides of that divide.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 27 Oct 2019, 14:28

Interesting comments from Mr Doom...

https://www.spiegel.de/international/eu ... ernational

Sir Ivan Rogers has proven himself an oracle more than once in the past few years. Great Britain's 59-year-old former ambassador to the European Union predicted that Brexit would be a terrible idea for his country long before the ill-fated referendum. He even foresaw Theresa May's tragic downfall. He also anticipated that it would be impossible to negotiate a divorce agreement with the EU in two years' time that could pass parliament.

Only no one wanted to listen to him.

On Monday of this week, the man some people have begun referring to as "Dr. Doom" sits in a German restaurant in London, stares at his coffee and says, "I wish I hadn't been right."

Then he offers another prophecy: "I suspect we might have Boris Johnson for 10 years, maybe longer." For the United Kingdom, he says, this will be disastrous in the middle term. "But who cares about the middle term?"

I noted on this thread a while ago that the Tories are on a jagged but upward trend in the national polling.

Now, I think they are heading towards an averaged polling of 40... with the Sunday Times polls already showing the Tories with a 15 point lead.

Anecdotally, the arrival of a deal has proved a game-changer. My lib-dem/Tory Remainer floating voters have returned to the Tory tribe now that Boris is committed to a deal.

And the Brexit Party base is slowly shrinking as Boris harder version of a deal proves far more popular than May's deal.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 27 Oct 2019, 18:58

So apparently 140 Labour MPs are refusing to go for an election, and Corbyn can't force them to do so. So Corbyn is now saying he won't back an election "until no deal has been absolutely taken off the table."

....which isn't possible without revoking article 50 or agreeing a deal.

This is not Corbyn's fault, but it is a big mistake by the parliamentary labour party.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 27 Oct 2019, 20:41

Libdem/snp proposals might get BJ an election (assuming he really wants one), in this case I think they'd be doing Corbyn a favour as I don't think the Tory's polling will translate that well into actual votes on polling day.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 27 Oct 2019, 23:06

And so the script rolls on. Populist Boris rants and rages that parliament is frustrating the "will of the people", calls an election, wins a huge majority, screws the working class for the next five years before taking a hugely overpaid job with one of the many investment companies who ripped off Joe Public.

Tell me it isn't so. Please.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 28 Oct 2019, 09:11

Johnson with a secure majority is disaster capitalism writ large, but with the polls the way they are it is looking more and more likely. Hard brexit, destroyed workers rights and environmental roll-back and in a few years we will have riots on the streets as we have seen across the globe these last months.