A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union.
The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has benefited them or the country.
Just one in 10 believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS, against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.
Ominously for prime minister Rishi Sunak, who backed Brexit and claimed it would be economically beneficial, only 7% of people think it has helped keep down prices in UK shops, against 63% who think Brexit has been a factor in fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis.
The poll suggests that seven and a half years on from the referendum the British public now regards Brexit as a failure. Just 22% of voters believe it has been good for the UK in general.
Sooner or later there will be an electoral reckoning for the fiasco of Brexit. 2024 may well be it.
it won't be 2024, Labour and Tory don't want to bring it up at the moment. it's too early to predict but It'll be a couple away. there's no way Tories are bringing it up at a GE to reverse it. Labour will probably do a 'we need to renegotiate' and nudge us closer to the EU but won't need to at the moment.
If I was going to make more certain predictions I'd say we're talking well into the 2030's before brexit becomes an issue again.
Longer term economic forecasts are mystic Meg territory but models are now being revised to reflect the reality that Brexit has had no meaningful economic effect, as some of us predicted. If the new forecasts are correct then the UK will outgrow most of the EZ over the next 10 years.
The other issue is immigration which is not going away but selling freedom of movement in that decade is going to be hard. I think Brexit is done and buried even if some people are finding it hard to get over.
I suspect that there will be another UK/EU treaty bringing us closer to an EFTA style membership, ironically caused by low paid immigration. there are lots of jobs in our economy which are struggling to get workers because they have been generally done by immigrants. Social Care, Factory Work, Flower/Veg Picking to name a few. a government of one kind or another are going to be forced into letting more immigrants in to get these jobs done.
'EFTA Style' is binary. EFTA/EEA allows being in the SM with its freedom of movement. I don't know what current polling says but on the whole the population of the UK want to be in the SM except for FOM. Any British politician who can get us in the SM without FOM is going to go down in history.
I didn't say EFTA/EEA I said closer to it. and that will come with more freedom of movement. partly because we will want/need some immigration we can't get elsewhere
Minds change. This was OGH's error for years prior to the Brexit vote. His claims that people 'didn't give a Monkey's' about EU membership as an issue.
They didn't.
The vote was about immigration, which people cared about a lot.
Nope. That was just one of many issues. And I am glad you think that because as long as you persist in your deluded beliefs that Brexit was only about immigration, the chances of you securing, let alone winning, a rejoin referendum are vanishingly small.
What if the markets take fright at these tax cuts? What then?
Different scenario. The Lizaster had just been appointed PM with a couple of years left to run. Rishi would have weeks left to run. The markets would express their alarm, effectively back Labour, and wait.
No, I think unfunded tax cuts would do to the markets exactly what they did in September 2022.
The Bank of England's bond flog-off dwarved any 'unfunded' tax cuts in fiscal terms. Under the Treasury's commitment to indemnify the Bank against it's losses, what had been announced the day before the minibudget was set to cost the Treasury over £80bn (it has cost more in the event). Any marketeers paying attention would have noted that fact.
So on the day of the Treasury's announcement, day before the mini-budget, GBP gained slightly against the USD; on the day of the budget it lost 3% against the USD.
Those markets were a bit slow to react to the Treasury announcement, what kept them?
There are various reasons for a delayed (very slightly delayed) market response to the BOE announcement, but that's not something I even need to explain to defend my argument. You state that 'unfunded tax cuts' spooked the markets. From memory, there were about £40bn of tax cuts in the mini budget. Within the BOE announcement, there was £80bn of 'unfunded' cost to the exchequer. That's just comparing apples and apples - a completely separate issue from any impact on the market price of UK bonds based on the fact that their biggest holder and purchaser had decided to divest.
One off vs. potentially ongoing?
More importantly, the bumps down and up in market sentiment tracked the announcements by Kwateng and Hunt. They may have been mistaken in doing that- tough.
Financial markets are right, even when they are wrong. As a better Thatcherite than me, I'm sure you remember the Good Lady's views on the buckability of the market.
1. The Bank's QT programme is ongoing, and is a far firmer commitment than some tax cuts. Much as it's trendy to poohoo the Laffer curve, there's also no growth benefit in giving money to the bank to put on their bonfire - with tax cuts one would expect at least some additional taxable activity to take place to offset the cost.
2. Sure, but if you acknowledge that the sums in the 'unfunded tax cuts' argument don't add up, but insist that the market believed they did and that's the point, you're effectively admitting that the problems with the mini-budget were presentational, not fundamental. That's very much my argument, but it's one I've seen very little support for amongst Truss's detractors on this board to date.
I'm not acknowledging anything. I don't think the Truss plans added up, but I'm a suburban science master, and my opinion doesn't really matter.
But if the markets didn't think they added up, that does matter. Their opinion matters, whether it's right or wrong.
There's no need for the Uriah Heep impression - we are all just words on a screen here and your opinion is as valuable as anyone else's; that goes without saying.
But the clear implication of your statements is that a large amount of investors somehow thought 40 was a bigger figure than 80. I can believe that. There's a great deal of stupidity and pack behaviour in all walks of life. And some investors would of course have been aiming at destabilisation to make more money off the back of that. This points to poor presentation and timing on the part of Kwarteng/Truss - but what Labour supporters are desperately trying to make it about is the wicked blasphemy of *unfunded tax cuts* - just ignore the unfunded three times as big Bank of England bung. Their arguments are economically illiterate.
Off topic. The honest answer to “what was the cause of the Civil War?” is far more nuanced than saying in not many words, slavery. PB has done nothing yet to convince me otherwise. In fact the other way around, I suggest you all see it through the experience of Brexit to understand what the fight was about.
If the dividing line is strictly slavery or not to slavery, then why is a slave state like Delaware fighting for the Union? Because the dividing line wasn’t abolition of slavery, but happy or not to be in a federal tax regime.
There were numerous fault lines, but the actual root cause of the conflict is the fundamental principle of federal versus state, some wishing not to be in a federal economic commonwealth at all, that is taxed down here for a new harbour to be built up there, to the extent they would prefer their own governmental relationship, as in a separate country. And wanting out on that principle is such a feasible and reasoned proposition, on what grounds were they not allowed to breakaway and form their own non federal country without it coming to such a bloody conflict?
To say a “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand' if far from meaningless spin, it literally meant that success comes from sticking together and to do anything else is to invoke disaster. But here’s the kicker, it was actually a lie, it was false ideology, the sort Brexit has crushed, to actually believe A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand . A Union cause on basis of a lie because the truth was a house divided could have gone separate ways and not been a disaster. Just like Brexit isn’t a disaster, but a huge opportunity.
The EU doesn’t even have federal taxation, but it was still too federal for many in UK. So we should have more respect for the confederate states “brexit yearnings” when we answer what the Civil War was about.
The American Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about Brexit. I feel good about putting you all correct on this. 😌
Sigh.
The border states divided according to the dominance of slavery in their society.
Throughout the South, there were those utterly opposed to slavery and the Confederacy.
Look up why there is a West Virginia. Or the State of Jones….
Even in the Deep South there were many who were anti-slavery and “Union men” - violence and coercion was used to keep them “down”.
Also plenty of Confederate sympathizers and/or appeasers in North - aka "Copperheads"; note that in 1861 the then-mayor of New York City advocated making NYC (then just Manhattan) a neutral quasi-independent statelet.
And even more pro-Southerners in Border states, which furnished plenty of soldiers and other resources for Confederacy; for example, almost certainly more West Virginians enlisted with CSA than with USA.
As for MoonRabbit's basic point, that "A House Divided" could have split with "success" however defined, well THAT's been a major topic of American history and historiography ever since before Fort Sumter. Perhaps a wee bit more involved (far less literal) than she suggests!
Posted this a couple days ago, but link below re: interesting alternative history written in early 1960s in time for the US Civil War Centennial. It's dated but still worth considering:
Greatest weakness, shared by virtually all US Civil War histories of that period = minimizing/marginalizing of the African American experience, for Blacks AND for entire nation.
I belatedly thank you for this helpful post.
I have been away a bit watching masked singer.
There’s a lot of feelings and idea’s happening at once in the American civil war. In politically attacking Haley as though there was a slam dunk answer, opponents need to be a bit careful. There were anti federalists at the formation of the United States, certainly at the time of the civil war, and even today. There was a master race vein of thinking running through the secessionists of the civil war, true, to only focus on this to exclusion of all else is saying the conflict was just about slavery. Do you mean by “just about slavery” it means a war to end slavery, like it was the struggle for the soul of a country? I think that’s a mistake. A mistake proven to us by the definition of victory, the history of what happened next after the war.
One thing we can agree on even on PB, the true history is in defeat in war the breakaway was thwarted. But did the soul of the whole country change, was their large cultural change following the war, did the “superior race” ideology disappear from America after its defeat in the war, did the class and status of black citizens dramatically change? Did they all leave the plantations of the confederacy racists? Did they have anywhere to go? Indeed was this racism gone a hundred years later in 1960s? Is “the house” still not divided over race and rights even today?
What I suspect is happening here, through the 20th century and the 21st, history is being rewritten. History has always been rewritten, often by victors, or by authorities using the point of a sword. But also by Hollywood and others streams of culture. Where do people get their history from? Politicians? Historians? Hollywood and other culture? Do politicians and historians and T/v shows ever agree with one another about history? Down centuries history is always viewed through different eyes by people with different knowledge, if it means the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time, i think this is borne out as fact by looking to what actually changed following a war for the soul of America, where slavery and master race thinking was, you are struggling to convince me, defeated.
Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?
Couple of points re:
1. "the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time".
Not really.
You'd be hard pressed to find politicos, journos, pundits on the eve of, and during the US Civil War, who thought the root cause was something OTHER than slavery. They either wanted it abolished or limited; or expanded or at least protected. Many people were willing to compromise, fudge and/or ignore the issue as much as possible, in hopes of achieving stability, taking advantage, winning elections, saving the Union.
It was the NEXT generation, and generations after, that starting in last decades of 19th though the middle of the 20th, that witnessed the rise of the "Lost Cause" theory, that the War Between the States (classic Southern terminology) was about anything BUT slavery.
2. "Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?"
For starters, human slavery WAS abolished in the United States. Pretty big deal, especially for former slaves, their masters AND all their descendants.
Other changes include increased federal power viz-a-viz states (and not just in wartime), increasing commercialization and industrialization, increased sectionalism, creation of the modern US party system of Republicans versus Democrats (though with new & different wine today in those old bottles).
Off topic. The honest answer to “what was the cause of the Civil War?” is far more nuanced than saying in not many words, slavery. PB has done nothing yet to convince me otherwise. In fact the other way around, I suggest you all see it through the experience of Brexit to understand what the fight was about.
If the dividing line is strictly slavery or not to slavery, then why is a slave state like Delaware fighting for the Union? Because the dividing line wasn’t abolition of slavery, but happy or not to be in a federal tax regime.
There were numerous fault lines, but the actual root cause of the conflict is the fundamental principle of federal versus state, some wishing not to be in a federal economic commonwealth at all, that is taxed down here for a new harbour to be built up there, to the extent they would prefer their own governmental relationship, as in a separate country. And wanting out on that principle is such a feasible and reasoned proposition, on what grounds were they not allowed to breakaway and form their own non federal country without it coming to such a bloody conflict?
To say a “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand' if far from meaningless spin, it literally meant that success comes from sticking together and to do anything else is to invoke disaster. But here’s the kicker, it was actually a lie, it was false ideology, the sort Brexit has crushed, to actually believe A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand . A Union cause on basis of a lie because the truth was a house divided could have gone separate ways and not been a disaster. Just like Brexit isn’t a disaster, but a huge opportunity.
The EU doesn’t even have federal taxation, but it was still too federal for many in UK. So we should have more respect for the confederate states “brexit yearnings” when we answer what the Civil War was about.
The American Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about Brexit. I feel good about putting you all correct on this. 😌
Sigh.
The border states divided according to the dominance of slavery in their society.
Throughout the South, there were those utterly opposed to slavery and the Confederacy.
Look up why there is a West Virginia. Or the State of Jones….
Even in the Deep South there were many who were anti-slavery and “Union men” - violence and coercion was used to keep them “down”.
Also plenty of Confederate sympathizers and/or appeasers in North - aka "Copperheads"; note that in 1861 the then-mayor of New York City advocated making NYC (then just Manhattan) a neutral quasi-independent statelet.
And even more pro-Southerners in Border states, which furnished plenty of soldiers and other resources for Confederacy; for example, almost certainly more West Virginians enlisted with CSA than with USA.
As for MoonRabbit's basic point, that "A House Divided" could have split with "success" however defined, well THAT's been a major topic of American history and historiography ever since before Fort Sumter. Perhaps a wee bit more involved (far less literal) than she suggests!
Posted this a couple days ago, but link below re: interesting alternative history written in early 1960s in time for the US Civil War Centennial. It's dated but still worth considering:
Greatest weakness, shared by virtually all US Civil War histories of that period = minimizing/marginalizing of the African American experience, for Blacks AND for entire nation.
I belatedly thank you for this helpful post.
I have been away a bit watching masked singer.
There’s a lot of feelings and idea’s happening at once in the American civil war. In politically attacking Haley as though there was a slam dunk answer, opponents need to be a bit careful. There were anti federalists at the formation of the United States, certainly at the time of the civil war, and even today. There was a master race vein of thinking running through the secessionists of the civil war, true, to only focus on this to exclusion of all else is saying the conflict was just about slavery. Do you mean by “just about slavery” it means a war to end slavery, like it was the struggle for the soul of a country? I think that’s a mistake. A mistake proven to us by the definition of victory, the history of what happened next after the war.
One thing we can agree on even on PB, the true history is in defeat in war the breakaway was thwarted. But did the soul of the whole country change, was their large cultural change following the war, did the “superior race” ideology disappear from America after its defeat in the war, did the class and status of black citizens dramatically change? Did they all leave the plantations of the confederacy racists? Did they have anywhere to go? Indeed was this racism gone a hundred years later in 1960s? Is “the house” still not divided over race and rights even today?
What I suspect is happening here, through the 20th century and the 21st, history is being rewritten. History has always been rewritten, often by victors, or by authorities using the point of a sword. But also by Hollywood and others streams of culture. Where do people get their history from? Politicians? Historians? Hollywood and other culture? Do politicians and historians and T/v shows ever agree with one another about history? Down centuries history is always viewed through different eyes by people with different knowledge, if it means the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time, i think this is borne out as fact by looking to what actually changed following a war for the soul of America, where slavery and master race thinking was, you are struggling to convince me, defeated.
Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?
In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, you had Black people elected to national office also from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
From slavery to the Senate and Congress.
It was only after 1876 that the South pushed back the first cvil rights era.
Perhaps worth noting, that crescendo of White supremacy backlash in US South occurred in 1890s when increasing "Jim Crow" segregation was in part response to efforts to unite Blacks and poor Whites politically. For example, in North Carolina where this achieved some electoral success . . . until it was suppressed and Black people were overwhelming disenfranchised for next 70 years.
Most Tories believe the key to winning back Middle England is to cut personal taxation in the next budget on March 6. A cabinet minister said: “The tax cuts in March will be enormous. Either they work or we leave Labour with a major headache.” Labour strategists think Sunak will cut 2p from the basic rate of income tax. He and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are also considering scrapping inheritance tax, slashing or abolishing stamp duty and raising income tax thresholds, as Cummings suggested.
That has to be the port and Stilton talking, doesn't it?
I cannot think of something Labour would like more than for the Tories to announce an inheritance cut tax.
And abolishing stamp duty?
Abolishing stamp duty would actually be sensible. Ridiculous tax and has been for years. Abolishing IHT rather less so although simplifying it wouldn't do any harm.
the thing with IHT is there's a lot of people in the southeast of england whose houses are going to take them over the individual entitlement. it's not a tax that just the very rich pay, even if the majority don't pay it they still worry about paying it.
raising the threshold over £1M per person would make sense but it's also an easy target for labour (a tax cut for the top 5%)
Houses are, if a primary residence and left to a direct descendant, already given substantial exemptions.
Anyone inheriting a million pounds in whatever form can afford a bit of tax on their windfall.
And that million pounds, [edit] if fully alleviated of IHT at present, includes a component specially biased towards pampering unearned capital gains on house prices, as inflated by Conservative government policy. So, quite so.
Stamp Duty Land Tax and IHT together raise between £20 and £25bn a year.
At a time when the Govt Deficit is running at a forecast £130bn for 2023-24.
Even if the OBR are over by 10s of billions, how will it be paid for?
I'd say the most that Reckless Rishi will do is issue a salad of self-serving weasel words about the post-election period.
A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union.
The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has benefited them or the country.
Just one in 10 believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS, against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.
Ominously for prime minister Rishi Sunak, who backed Brexit and claimed it would be economically beneficial, only 7% of people think it has helped keep down prices in UK shops, against 63% who think Brexit has been a factor in fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis.
The poll suggests that seven and a half years on from the referendum the British public now regards Brexit as a failure. Just 22% of voters believe it has been good for the UK in general.
Sooner or later there will be an electoral reckoning for the fiasco of Brexit. 2024 may well be it.
it won't be 2024, Labour and Tory don't want to bring it up at the moment. it's too early to predict but It'll be a couple away. there's no way Tories are bringing it up at a GE to reverse it. Labour will probably do a 'we need to renegotiate' and nudge us closer to the EU but won't need to at the moment.
If I was going to make more certain predictions I'd say we're talking well into the 2030's before brexit becomes an issue again.
Longer term economic forecasts are mystic Meg territory but models are now being revised to reflect the reality that Brexit has had no meaningful economic effect, as some of us predicted. If the new forecasts are correct then the UK will outgrow most of the EZ over the next 10 years.
The other issue is immigration which is not going away but selling freedom of movement in that decade is going to be hard. I think Brexit is done and buried even if some people are finding it hard to get over.
I suspect that there will be another UK/EU treaty bringing us closer to an EFTA style membership, ironically caused by low paid immigration. there are lots of jobs in our economy which are struggling to get workers because they have been generally done by immigrants. Social Care, Factory Work, Flower/Veg Picking to name a few. a government of one kind or another are going to be forced into letting more immigrants in to get these jobs done.
'EFTA Style' is binary. EFTA/EEA allows being in the SM with its freedom of movement. I don't know what current polling says but on the whole the population of the UK want to be in the SM except for FOM. Any British politician who can get us in the SM without FOM is going to go down in history.
I didn't say EFTA/EEA I said closer to it. and that will come with more freedom of movement. partly because we will want/need some immigration we can't get elsewhere
We don't need any kind of deal with the EU to make EU immigration easier. We can just do it unilaterally.
What if the markets take fright at these tax cuts? What then?
Different scenario. The Lizaster had just been appointed PM with a couple of years left to run. Rishi would have weeks left to run. The markets would express their alarm, effectively back Labour, and wait.
No, I think unfunded tax cuts would do to the markets exactly what they did in September 2022.
The Bank of England's bond flog-off dwarved any 'unfunded' tax cuts in fiscal terms. Under the Treasury's commitment to indemnify the Bank against it's losses, what had been announced the day before the minibudget was set to cost the Treasury over £80bn (it has cost more in the event). Any marketeers paying attention would have noted that fact.
So on the day of the Treasury's announcement, day before the mini-budget, GBP gained slightly against the USD; on the day of the budget it lost 3% against the USD.
Those markets were a bit slow to react to the Treasury announcement, what kept them?
There are various reasons for a delayed (very slightly delayed) market response to the BOE announcement, but that's not something I even need to explain to defend my argument. You state that 'unfunded tax cuts' spooked the markets. From memory, there were about £40bn of tax cuts in the mini budget. Within the BOE announcement, there was £80bn of 'unfunded' cost to the exchequer. That's just comparing apples and apples - a completely separate issue from any impact on the market price of UK bonds based on the fact that their biggest holder and purchaser had decided to divest.
One off vs. potentially ongoing?
More importantly, the bumps down and up in market sentiment tracked the announcements by Kwateng and Hunt. They may have been mistaken in doing that- tough.
Financial markets are right, even when they are wrong. As a better Thatcherite than me, I'm sure you remember the Good Lady's views on the buckability of the market.
1. The Bank's QT programme is ongoing, and is a far firmer commitment than some tax cuts. Much as it's trendy to poohoo the Laffer curve, there's also no growth benefit in giving money to the bank to put on their bonfire - with tax cuts one would expect at least some additional taxable activity to take place to offset the cost.
2. Sure, but if you acknowledge that the sums in the 'unfunded tax cuts' argument don't add up, but insist that the market believed they did and that's the point, you're effectively admitting that the problems with the mini-budget were presentational, not fundamental. That's very much my argument, but it's one I've seen very little support for amongst Truss's detractors on this board to date.
"Much as it's trendy to poohoo the Laffer curve . . ."
Much as it's trendy to poo-poo the Caloric theory.
A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union.
The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has benefited them or the country.
Just one in 10 believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS, against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.
Ominously for prime minister Rishi Sunak, who backed Brexit and claimed it would be economically beneficial, only 7% of people think it has helped keep down prices in UK shops, against 63% who think Brexit has been a factor in fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis.
The poll suggests that seven and a half years on from the referendum the British public now regards Brexit as a failure. Just 22% of voters believe it has been good for the UK in general.
A pertinent point made in the analysis of that poll, is that a lot of people wanted ‘Brexit done’ not so much for its own sake but to resolve the political impasse at Westminster in the hope that the government would then get moving on all the other stuff it promised, along with delivering some of the purported benefits. That none of this has transpired, and politics is still deep in the morass despite the Tories having a decent majority, has led many to conclude that the Tories are the problem.
A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union.
The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has benefited them or the country.
Just one in 10 believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS, against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.
Ominously for prime minister Rishi Sunak, who backed Brexit and claimed it would be economically beneficial, only 7% of people think it has helped keep down prices in UK shops, against 63% who think Brexit has been a factor in fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis.
The poll suggests that seven and a half years on from the referendum the British public now regards Brexit as a failure. Just 22% of voters believe it has been good for the UK in general.
Sooner or later there will be an electoral reckoning for the fiasco of Brexit. 2024 may well be it.
it won't be 2024, Labour and Tory don't want to bring it up at the moment. it's too early to predict but It'll be a couple away. there's no way Tories are bringing it up at a GE to reverse it. Labour will probably do a 'we need to renegotiate' and nudge us closer to the EU but won't need to at the moment.
If I was going to make more certain predictions I'd say we're talking well into the 2030's before brexit becomes an issue again.
Longer term economic forecasts are mystic Meg territory but models are now being revised to reflect the reality that Brexit has had no meaningful economic effect, as some of us predicted. If the new forecasts are correct then the UK will outgrow most of the EZ over the next 10 years.
The other issue is immigration which is not going away but selling freedom of movement in that decade is going to be hard. I think Brexit is done and buried even if some people are finding it hard to get over.
The polls also swung against membership after the 1975 referendum, but it didn't become a major live political issue again until the 90s, in spite of the fact that Labour had withdrawal in their 1983 manifesto. The current polling doesn't really tell us much except that the government is unpopular.
When was the moment you realised you had been wrong all along, and Brexit was a stroke of genius and is going well?
A pertinent point made in the analysis of that poll, is that a lot of people wanted ‘Brexit done’ not so much for its own sake but to resolve the political impasse at Westminster in the hope that the government would then get moving on all the other stuff it promised, along with delivering some of the purported benefits. That none of this has transpired, and politics is still deep in the morass despite the Tories having a decent majority, has led many to conclude that the Tories are the problem.
Of course the Conservatives were Remainers before during and after the vote.
That the Kippers took over the Tory Party, and made a total 'king hash of everything, should provide an avenue of return for Conservative politicians, if they can be arsed to take their party back.
Off topic. The honest answer to “what was the cause of the Civil War?” is far more nuanced than saying in not many words, slavery. PB has done nothing yet to convince me otherwise. In fact the other way around, I suggest you all see it through the experience of Brexit to understand what the fight was about.
If the dividing line is strictly slavery or not to slavery, then why is a slave state like Delaware fighting for the Union? Because the dividing line wasn’t abolition of slavery, but happy or not to be in a federal tax regime.
There were numerous fault lines, but the actual root cause of the conflict is the fundamental principle of federal versus state, some wishing not to be in a federal economic commonwealth at all, that is taxed down here for a new harbour to be built up there, to the extent they would prefer their own governmental relationship, as in a separate country. And wanting out on that principle is such a feasible and reasoned proposition, on what grounds were they not allowed to breakaway and form their own non federal country without it coming to such a bloody conflict?
To say a “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand' if far from meaningless spin, it literally meant that success comes from sticking together and to do anything else is to invoke disaster. But here’s the kicker, it was actually a lie, it was false ideology, the sort Brexit has crushed, to actually believe A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand . A Union cause on basis of a lie because the truth was a house divided could have gone separate ways and not been a disaster. Just like Brexit isn’t a disaster, but a huge opportunity.
The EU doesn’t even have federal taxation, but it was still too federal for many in UK. So we should have more respect for the confederate states “brexit yearnings” when we answer what the Civil War was about.
The American Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about Brexit. I feel good about putting you all correct on this. 😌
Sigh.
The border states divided according to the dominance of slavery in their society.
Throughout the South, there were those utterly opposed to slavery and the Confederacy.
Look up why there is a West Virginia. Or the State of Jones….
Even in the Deep South there were many who were anti-slavery and “Union men” - violence and coercion was used to keep them “down”.
Also plenty of Confederate sympathizers and/or appeasers in North - aka "Copperheads"; note that in 1861 the then-mayor of New York City advocated making NYC (then just Manhattan) a neutral quasi-independent statelet.
And even more pro-Southerners in Border states, which furnished plenty of soldiers and other resources for Confederacy; for example, almost certainly more West Virginians enlisted with CSA than with USA.
As for MoonRabbit's basic point, that "A House Divided" could have split with "success" however defined, well THAT's been a major topic of American history and historiography ever since before Fort Sumter. Perhaps a wee bit more involved (far less literal) than she suggests!
Posted this a couple days ago, but link below re: interesting alternative history written in early 1960s in time for the US Civil War Centennial. It's dated but still worth considering:
Greatest weakness, shared by virtually all US Civil War histories of that period = minimizing/marginalizing of the African American experience, for Blacks AND for entire nation.
I belatedly thank you for this helpful post.
I have been away a bit watching masked singer.
There’s a lot of feelings and idea’s happening at once in the American civil war. In politically attacking Haley as though there was a slam dunk answer, opponents need to be a bit careful. There were anti federalists at the formation of the United States, certainly at the time of the civil war, and even today. There was a master race vein of thinking running through the secessionists of the civil war, true, to only focus on this to exclusion of all else is saying the conflict was just about slavery. Do you mean by “just about slavery” it means a war to end slavery, like it was the struggle for the soul of a country? I think that’s a mistake. A mistake proven to us by the definition of victory, the history of what happened next after the war.
One thing we can agree on even on PB, the true history is in defeat in war the breakaway was thwarted. But did the soul of the whole country change, was their large cultural change following the war, did the “superior race” ideology disappear from America after its defeat in the war, did the class and status of black citizens dramatically change? Did they all leave the plantations of the confederacy racists? Did they have anywhere to go? Indeed was this racism gone a hundred years later in 1960s? Is “the house” still not divided over race and rights even today?
What I suspect is happening here, through the 20th century and the 21st, history is being rewritten. History has always been rewritten, often by victors, or by authorities using the point of a sword. But also by Hollywood and others streams of culture. Where do people get their history from? Politicians? Historians? Hollywood and other culture? Do politicians and historians and T/v shows ever agree with one another about history? Down centuries history is always viewed through different eyes by people with different knowledge, if it means the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time, i think this is borne out as fact by looking to what actually changed following a war for the soul of America, where slavery and master race thinking was, you are struggling to convince me, defeated.
Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?
Couple of points re:
1. "the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time".
Not really.
You'd be hard pressed to find politicos, journos, pundits on the eve of, and during the US Civil War, who thought the root cause was something OTHER than slavery. They either wanted it abolished or limited; or expanded or at least protected. Many people were willing to compromise, fudge and/or ignore the issue as much as possible, in hopes of achieving stability, taking advantage, winning elections, saving the Union.
It was the NEXT generation, and generations after, that starting in last decades of 19th though the middle of the 20th, that witnessed the rise of the "Lost Cause" theory, that the War Between the States (classic Southern terminology) was about anything BUT slavery.
2. "Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?"
For starters, human slavery WAS abolished in the United States. Pretty big deal, especially for former slaves, their masters AND all their descendants.
Other changes include increased federal power viz-a-viz states (and not just in wartime), increasing commercialization and industrialization, increased sectionalism, creation of the modern US party system of Republicans versus Democrats (though with new & different wine today in those old bottles).
On topic, a GE two weeks before the US election? No, I don't think so.
Late September / early October maybe - 3rd October at the latest.
in order to get election day at the end of september or beginning of october don't they have to call it while parliament is out of session?
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. I guess Parliament could be recalled early from the summer recess.
I don't know if parliament has to be recalled from to dissolve. Anyone know?
But just like the problem of the king being abroad, necessity is the mother of invention. People make it to royal funerals whatever they had on. Same with election duty.
Is there a rule that the meeting between the PM and the King needs to be in the UK?
I assume Sunak will be in Fiji as well for the Commonwealth meeting. So meet privately with the King there, get his blessing and fly home to announce to the commons?
Most Tories believe the key to winning back Middle England is to cut personal taxation in the next budget on March 6. A cabinet minister said: “The tax cuts in March will be enormous. Either they work or we leave Labour with a major headache.” Labour strategists think Sunak will cut 2p from the basic rate of income tax. He and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are also considering scrapping inheritance tax, slashing or abolishing stamp duty and raising income tax thresholds, as Cummings suggested.
That has to be the port and Stilton talking, doesn't it?
I cannot think of something Labour would like more than for the Tories to announce an inheritance cut tax.
And abolishing stamp duty?
Abolishing stamp duty would actually be sensible. Ridiculous tax and has been for years. Abolishing IHT rather less so although simplifying it wouldn't do any harm.
the thing with IHT is there's a lot of people in the southeast of england whose houses are going to take them over the individual entitlement. it's not a tax that just the very rich pay, even if the majority don't pay it they still worry about paying it.
raising the threshold over £1M per person would make sense but it's also an easy target for labour (a tax cut for the top 5%)
A cuter idea (which you could sell as being simultaneously fairer and also a bung to middle England) would be:
A) exclude the principal private residence (“family home”)
reduce the threshold for other assets to - say - £100k
It would be dreadful economics but the politics could work
No it wouldn't. 40% of everything over £100K is a lot of voters.
I plucked that number out of thin air. It could be £250k or whatever - just lower than the current rate.
How many people have that level of free assets *excluding their principal residence*
Off topic. The honest answer to “what was the cause of the Civil War?” is far more nuanced than saying in not many words, slavery. PB has done nothing yet to convince me otherwise. In fact the other way around, I suggest you all see it through the experience of Brexit to understand what the fight was about.
If the dividing line is strictly slavery or not to slavery, then why is a slave state like Delaware fighting for the Union? Because the dividing line wasn’t abolition of slavery, but happy or not to be in a federal tax regime.
There were numerous fault lines, but the actual root cause of the conflict is the fundamental principle of federal versus state, some wishing not to be in a federal economic commonwealth at all, that is taxed down here for a new harbour to be built up there, to the extent they would prefer their own governmental relationship, as in a separate country. And wanting out on that principle is such a feasible and reasoned proposition, on what grounds were they not allowed to breakaway and form their own non federal country without it coming to such a bloody conflict?
To say a “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand' if far from meaningless spin, it literally meant that success comes from sticking together and to do anything else is to invoke disaster. But here’s the kicker, it was actually a lie, it was false ideology, the sort Brexit has crushed, to actually believe A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand . A Union cause on basis of a lie because the truth was a house divided could have gone separate ways and not been a disaster. Just like Brexit isn’t a disaster, but a huge opportunity.
The EU doesn’t even have federal taxation, but it was still too federal for many in UK. So we should have more respect for the confederate states “brexit yearnings” when we answer what the Civil War was about.
The American Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about Brexit. I feel good about putting you all correct on this. 😌
Sigh.
The border states divided according to the dominance of slavery in their society.
Throughout the South, there were those utterly opposed to slavery and the Confederacy.
Look up why there is a West Virginia. Or the State of Jones….
Even in the Deep South there were many who were anti-slavery and “Union men” - violence and coercion was used to keep them “down”.
Also plenty of Confederate sympathizers and/or appeasers in North - aka "Copperheads"; note that in 1861 the then-mayor of New York City advocated making NYC (then just Manhattan) a neutral quasi-independent statelet.
And even more pro-Southerners in Border states, which furnished plenty of soldiers and other resources for Confederacy; for example, almost certainly more West Virginians enlisted with CSA than with USA.
As for MoonRabbit's basic point, that "A House Divided" could have split with "success" however defined, well THAT's been a major topic of American history and historiography ever since before Fort Sumter. Perhaps a wee bit more involved (far less literal) than she suggests!
Posted this a couple days ago, but link below re: interesting alternative history written in early 1960s in time for the US Civil War Centennial. It's dated but still worth considering:
Greatest weakness, shared by virtually all US Civil War histories of that period = minimizing/marginalizing of the African American experience, for Blacks AND for entire nation.
I belatedly thank you for this helpful post.
I have been away a bit watching masked singer.
There’s a lot of feelings and idea’s happening at once in the American civil war. In politically attacking Haley as though there was a slam dunk answer, opponents need to be a bit careful. There were anti federalists at the formation of the United States, certainly at the time of the civil war, and even today. There was a master race vein of thinking running through the secessionists of the civil war, true, to only focus on this to exclusion of all else is saying the conflict was just about slavery. Do you mean by “just about slavery” it means a war to end slavery, like it was the struggle for the soul of a country? I think that’s a mistake. A mistake proven to us by the definition of victory, the history of what happened next after the war.
One thing we can agree on even on PB, the true history is in defeat in war the breakaway was thwarted. But did the soul of the whole country change, was their large cultural change following the war, did the “superior race” ideology disappear from America after its defeat in the war, did the class and status of black citizens dramatically change? Did they all leave the plantations of the confederacy racists? Did they have anywhere to go? Indeed was this racism gone a hundred years later in 1960s? Is “the house” still not divided over race and rights even today?
What I suspect is happening here, through the 20th century and the 21st, history is being rewritten. History has always been rewritten, often by victors, or by authorities using the point of a sword. But also by Hollywood and others streams of culture. Where do people get their history from? Politicians? Historians? Hollywood and other culture? Do politicians and historians and T/v shows ever agree with one another about history? Down centuries history is always viewed through different eyes by people with different knowledge, if it means the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time, i think this is borne out as fact by looking to what actually changed following a war for the soul of America, where slavery and master race thinking was, you are struggling to convince me, defeated.
Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?
Couple of points re:
1. "the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time".
Not really.
You'd be hard pressed to find politicos, journos, pundits on the eve of, and during the US Civil War, who thought the root cause was something OTHER than slavery. They either wanted it abolished or limited; or expanded or at least protected. Many people were willing to compromise, fudge and/or ignore the issue as much as possible, in hopes of achieving stability, taking advantage, winning elections, saving the Union.
It was the NEXT generation, and generations after, that starting in last decades of 19th though the middle of the 20th, that witnessed the rise of the "Lost Cause" theory, that the War Between the States (classic Southern terminology) was about anything BUT slavery.
2. "Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?"
For starters, human slavery WAS abolished in the United States. Pretty big deal, especially for former slaves, their masters AND all their descendants.
Other changes include increased federal power viz-a-viz states (and not just in wartime), increasing commercialization and industrialization, increased sectionalism, creation of the modern US party system of Republicans versus Democrats (though with new & different wine today in those old bottles).
What if the markets take fright at these tax cuts? What then?
Different scenario. The Lizaster had just been appointed PM with a couple of years left to run. Rishi would have weeks left to run. The markets would express their alarm, effectively back Labour, and wait.
No, I think unfunded tax cuts would do to the markets exactly what they did in September 2022.
The Bank of England's bond flog-off dwarved any 'unfunded' tax cuts in fiscal terms. Under the Treasury's commitment to indemnify the Bank against it's losses, what had been announced the day before the minibudget was set to cost the Treasury over £80bn (it has cost more in the event). Any marketeers paying attention would have noted that fact.
So on the day of the Treasury's announcement, day before the mini-budget, GBP gained slightly against the USD; on the day of the budget it lost 3% against the USD.
Those markets were a bit slow to react to the Treasury announcement, what kept them?
There are various reasons for a delayed (very slightly delayed) market response to the BOE announcement, but that's not something I even need to explain to defend my argument. You state that 'unfunded tax cuts' spooked the markets. From memory, there were about £40bn of tax cuts in the mini budget. Within the BOE announcement, there was £80bn of 'unfunded' cost to the exchequer. That's just comparing apples and apples - a completely separate issue from any impact on the market price of UK bonds based on the fact that their biggest holder and purchaser had decided to divest.
You continually misunderstand d this. It’s not a “loss” in the normal sense
Basically these bonds were bought will printed money.
They are being sold for less than they were bought for.
All that means is that the money supply will have permanently expanded rather than been fully sterilised
A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union.
The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has benefited them or the country.
Just one in 10 believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS, against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.
Ominously for prime minister Rishi Sunak, who backed Brexit and claimed it would be economically beneficial, only 7% of people think it has helped keep down prices in UK shops, against 63% who think Brexit has been a factor in fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis.
The poll suggests that seven and a half years on from the referendum the British public now regards Brexit as a failure. Just 22% of voters believe it has been good for the UK in general.
Sooner or later there will be an electoral reckoning for the fiasco of Brexit. 2024 may well be it.
it won't be 2024, Labour and Tory don't want to bring it up at the moment. it's too early to predict but It'll be a couple away. there's no way Tories are bringing it up at a GE to reverse it. Labour will probably do a 'we need to renegotiate' and nudge us closer to the EU but won't need to at the moment.
If I was going to make more certain predictions I'd say we're talking well into the 2030's before brexit becomes an issue again.
Longer term economic forecasts are mystic Meg territory but models are now being revised to reflect the reality that Brexit has had no meaningful economic effect, as some of us predicted. If the new forecasts are correct then the UK will outgrow most of the EZ over the next 10 years.
The other issue is immigration which is not going away but selling freedom of movement in that decade is going to be hard. I think Brexit is done and buried even if some people are finding it hard to get over.
I suspect that there will be another UK/EU treaty bringing us closer to an EFTA style membership, ironically caused by low paid immigration. there are lots of jobs in our economy which are struggling to get workers because they have been generally done by immigrants. Social Care, Factory Work, Flower/Veg Picking to name a few. a government of one kind or another are going to be forced into letting more immigrants in to get these jobs done.
Freedom of Movement as the EU defines it -bringing equal rights to welfare - won’t work. An expansion of working visas will
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
That November dates feels like a straw man blown in the wind. The powers that be would not want to have the UK election during the US post-election bloodbath. Sunak will be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot do that. Similarly October is problematic because King Chuck has decided to sod off for a month.
A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union.
The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has benefited them or the country.
Just one in 10 believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS, against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.
Ominously for prime minister Rishi Sunak, who backed Brexit and claimed it would be economically beneficial, only 7% of people think it has helped keep down prices in UK shops, against 63% who think Brexit has been a factor in fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis.
The poll suggests that seven and a half years on from the referendum the British public now regards Brexit as a failure. Just 22% of voters believe it has been good for the UK in general.
Sooner or later there will be an electoral reckoning for the fiasco of Brexit. 2024 may well be it.
it won't be 2024, Labour and Tory don't want to bring it up at the moment. it's too early to predict but It'll be a couple away. there's no way Tories are bringing it up at a GE to reverse it. Labour will probably do a 'we need to renegotiate' and nudge us closer to the EU but won't need to at the moment.
If I was going to make more certain predictions I'd say we're talking well into the 2030's before brexit becomes an issue again.
Longer term economic forecasts are mystic Meg territory but models are now being revised to reflect the reality that Brexit has had no meaningful economic effect, as some of us predicted. If the new forecasts are correct then the UK will outgrow most of the EZ over the next 10 years.
The other issue is immigration which is not going away but selling freedom of movement in that decade is going to be hard. I think Brexit is done and buried even if some people are finding it hard to get over.
I suspect that there will be another UK/EU treaty bringing us closer to an EFTA style membership, ironically caused by low paid immigration. there are lots of jobs in our economy which are struggling to get workers because they have been generally done by immigrants. Social Care, Factory Work, Flower/Veg Picking to name a few. a government of one kind or another are going to be forced into letting more immigrants in to get these jobs done.
Freedom of Movement as the EU defines it -bringing equal rights to welfare - won’t work. An expansion of working visas will
Freedom to work in any eu country did not mean freedom to claim out of work benefits when the job ended.
In 1850s in leadup to US Civil War, there was a very significant transformation AND increased sectionalization of American politics, from the division between (Jacksonian) Democrats and (American) Whigs both with voters and politicos in every section and state, to even more polarized split between Democrats and Republicans - with former almost exclusively Northern, and later increasing sundered on sectional lines.
During the early days of the Republican Party we know today (sorta) it's rival for the support of former Whigs, dissident Dems, etc. was the American Party aka "Know-Nothings" whose Big Issue was NOT slavery, but instead . . . wait for it . . . immigration.
In mid-1850s it was touch-and-go whether the Republicans OR the Know Nothings would ultimately make it into the Top Two of the new American two-party system.
For example, in 1856 both fielded Presidential candidates; John C. Fremont ("the Pathfinder") for Reps and former Democratic POTUS Millard Fillmore for the KNs.
Result was that Democrat James Buchanan got 45% of popular vote and 174 EVs, Fremont got 33% of popular and 114 EVs, and Fillmore got 21.5% of popular and 8 EVs.
Only state Fillmore won was Maryland, with sizable immigrant population and slave state smack on Mason-Dixon line, with Southern roots but tied to Northern economy.
Every other slave state voted for Buchanan, as did his native Pennsylvania plus most of the lower Midwest and also California; Fremont won the rest, notably all New England plus areas in Great Lakes with New England roots.
Before the next election, in 1860, the American Party had fallen apart - broken on the rock of . . . wait for it . . . slavery.
With most "North Americans" = Know Nothings in Northern States, ending up with Republicans, while most "South Americans" trending toward Dems.
We think (or at least I do) of Massachusetts in general, and Boston in particular, of being markedly Irish in many ways, especially political.
Yet in the 1850s the government of the great Codfish Commonwealth was controlled, not by Republicans, but by anti-immigrant (read Catholic, and in Mass also read Irish) Know Nothings.
Who by 1860 were pretty much all Republicans, certainly the politicos.
What if the markets take fright at these tax cuts? What then?
Different scenario. The Lizaster had just been appointed PM with a couple of years left to run. Rishi would have weeks left to run. The markets would express their alarm, effectively back Labour, and wait.
No, I think unfunded tax cuts would do to the markets exactly what they did in September 2022.
The Bank of England's bond flog-off dwarved any 'unfunded' tax cuts in fiscal terms. Under the Treasury's commitment to indemnify the Bank against it's losses, what had been announced the day before the minibudget was set to cost the Treasury over £80bn (it has cost more in the event). Any marketeers paying attention would have noted that fact.
So on the day of the Treasury's announcement, day before the mini-budget, GBP gained slightly against the USD; on the day of the budget it lost 3% against the USD.
Those markets were a bit slow to react to the Treasury announcement, what kept them?
There are various reasons for a delayed (very slightly delayed) market response to the BOE announcement, but that's not something I even need to explain to defend my argument. You state that 'unfunded tax cuts' spooked the markets. From memory, there were about £40bn of tax cuts in the mini budget. Within the BOE announcement, there was £80bn of 'unfunded' cost to the exchequer. That's just comparing apples and apples - a completely separate issue from any impact on the market price of UK bonds based on the fact that their biggest holder and purchaser had decided to divest.
You continually misunderstand d this. It’s not a “loss” in the normal sense
Basically these bonds were bought will printed money.
They are being sold for less than they were bought for.
All that means is that the money supply will have permanently expanded rather than been fully sterilised
No, you continually misunderstand this. The Government is committed to funding the Bank's losses on its bond sales at the Treasury's expense. That's real taxpayer's (and borrowed) money being paid over each month and it is therefore directly comparable to the impact of public spending or tax cuts on the public finances.
That November dates feels like a straw man blown in the wind. The powers that be would not want to have the UK election during the US post-election bloodbath. Sunak will be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot do that. Similarly October is problematic because King Chuck has decided to sod off for a month.
Its still May.
Let’s deconstruct “sod off for a month”
- King of New Zealand visits his realm - Head of the Commonwealth attends annual summit - King of Australia visits his realm
Why should our Aussie and Kiwi cousins be denied a visit? And it makes logistical sense to combine with a meeting in Samoa.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union.
The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has benefited them or the country.
Just one in 10 believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS, against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.
Ominously for prime minister Rishi Sunak, who backed Brexit and claimed it would be economically beneficial, only 7% of people think it has helped keep down prices in UK shops, against 63% who think Brexit has been a factor in fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis.
The poll suggests that seven and a half years on from the referendum the British public now regards Brexit as a failure. Just 22% of voters believe it has been good for the UK in general.
Sooner or later there will be an electoral reckoning for the fiasco of Brexit. 2024 may well be it.
it won't be 2024, Labour and Tory don't want to bring it up at the moment. it's too early to predict but It'll be a couple away. there's no way Tories are bringing it up at a GE to reverse it. Labour will probably do a 'we need to renegotiate' and nudge us closer to the EU but won't need to at the moment.
If I was going to make more certain predictions I'd say we're talking well into the 2030's before brexit becomes an issue again.
Longer term economic forecasts are mystic Meg territory but models are now being revised to reflect the reality that Brexit has had no meaningful economic effect, as some of us predicted. If the new forecasts are correct then the UK will outgrow most of the EZ over the next 10 years.
The other issue is immigration which is not going away but selling freedom of movement in that decade is going to be hard. I think Brexit is done and buried even if some people are finding it hard to get over.
I suspect that there will be another UK/EU treaty bringing us closer to an EFTA style membership, ironically caused by low paid immigration. there are lots of jobs in our economy which are struggling to get workers because they have been generally done by immigrants. Social Care, Factory Work, Flower/Veg Picking to name a few. a government of one kind or another are going to be forced into letting more immigrants in to get these jobs done.
Freedom of Movement as the EU defines it -bringing equal rights to welfare - won’t work. An expansion of working visas will
Freedom to work in any eu country did not mean freedom to claim out of work benefits when the job ended.
Combined with the Maastricht Treaty obligation to treat all EU citizens as equivalent to domestic citizens it did in the UK. This is because we have a non contributory welfare system but whenever the Tories have floated changes to this they get screamed down…
What if the markets take fright at these tax cuts? What then?
Different scenario. The Lizaster had just been appointed PM with a couple of years left to run. Rishi would have weeks left to run. The markets would express their alarm, effectively back Labour, and wait.
No, I think unfunded tax cuts would do to the markets exactly what they did in September 2022.
The Bank of England's bond flog-off dwarved any 'unfunded' tax cuts in fiscal terms. Under the Treasury's commitment to indemnify the Bank against it's losses, what had been announced the day before the minibudget was set to cost the Treasury over £80bn (it has cost more in the event). Any marketeers paying attention would have noted that fact.
So on the day of the Treasury's announcement, day before the mini-budget, GBP gained slightly against the USD; on the day of the budget it lost 3% against the USD.
Those markets were a bit slow to react to the Treasury announcement, what kept them?
There are various reasons for a delayed (very slightly delayed) market response to the BOE announcement, but that's not something I even need to explain to defend my argument. You state that 'unfunded tax cuts' spooked the markets. From memory, there were about £40bn of tax cuts in the mini budget. Within the BOE announcement, there was £80bn of 'unfunded' cost to the exchequer. That's just comparing apples and apples - a completely separate issue from any impact on the market price of UK bonds based on the fact that their biggest holder and purchaser had decided to divest.
You continually misunderstand d this. It’s not a “loss” in the normal sense
Basically these bonds were bought will printed money.
They are being sold for less than they were bought for.
All that means is that the money supply will have permanently expanded rather than been fully sterilised
No, you continually misunderstand this. The Government is committed to funding the Bank's losses on its bond sales at the Treasury's expense. That's real taxpayer's (and borrowed) money being paid over each month and it is therefore directly comparable to the impact of public spending or tax cuts on the public finances.
The borrowed money is coming from the Bank of England.
NEW: Tory election chief Isaac Levido has pencilled in November 14 as the general election date
He can rub it out again. A GE one week after Trump's re-election is a vista too horrible to contemplate.
I have decided it should be September.
Could still be Biden's re election, Trump may be in jail by that point and/or running as an independent.
Either way an election in November ensures maximum time for economic recovery, extra income from tax cuts and falling immigration and leaves Starmer to likely deal with whoever ends up US president in January 2025
Off topic. The honest answer to “what was the cause of the Civil War?” is far more nuanced than saying in not many words, slavery. PB has done nothing yet to convince me otherwise. In fact the other way around, I suggest you all see it through the experience of Brexit to understand what the fight was about.
If the dividing line is strictly slavery or not to slavery, then why is a slave state like Delaware fighting for the Union? Because the dividing line wasn’t abolition of slavery, but happy or not to be in a federal tax regime.
There were numerous fault lines, but the actual root cause of the conflict is the fundamental principle of federal versus state, some wishing not to be in a federal economic commonwealth at all, that is taxed down here for a new harbour to be built up there, to the extent they would prefer their own governmental relationship, as in a separate country. And wanting out on that principle is such a feasible and reasoned proposition, on what grounds were they not allowed to breakaway and form their own non federal country without it coming to such a bloody conflict?
To say a “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand' if far from meaningless spin, it literally meant that success comes from sticking together and to do anything else is to invoke disaster. But here’s the kicker, it was actually a lie, it was false ideology, the sort Brexit has crushed, to actually believe A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand . A Union cause on basis of a lie because the truth was a house divided could have gone separate ways and not been a disaster. Just like Brexit isn’t a disaster, but a huge opportunity.
The EU doesn’t even have federal taxation, but it was still too federal for many in UK. So we should have more respect for the confederate states “brexit yearnings” when we answer what the Civil War was about.
The American Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about Brexit. I feel good about putting you all correct on this. 😌
Sigh.
The border states divided according to the dominance of slavery in their society.
Throughout the South, there were those utterly opposed to slavery and the Confederacy.
Look up why there is a West Virginia. Or the State of Jones….
Even in the Deep South there were many who were anti-slavery and “Union men” - violence and coercion was used to keep them “down”.
Also plenty of Confederate sympathizers and/or appeasers in North - aka "Copperheads"; note that in 1861 the then-mayor of New York City advocated making NYC (then just Manhattan) a neutral quasi-independent statelet.
And even more pro-Southerners in Border states, which furnished plenty of soldiers and other resources for Confederacy; for example, almost certainly more West Virginians enlisted with CSA than with USA.
As for MoonRabbit's basic point, that "A House Divided" could have split with "success" however defined, well THAT's been a major topic of American history and historiography ever since before Fort Sumter. Perhaps a wee bit more involved (far less literal) than she suggests!
Posted this a couple days ago, but link below re: interesting alternative history written in early 1960s in time for the US Civil War Centennial. It's dated but still worth considering:
Greatest weakness, shared by virtually all US Civil War histories of that period = minimizing/marginalizing of the African American experience, for Blacks AND for entire nation.
I belatedly thank you for this helpful post.
I have been away a bit watching masked singer.
There’s a lot of feelings and idea’s happening at once in the American civil war. In politically attacking Haley as though there was a slam dunk answer, opponents need to be a bit careful. There were anti federalists at the formation of the United States, certainly at the time of the civil war, and even today. There was a master race vein of thinking running through the secessionists of the civil war, true, to only focus on this to exclusion of all else is saying the conflict was just about slavery. Do you mean by “just about slavery” it means a war to end slavery, like it was the struggle for the soul of a country? I think that’s a mistake. A mistake proven to us by the definition of victory, the history of what happened next after the war.
One thing we can agree on even on PB, the true history is in defeat in war the breakaway was thwarted. But did the soul of the whole country change, was their large cultural change following the war, did the “superior race” ideology disappear from America after its defeat in the war, did the class and status of black citizens dramatically change? Did they all leave the plantations of the confederacy racists? Did they have anywhere to go? Indeed was this racism gone a hundred years later in 1960s? Is “the house” still not divided over race and rights even today?
What I suspect is happening here, through the 20th century and the 21st, history is being rewritten. History has always been rewritten, often by victors, or by authorities using the point of a sword. But also by Hollywood and others streams of culture. Where do people get their history from? Politicians? Historians? Hollywood and other culture? Do politicians and historians and T/v shows ever agree with one another about history? Down centuries history is always viewed through different eyes by people with different knowledge, if it means the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time, i think this is borne out as fact by looking to what actually changed following a war for the soul of America, where slavery and master race thinking was, you are struggling to convince me, defeated.
Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?
Couple of points re:
1. "the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time".
Not really.
You'd be hard pressed to find politicos, journos, pundits on the eve of, and during the US Civil War, who thought the root cause was something OTHER than slavery. They either wanted it abolished or limited; or expanded or at least protected. Many people were willing to compromise, fudge and/or ignore the issue as much as possible, in hopes of achieving stability, taking advantage, winning elections, saving the Union.
It was the NEXT generation, and generations after, that starting in last decades of 19th though the middle of the 20th, that witnessed the rise of the "Lost Cause" theory, that the War Between the States (classic Southern terminology) was about anything BUT slavery.
2. "Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?"
For starters, human slavery WAS abolished in the United States. Pretty big deal, especially for former slaves, their masters AND all their descendants.
Other changes include increased federal power viz-a-viz states (and not just in wartime), increasing commercialization and industrialization, increased sectionalism, creation of the modern US party system of Republicans versus Democrats (though with new & different wine today in those old bottles).
Surely the best single volume history of the Civil War and, in my opinion, one of the best history books I have ever read about any period.
Just outstanding.
I vaguely remember watching 'Roots' as a child. Then 'Star Trek: TNG'. Is that not enough? I possibly caught a few episodes of 'North and South' too. Though overall I feel watching "Floyd's American Pie" gave me the most understanding of the complexities and nuance.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
I think I am growing on you Sam!
Let's hope there's an over the counter remedy.
It's been there for 8 hours now, so I probably should go to A&E
Most Tories believe the key to winning back Middle England is to cut personal taxation in the next budget on March 6. A cabinet minister said: “The tax cuts in March will be enormous. Either they work or we leave Labour with a major headache.” Labour strategists think Sunak will cut 2p from the basic rate of income tax. He and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are also considering scrapping inheritance tax, slashing or abolishing stamp duty and raising income tax thresholds, as Cummings suggested.
That has to be the port and Stilton talking, doesn't it?
I cannot think of something Labour would like more than for the Tories to announce an inheritance cut tax.
And abolishing stamp duty?
Abolishing stamp duty would actually be sensible. Ridiculous tax and has been for years. Abolishing IHT rather less so although simplifying it wouldn't do any harm.
the thing with IHT is there's a lot of people in the southeast of england whose houses are going to take them over the individual entitlement. it's not a tax that just the very rich pay, even if the majority don't pay it they still worry about paying it.
raising the threshold over £1M per person would make sense but it's also an easy target for labour (a tax cut for the top 5%)
A cuter idea (which you could sell as being simultaneously fairer and also a bung to middle England) would be:
A) exclude the principal private residence (“family home”)
reduce the threshold for other assets to - say - £100k
It would be dreadful economics but the politics could work
Dreadful economics aside, it would likely be catastrophic for the housing market and the NHS, as the elderly rushed to upsize to "protect the kids" rather than downsize to something more appropriate for their age, releasing larger homes for families.
Most Tories believe the key to winning back Middle England is to cut personal taxation in the next budget on March 6. A cabinet minister said: “The tax cuts in March will be enormous. Either they work or we leave Labour with a major headache.” Labour strategists think Sunak will cut 2p from the basic rate of income tax. He and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, are also considering scrapping inheritance tax, slashing or abolishing stamp duty and raising income tax thresholds, as Cummings suggested.
That has to be the port and Stilton talking, doesn't it?
I cannot think of something Labour would like more than for the Tories to announce an inheritance cut tax.
And abolishing stamp duty?
Abolishing stamp duty would actually be sensible. Ridiculous tax and has been for years. Abolishing IHT rather less so although simplifying it wouldn't do any harm.
the thing with IHT is there's a lot of people in the southeast of england whose houses are going to take them over the individual entitlement. it's not a tax that just the very rich pay, even if the majority don't pay it they still worry about paying it.
raising the threshold over £1M per person would make sense but it's also an easy target for labour (a tax cut for the top 5%)
A cuter idea (which you could sell as being simultaneously fairer and also a bung to middle England) would be:
A) exclude the principal private residence (“family home”)
reduce the threshold for other assets to - say - £100k
It would be dreadful economics but the politics could work
Dreadful economics aside, it would likely be catastrophic for the housing market and the NHS, as the elderly rushed to upsize to "protect the kids" rather than downsize to something more appropriate for their age, releasing larger homes for families.
The impact on the housing market was the “dreadful economics” I was referring to!
For those who haven't read enough about the US Civil War, here's a new book: 'Howell Raines, a former executive editor of the New York Times, is the author of “Silent Cavalry: How Union Soldiers from Alabama Helped Sherman Burn Atlanta — and Then Got Written Out of History.”
A new generation of Civil War scholars is filling in what one commentator calls the “skipped history” of White Southerners who fought for the Union Army. For me, the emerging revisionist account of the conflict is personal. I have discovered the story of a great-great-grandfather who was threatened with hanging as a “damned old Lincolnite” by his neighbors in the Alabama mountains." (Link omitted.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/howell-raines-alabama-civil-war-history/
Raines says -- and this surprised me -- that these Southern Unionists got "Written Out of History" in large part by scholars (if that is the right word), led by historian William Archibald Dunning, at Columbia University.
(I wonder if MoonRabbit is, unknowingly, recycling the errors made by Dunings school of historians.)
Off topic. The honest answer to “what was the cause of the Civil War?” is far more nuanced than saying in not many words, slavery. PB has done nothing yet to convince me otherwise. In fact the other way around, I suggest you all see it through the experience of Brexit to understand what the fight was about.
If the dividing line is strictly slavery or not to slavery, then why is a slave state like Delaware fighting for the Union? Because the dividing line wasn’t abolition of slavery, but happy or not to be in a federal tax regime.
There were numerous fault lines, but the actual root cause of the conflict is the fundamental principle of federal versus state, some wishing not to be in a federal economic commonwealth at all, that is taxed down here for a new harbour to be built up there, to the extent they would prefer their own governmental relationship, as in a separate country. And wanting out on that principle is such a feasible and reasoned proposition, on what grounds were they not allowed to breakaway and form their own non federal country without it coming to such a bloody conflict?
To say a “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand' if far from meaningless spin, it literally meant that success comes from sticking together and to do anything else is to invoke disaster. But here’s the kicker, it was actually a lie, it was false ideology, the sort Brexit has crushed, to actually believe A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand . A Union cause on basis of a lie because the truth was a house divided could have gone separate ways and not been a disaster. Just like Brexit isn’t a disaster, but a huge opportunity.
The EU doesn’t even have federal taxation, but it was still too federal for many in UK. So we should have more respect for the confederate states “brexit yearnings” when we answer what the Civil War was about.
The American Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about Brexit. I feel good about putting you all correct on this. 😌
Sigh.
The border states divided according to the dominance of slavery in their society.
Throughout the South, there were those utterly opposed to slavery and the Confederacy.
Look up why there is a West Virginia. Or the State of Jones….
Even in the Deep South there were many who were anti-slavery and “Union men” - violence and coercion was used to keep them “down”.
Also plenty of Confederate sympathizers and/or appeasers in North - aka "Copperheads"; note that in 1861 the then-mayor of New York City advocated making NYC (then just Manhattan) a neutral quasi-independent statelet.
And even more pro-Southerners in Border states, which furnished plenty of soldiers and other resources for Confederacy; for example, almost certainly more West Virginians enlisted with CSA than with USA.
As for MoonRabbit's basic point, that "A House Divided" could have split with "success" however defined, well THAT's been a major topic of American history and historiography ever since before Fort Sumter. Perhaps a wee bit more involved (far less literal) than she suggests!
Posted this a couple days ago, but link below re: interesting alternative history written in early 1960s in time for the US Civil War Centennial. It's dated but still worth considering:
Greatest weakness, shared by virtually all US Civil War histories of that period = minimizing/marginalizing of the African American experience, for Blacks AND for entire nation.
I belatedly thank you for this helpful post.
I have been away a bit watching masked singer.
There’s a lot of feelings and idea’s happening at once in the American civil war. In politically attacking Haley as though there was a slam dunk answer, opponents need to be a bit careful. There were anti federalists at the formation of the United States, certainly at the time of the civil war, and even today. There was a master race vein of thinking running through the secessionists of the civil war, true, to only focus on this to exclusion of all else is saying the conflict was just about slavery. Do you mean by “just about slavery” it means a war to end slavery, like it was the struggle for the soul of a country? I think that’s a mistake. A mistake proven to us by the definition of victory, the history of what happened next after the war.
One thing we can agree on even on PB, the true history is in defeat in war the breakaway was thwarted. But did the soul of the whole country change, was their large cultural change following the war, did the “superior race” ideology disappear from America after its defeat in the war, did the class and status of black citizens dramatically change? Did they all leave the plantations of the confederacy racists? Did they have anywhere to go? Indeed was this racism gone a hundred years later in 1960s? Is “the house” still not divided over race and rights even today?
What I suspect is happening here, through the 20th century and the 21st, history is being rewritten. History has always been rewritten, often by victors, or by authorities using the point of a sword. But also by Hollywood and others streams of culture. Where do people get their history from? Politicians? Historians? Hollywood and other culture? Do politicians and historians and T/v shows ever agree with one another about history? Down centuries history is always viewed through different eyes by people with different knowledge, if it means the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time, i think this is borne out as fact by looking to what actually changed following a war for the soul of America, where slavery and master race thinking was, you are struggling to convince me, defeated.
Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?
Couple of points re:
1. "the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time".
Not really.
You'd be hard pressed to find politicos, journos, pundits on the eve of, and during the US Civil War, who thought the root cause was something OTHER than slavery. They either wanted it abolished or limited; or expanded or at least protected. Many people were willing to compromise, fudge and/or ignore the issue as much as possible, in hopes of achieving stability, taking advantage, winning elections, saving the Union.
It was the NEXT generation, and generations after, that starting in last decades of 19th though the middle of the 20th, that witnessed the rise of the "Lost Cause" theory, that the War Between the States (classic Southern terminology) was about anything BUT slavery.
2. "Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?"
For starters, human slavery WAS abolished in the United States. Pretty big deal, especially for former slaves, their masters AND all their descendants.
Other changes include increased federal power viz-a-viz states (and not just in wartime), increasing commercialization and industrialization, increased sectionalism, creation of the modern US party system of Republicans versus Democrats (though with new & different wine today in those old bottles).
Agreed. Bad as Jim Crow was, chatteldom was a lot worse.
Starting in 1870, US Census starting noting the names of African Americans as matter of course, like with other citizens.
Before then, enslaved people - all Black by American definition anyway - were tallied by number, no names. Like other livestock.
Which makes it tough for Black people today when they try researching their family trees.
Several years ago saw episode of researching your roots show hosted by Dr. Henry Lewis Gates, and one of the subjects was Congressman John Lewis.
Turned out that researchers found property record for land in Alabama, that had been transferred from former slave owner to one of this former slaves: John Lewis's great-grandfather.
Why was not known, but fact was, a man born in chains fated to labor for others gratis, died a free man AND a property owner.
Don't know about the mule . . . but he got his 40 acres. But NOT the right to vote.
It was his descendant and inheritor, John Lewis who as a young college student decades later, stood on the Pettus Bridge at the culmination of the March on Selma, with his hands in his pocket, waiting for an Alabama state trooper to start beating him with a billyclub, because he had the gumption to demand the right to vote.
And what was the result of that deliberate act of nonviolence? The Voting Rights Act of 1965.
That November dates feels like a straw man blown in the wind. The powers that be would not want to have the UK election during the US post-election bloodbath. Sunak will be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot do that. Similarly October is problematic because King Chuck has decided to sod off for a month.
Its still May.
Let’s deconstruct “sod off for a month”
- King of New Zealand visits his realm - Head of the Commonwealth attends annual summit - King of Australia visits his realm
Why should our Aussie and Kiwi cousins be denied a visit? And it makes logistical sense to combine with a meeting in Samoa.
Oh I entirely agree. HMK is jefe in so many places.
I'm sure he would have taken perverse pleasure in shutting down Sunak's options in this way.
That November dates feels like a straw man blown in the wind. The powers that be would not want to have the UK election during the US post-election bloodbath. Sunak will be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot do that. Similarly October is problematic because King Chuck has decided to sod off for a month.
Its still May.
Let’s deconstruct “sod off for a month”
- King of New Zealand visits his realm - Head of the Commonwealth attends annual summit - King of Australia visits his realm
Why should our Aussie and Kiwi cousins be denied a visit? And it makes logistical sense to combine with a meeting in Samoa.
Oh I entirely agree. HMK is jefe in so many places.
I'm sure he would have taken perverse pleasure in shutting down Sunak's options in this way.
Whether or not he likes the PM he ought to understand his constitutional duty. He shows signs of self righteous arrogance.
Off topic. The honest answer to “what was the cause of the Civil War?” is far more nuanced than saying in not many words, slavery. PB has done nothing yet to convince me otherwise. In fact the other way around, I suggest you all see it through the experience of Brexit to understand what the fight was about.
If the dividing line is strictly slavery or not to slavery, then why is a slave state like Delaware fighting for the Union? Because the dividing line wasn’t abolition of slavery, but happy or not to be in a federal tax regime.
There were numerous fault lines, but the actual root cause of the conflict is the fundamental principle of federal versus state, some wishing not to be in a federal economic commonwealth at all, that is taxed down here for a new harbour to be built up there, to the extent they would prefer their own governmental relationship, as in a separate country. And wanting out on that principle is such a feasible and reasoned proposition, on what grounds were they not allowed to breakaway and form their own non federal country without it coming to such a bloody conflict?
To say a “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand' if far from meaningless spin, it literally meant that success comes from sticking together and to do anything else is to invoke disaster. But here’s the kicker, it was actually a lie, it was false ideology, the sort Brexit has crushed, to actually believe A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand . A Union cause on basis of a lie because the truth was a house divided could have gone separate ways and not been a disaster. Just like Brexit isn’t a disaster, but a huge opportunity.
The EU doesn’t even have federal taxation, but it was still too federal for many in UK. So we should have more respect for the confederate states “brexit yearnings” when we answer what the Civil War was about.
The American Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about Brexit. I feel good about putting you all correct on this. 😌
Sigh.
The border states divided according to the dominance of slavery in their society.
Throughout the South, there were those utterly opposed to slavery and the Confederacy.
Look up why there is a West Virginia. Or the State of Jones….
Even in the Deep South there were many who were anti-slavery and “Union men” - violence and coercion was used to keep them “down”.
Also plenty of Confederate sympathizers and/or appeasers in North - aka "Copperheads"; note that in 1861 the then-mayor of New York City advocated making NYC (then just Manhattan) a neutral quasi-independent statelet.
And even more pro-Southerners in Border states, which furnished plenty of soldiers and other resources for Confederacy; for example, almost certainly more West Virginians enlisted with CSA than with USA.
As for MoonRabbit's basic point, that "A House Divided" could have split with "success" however defined, well THAT's been a major topic of American history and historiography ever since before Fort Sumter. Perhaps a wee bit more involved (far less literal) than she suggests!
Posted this a couple days ago, but link below re: interesting alternative history written in early 1960s in time for the US Civil War Centennial. It's dated but still worth considering:
Greatest weakness, shared by virtually all US Civil War histories of that period = minimizing/marginalizing of the African American experience, for Blacks AND for entire nation.
I belatedly thank you for this helpful post.
I have been away a bit watching masked singer.
There’s a lot of feelings and idea’s happening at once in the American civil war. In politically attacking Haley as though there was a slam dunk answer, opponents need to be a bit careful. There were anti federalists at the formation of the United States, certainly at the time of the civil war, and even today. There was a master race vein of thinking running through the secessionists of the civil war, true, to only focus on this to exclusion of all else is saying the conflict was just about slavery. Do you mean by “just about slavery” it means a war to end slavery, like it was the struggle for the soul of a country? I think that’s a mistake. A mistake proven to us by the definition of victory, the history of what happened next after the war.
One thing we can agree on even on PB, the true history is in defeat in war the breakaway was thwarted. But did the soul of the whole country change, was their large cultural change following the war, did the “superior race” ideology disappear from America after its defeat in the war, did the class and status of black citizens dramatically change? Did they all leave the plantations of the confederacy racists? Did they have anywhere to go? Indeed was this racism gone a hundred years later in 1960s? Is “the house” still not divided over race and rights even today?
What I suspect is happening here, through the 20th century and the 21st, history is being rewritten. History has always been rewritten, often by victors, or by authorities using the point of a sword. But also by Hollywood and others streams of culture. Where do people get their history from? Politicians? Historians? Hollywood and other culture? Do politicians and historians and T/v shows ever agree with one another about history? Down centuries history is always viewed through different eyes by people with different knowledge, if it means the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time, i think this is borne out as fact by looking to what actually changed following a war for the soul of America, where slavery and master race thinking was, you are struggling to convince me, defeated.
Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?
Couple of points re:
1. "the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time".
Not really.
You'd be hard pressed to find politicos, journos, pundits on the eve of, and during the US Civil War, who thought the root cause was something OTHER than slavery. They either wanted it abolished or limited; or expanded or at least protected. Many people were willing to compromise, fudge and/or ignore the issue as much as possible, in hopes of achieving stability, taking advantage, winning elections, saving the Union.
It was the NEXT generation, and generations after, that starting in last decades of 19th though the middle of the 20th, that witnessed the rise of the "Lost Cause" theory, that the War Between the States (classic Southern terminology) was about anything BUT slavery.
2. "Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?"
For starters, human slavery WAS abolished in the United States. Pretty big deal, especially for former slaves, their masters AND all their descendants.
Other changes include increased federal power viz-a-viz states (and not just in wartime), increasing commercialization and industrialization, increased sectionalism, creation of the modern US party system of Republicans versus Democrats (though with new & different wine today in those old bottles).
Agreed. Bad as Jim Crow was, chatteldom was a lot worse.
Starting in 1870, US Census starting noting the names of African Americans as matter of course, like with other citizens.
Before then, enslaved people - all Black by American definition anyway - were tallied by number, no names. Like other livestock.
Which makes it tough for Black people today when they try researching their family trees.
Several years ago saw episode of researching your roots show hosted by Dr. Henry Lewis Gates, and one of the subjects was Congressman John Lewis.
Turned out that researchers found property record for land in Alabama, that had been transferred from former slave owner to one of this former slaves: John Lewis's great-grandfather.
Why was not known, but fact was, a man born in chains fated to labor for others gratis, died a free man AND a property owner.
Don't know about the mule . . . but he got his 40 acres. But NOT the right to vote.
It was his descendant and inheritor, John Lewis who as a young college student decades later, stood on the Pettus Bridge at the culmination of the March on Selma, with his hands in his pocket, waiting for an Alabama state trooper to start beating him with a billyclub, because he had the gumption to demand the right to vote.
And what was the result of that deliberate act of nonviolence? The Voting Rights Act of 1965.
One of the ironies of the abolition of slavery is that the 3/5ths stuff was removed. So black people were counted in the census at citizens. Which increased the counted population of the South. And hence the Congressional representation of the Southern states.
On topic, a GE two weeks before the US election? No, I don't think so.
Late September / early October maybe - 3rd October at the latest.
in order to get election day at the end of september or beginning of october don't they have to call it while parliament is out of session?
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. I guess Parliament could be recalled early from the summer recess.
I don't know if parliament has to be recalled from to dissolve. Anyone know?
But just like the problem of the king being abroad, necessity is the mother of invention. People make it to royal funerals whatever they had on. Same with election duty.
Is there a rule that the meeting between the PM and the King needs to be in the UK?
I assume Sunak will be in Fiji as well for the Commonwealth meeting. So meet privately with the King there, get his blessing and fly home to announce to the commons?
When Herbert Asquith took over, following death of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, as leader of Liberal Party AND as Prime Minister in 1908, he traveled to the French Riviera to kiss hand with King Edward VI.
For those who haven't read enough about the US Civil War, here's a new book: 'Howell Raines, a former executive editor of the New York Times, is the author of “Silent Cavalry: How Union Soldiers from Alabama Helped Sherman Burn Atlanta — and Then Got Written Out of History.”
A new generation of Civil War scholars is filling in what one commentator calls the “skipped history” of White Southerners who fought for the Union Army. For me, the emerging revisionist account of the conflict is personal. I have discovered the story of a great-great-grandfather who was threatened with hanging as a “damned old Lincolnite” by his neighbors in the Alabama mountains." (Link omitted.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/howell-raines-alabama-civil-war-history/
Raines says -- and this surprised me -- that these Southern Unionists got "Written Out of History" in large part by scholars (if that is the right word), led by historian William Archibald Dunning, at Columbia University.
(I wonder if MoonRabbit is, unknowingly, recycling the errors made by Dunings school of historians.)
Lost Cause “history” was more than just “It wasn’t really about slavery”
Copperheads and Southern Unionists were written out. All Southerners were plantation owning cavaliers - the poor whites who went to war with no shoes weren’t included either.
Republican = Abolishionist/John Brown - with the exception of Lincoln, strangely.
Starmer being preferred by 10% in an MRP poll really does not suggest Sunak is going to do well.
Here's the problem though - how does holding on past May make it any better? Tories get demolished in the Locals Markets say Oh Fuck No to the tax cut Rwanda gets laughed out of the Lords 5 Families of Lunatics organise over the summer against Sunak
For those who haven't read enough about the US Civil War, here's a new book: 'Howell Raines, a former executive editor of the New York Times, is the author of “Silent Cavalry: How Union Soldiers from Alabama Helped Sherman Burn Atlanta — and Then Got Written Out of History.”
A new generation of Civil War scholars is filling in what one commentator calls the “skipped history” of White Southerners who fought for the Union Army. For me, the emerging revisionist account of the conflict is personal. I have discovered the story of a great-great-grandfather who was threatened with hanging as a “damned old Lincolnite” by his neighbors in the Alabama mountains." (Link omitted.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/howell-raines-alabama-civil-war-history/
Raines says -- and this surprised me -- that these Southern Unionists got "Written Out of History" in large part by scholars (if that is the right word), led by historian William Archibald Dunning, at Columbia University.
(I wonder if MoonRabbit is, unknowingly, recycling the errors made by Dunings school of historians.)
And here is wiki on Free State of Winston, a Unionist stronghold in northern Alabama, where many troopers in 1st Alabama Cavalry USA originated. And which I first heard about, mentioned in a brief aside when reading "To Kill a Mockingbird".
Note that Howell Raines was unaware growing up, and for most of his adulthood, of the Unionists in his own family tree.
Why? Because for much of that time, it was socially unacceptable for White Southerners to talk about, let alone brag about, their anti-Confederate kinfolk. For many, even within the family circle.
That November dates feels like a straw man blown in the wind. The powers that be would not want to have the UK election during the US post-election bloodbath. Sunak will be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot do that. Similarly October is problematic because King Chuck has decided to sod off for a month.
Its still May.
Let’s deconstruct “sod off for a month”
- King of New Zealand visits his realm - Head of the Commonwealth attends annual summit - King of Australia visits his realm
Why should our Aussie and Kiwi cousins be denied a visit? And it makes logistical sense to combine with a meeting in Samoa.
Oh I entirely agree. HMK is jefe in so many places.
I'm sure he would have taken perverse pleasure in shutting down Sunak's options in this way.
Whether or not he likes the PM he ought to understand his constitutional duty. He shows signs of self righteous arrogance.
The King is King of Australia and New Zealand as much as the UK. When the UK PM wants to hold a general election should not stop him from visiting his realms and of course there is nothing to stop him visiting the King the week before his visit to announce a general election or the week the King is back
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
Off topic. The honest answer to “what was the cause of the Civil War?” is far more nuanced than saying in not many words, slavery. PB has done nothing yet to convince me otherwise. In fact the other way around, I suggest you all see it through the experience of Brexit to understand what the fight was about.
If the dividing line is strictly slavery or not to slavery, then why is a slave state like Delaware fighting for the Union? Because the dividing line wasn’t abolition of slavery, but happy or not to be in a federal tax regime.
There were numerous fault lines, but the actual root cause of the conflict is the fundamental principle of federal versus state, some wishing not to be in a federal economic commonwealth at all, that is taxed down here for a new harbour to be built up there, to the extent they would prefer their own governmental relationship, as in a separate country. And wanting out on that principle is such a feasible and reasoned proposition, on what grounds were they not allowed to breakaway and form their own non federal country without it coming to such a bloody conflict?
To say a “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand' if far from meaningless spin, it literally meant that success comes from sticking together and to do anything else is to invoke disaster. But here’s the kicker, it was actually a lie, it was false ideology, the sort Brexit has crushed, to actually believe A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand . A Union cause on basis of a lie because the truth was a house divided could have gone separate ways and not been a disaster. Just like Brexit isn’t a disaster, but a huge opportunity.
The EU doesn’t even have federal taxation, but it was still too federal for many in UK. So we should have more respect for the confederate states “brexit yearnings” when we answer what the Civil War was about.
The American Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about Brexit. I feel good about putting you all correct on this. 😌
Sigh.
The border states divided according to the dominance of slavery in their society.
Throughout the South, there were those utterly opposed to slavery and the Confederacy.
Look up why there is a West Virginia. Or the State of Jones….
Even in the Deep South there were many who were anti-slavery and “Union men” - violence and coercion was used to keep them “down”.
Also plenty of Confederate sympathizers and/or appeasers in North - aka "Copperheads"; note that in 1861 the then-mayor of New York City advocated making NYC (then just Manhattan) a neutral quasi-independent statelet.
And even more pro-Southerners in Border states, which furnished plenty of soldiers and other resources for Confederacy; for example, almost certainly more West Virginians enlisted with CSA than with USA.
As for MoonRabbit's basic point, that "A House Divided" could have split with "success" however defined, well THAT's been a major topic of American history and historiography ever since before Fort Sumter. Perhaps a wee bit more involved (far less literal) than she suggests!
Posted this a couple days ago, but link below re: interesting alternative history written in early 1960s in time for the US Civil War Centennial. It's dated but still worth considering:
Greatest weakness, shared by virtually all US Civil War histories of that period = minimizing/marginalizing of the African American experience, for Blacks AND for entire nation.
I belatedly thank you for this helpful post.
I have been away a bit watching masked singer.
There’s a lot of feelings and idea’s happening at once in the American civil war. In politically attacking Haley as though there was a slam dunk answer, opponents need to be a bit careful. There were anti federalists at the formation of the United States, certainly at the time of the civil war, and even today. There was a master race vein of thinking running through the secessionists of the civil war, true, to only focus on this to exclusion of all else is saying the conflict was just about slavery. Do you mean by “just about slavery” it means a war to end slavery, like it was the struggle for the soul of a country? I think that’s a mistake. A mistake proven to us by the definition of victory, the history of what happened next after the war.
One thing we can agree on even on PB, the true history is in defeat in war the breakaway was thwarted. But did the soul of the whole country change, was their large cultural change following the war, did the “superior race” ideology disappear from America after its defeat in the war, did the class and status of black citizens dramatically change? Did they all leave the plantations of the confederacy racists? Did they have anywhere to go? Indeed was this racism gone a hundred years later in 1960s? Is “the house” still not divided over race and rights even today?
What I suspect is happening here, through the 20th century and the 21st, history is being rewritten. History has always been rewritten, often by victors, or by authorities using the point of a sword. But also by Hollywood and others streams of culture. Where do people get their history from? Politicians? Historians? Hollywood and other culture? Do politicians and historians and T/v shows ever agree with one another about history? Down centuries history is always viewed through different eyes by people with different knowledge, if it means the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time, i think this is borne out as fact by looking to what actually changed following a war for the soul of America, where slavery and master race thinking was, you are struggling to convince me, defeated.
Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?
Couple of points re:
1. "the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time".
Not really.
You'd be hard pressed to find politicos, journos, pundits on the eve of, and during the US Civil War, who thought the root cause was something OTHER than slavery. They either wanted it abolished or limited; or expanded or at least protected. Many people were willing to compromise, fudge and/or ignore the issue as much as possible, in hopes of achieving stability, taking advantage, winning elections, saving the Union.
It was the NEXT generation, and generations after, that starting in last decades of 19th though the middle of the 20th, that witnessed the rise of the "Lost Cause" theory, that the War Between the States (classic Southern terminology) was about anything BUT slavery.
2. "Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?"
For starters, human slavery WAS abolished in the United States. Pretty big deal, especially for former slaves, their masters AND all their descendants.
Other changes include increased federal power viz-a-viz states (and not just in wartime), increasing commercialization and industrialization, increased sectionalism, creation of the modern US party system of Republicans versus Democrats (though with new & different wine today in those old bottles).
That is a great book. I've read it multiple times. In Scotland for CSYS History (Sixth Year Studies, the qualification you take if you stay on beyond your Highers) we studied just one topic in depth for the whole year. I studied the US Civil War. As a result, it is one area of history where I actually have a real understanding of the issues, even though it was 30 years ago. So when someone tries to tell me the war wasn't about slavery, with some half arsed shit they've pulled off Wikipedia... Just no.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
The coalition was continuity New Labour really.
Only in the sense that New Labour was continuity Thatcherism.
That November dates feels like a straw man blown in the wind. The powers that be would not want to have the UK election during the US post-election bloodbath. Sunak will be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot do that. Similarly October is problematic because King Chuck has decided to sod off for a month.
Its still May.
Let’s deconstruct “sod off for a month”
- King of New Zealand visits his realm - Head of the Commonwealth attends annual summit - King of Australia visits his realm
Why should our Aussie and Kiwi cousins be denied a visit? And it makes logistical sense to combine with a meeting in Samoa.
Oh I entirely agree. HMK is jefe in so many places.
I'm sure he would have taken perverse pleasure in shutting down Sunak's options in this way.
Whether or not he likes the PM he ought to understand his constitutional duty. He shows signs of self righteous arrogance.
The King is King of Australia and New Zealand as much as the UK. When the UK PM wants to hold a general election should not stop him from visiting his realms and of course there is nothing to stop him visiting the King the week before his visit to announce a general election or the week the King is back
How much do they contribute towards his lavish lifestyle? And he ought to remember that without the generosity of the British public towards the Monarchy he is nothing.
That November dates feels like a straw man blown in the wind. The powers that be would not want to have the UK election during the US post-election bloodbath. Sunak will be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot do that. Similarly October is problematic because King Chuck has decided to sod off for a month.
Its still May.
Let’s deconstruct “sod off for a month”
- King of New Zealand visits his realm - Head of the Commonwealth attends annual summit - King of Australia visits his realm
Why should our Aussie and Kiwi cousins be denied a visit? And it makes logistical sense to combine with a meeting in Samoa.
Oh I entirely agree. HMK is jefe in so many places.
I'm sure he would have taken perverse pleasure in shutting down Sunak's options in this way.
Whether or not he likes the PM he ought to understand his constitutional duty. He shows signs of self righteous arrogance.
The King is King of Australia and New Zealand as much as the UK. When the UK PM wants to hold a general election should not stop him from visiting his realms and of course there is nothing to stop him visiting the King the week before his visit to announce a general election or the week the King is back
Labour has taken a clear lead over the SNP, according to a major poll.
Sir Keir Starmer’s party is heading for a landslide across the UK at the next general election, according to a survey of more than 10,000 voters by Focaldata carried out for the pro-EU group Best for Britain.
This includes pulling away from the Scottish nationalists north of the border, a hefty sub-sample of the poll suggests.
Scottish Labour is polling at 37 per cent, double its share of the vote at the 2019 general election, and significantly ahead of the SNP, which is on 31 per cent.
The Conservatives, which face the prospect of heavy losses across England and Wales, are down to 16 per cent in Scotland. The numbers do not include undecided voters...
...The poll surveyed 724 people north of the border, 610 of whom expressed an intention to vote, between November 22 and 29. It did not ask for Scottish parliament voting intentions.
Labour has taken a clear lead over the SNP, according to a major poll.
Sir Keir Starmer’s party is heading for a landslide across the UK at the next general election, according to a survey of more than 10,000 voters by Focaldata carried out for the pro-EU group Best for Britain.
This includes pulling away from the Scottish nationalists north of the border, a hefty sub-sample of the poll suggests.
Scottish Labour is polling at 37 per cent, double its share of the vote at the 2019 general election, and significantly ahead of the SNP, which is on 31 per cent.
The Conservatives, which face the prospect of heavy losses across England and Wales, are down to 16 per cent in Scotland. The numbers do not include undecided voters...
...The poll surveyed 724 people north of the border, 610 of whom expressed an intention to vote, between November 22 and 29. It did not ask for Scottish parliament voting intentions.
For those who haven't read enough about the US Civil War, here's a new book: 'Howell Raines, a former executive editor of the New York Times, is the author of “Silent Cavalry: How Union Soldiers from Alabama Helped Sherman Burn Atlanta — and Then Got Written Out of History.”
A new generation of Civil War scholars is filling in what one commentator calls the “skipped history” of White Southerners who fought for the Union Army. For me, the emerging revisionist account of the conflict is personal. I have discovered the story of a great-great-grandfather who was threatened with hanging as a “damned old Lincolnite” by his neighbors in the Alabama mountains." (Link omitted.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/howell-raines-alabama-civil-war-history/
Raines says -- and this surprised me -- that these Southern Unionists got "Written Out of History" in large part by scholars (if that is the right word), led by historian William Archibald Dunning, at Columbia University.
(I wonder if MoonRabbit is, unknowingly, recycling the errors made by Dunings school of historians.)
Lost Cause “history” was more than just “It wasn’t really about slavery”
Copperheads and Southern Unionists were written out. All Southerners were plantation owning cavaliers - the poor whites who went to war with no shoes weren’t included either.
Republican = Abolishionist/John Brown - with the exception of Lincoln, strangely.
The you have the cult of General Saint Lee.
Not so much that they wrote out the poor Johnny Rebs and their kinfolk, but more like they were transformed into stout yeoman farmers, more than ready, willing and able to follow the lead of their local gentry in defense of Southern Rights aka Our Way of Life.
As for Lee and other Confederate generals, from a military perspective they turned out to be a pretty impressive group; and more so on average than their opposite numbers in the Union Army.
PLUS even John Greenleaf Whittier, abolitionist and poet, paid tribute to the charisma of Stonewall Jackson (the Erwin Rommel of the Civil War) and also to "the famished rebel horde" he led against the Union.
BTW, the man who apprehended John Brown at Harpers Ferry in 1859, on behalf of US government, was . . . Robert E. Lee.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
The coalition was continuity New Labour really.
It very much was not. A lot of the problems the country faces now are down to the fact it really wasn't continuity but actually pretty radical while grasping the importance of good PR and softening the image of Conservatism.
Labour has taken a clear lead over the SNP, according to a major poll.
Sir Keir Starmer’s party is heading for a landslide across the UK at the next general election, according to a survey of more than 10,000 voters by Focaldata carried out for the pro-EU group Best for Britain.
This includes pulling away from the Scottish nationalists north of the border, a hefty sub-sample of the poll suggests.
Scottish Labour is polling at 37 per cent, double its share of the vote at the 2019 general election, and significantly ahead of the SNP, which is on 31 per cent.
The Conservatives, which face the prospect of heavy losses across England and Wales, are down to 16 per cent in Scotland. The numbers do not include undecided voters...
...The poll surveyed 724 people north of the border, 610 of whom expressed an intention to vote, between November 22 and 29. It did not ask for Scottish parliament voting intentions.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
The coalition was continuity New Labour really.
It very much was not. A lot of the problems the country faces now are down to the fact it really wasn't continuity but actually pretty radical while grasping the importance of good PR and softening the image of Conservatism.
On the matter of EU membership they all sang from the same hymn sheet
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
The coalition was continuity New Labour really.
It very much was not. A lot of the problems the country faces now are down to the fact it really wasn't continuity but actually pretty radical while grasping the importance of good PR and softening the image of Conservatism.
On the matter of EU membership they all sang from the same hymn sheet
Right because that's what makes something "continuity New Labour". You are delusional.
That November dates feels like a straw man blown in the wind. The powers that be would not want to have the UK election during the US post-election bloodbath. Sunak will be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot do that. Similarly October is problematic because King Chuck has decided to sod off for a month.
Its still May.
Let’s deconstruct “sod off for a month”
- King of New Zealand visits his realm - Head of the Commonwealth attends annual summit - King of Australia visits his realm
Why should our Aussie and Kiwi cousins be denied a visit? And it makes logistical sense to combine with a meeting in Samoa.
Oh I entirely agree. HMK is jefe in so many places.
I'm sure he would have taken perverse pleasure in shutting down Sunak's options in this way.
Whether or not he likes the PM he ought to understand his constitutional duty. He shows signs of self righteous arrogance.
He is fulfilling his constitutional obligations to his other realms.
It’s rather self righteously arrogant to assume that the UK should always be his top priority…
That November dates feels like a straw man blown in the wind. The powers that be would not want to have the UK election during the US post-election bloodbath. Sunak will be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot do that. Similarly October is problematic because King Chuck has decided to sod off for a month.
Its still May.
Let’s deconstruct “sod off for a month”
- King of New Zealand visits his realm - Head of the Commonwealth attends annual summit - King of Australia visits his realm
Why should our Aussie and Kiwi cousins be denied a visit? And it makes logistical sense to combine with a meeting in Samoa.
Oh I entirely agree. HMK is jefe in so many places.
I'm sure he would have taken perverse pleasure in shutting down Sunak's options in this way.
Whether or not he likes the PM he ought to understand his constitutional duty. He shows signs of self righteous arrogance.
He is fulfilling his constitutional obligations to his other realms.
It’s rather self righteously arrogant to assume that the UK should always be his top priority…
We pay his salary and benefits, the UK should be primus inter pares for the King.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
The coalition was continuity New Labour really.
Only in the sense that New Labour was continuity Thatcherism.
That's not true at all. 1997 was when the governance model really changed.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
The coalition was continuity New Labour really.
It very much was not. A lot of the problems the country faces now are down to the fact it really wasn't continuity but actually pretty radical while grasping the importance of good PR and softening the image of Conservatism.
On the matter of EU membership they all sang from the same hymn sheet
Well, yes, because it was a terrible idea to leave and we'll suffer the consequences for generations. As the public have generally worked out now. It solved nothing and made lots of things worse - failing even on its on terms. Sadly too late. But it may well put the Tories out of power for a generation due to the association with a toxic mess, so not all bad.
But if you're not monomaniacal about that issue, there were huge differences. To give just one example, we are seeing a raft of council bankruptcies as a direct consequence of Cameron and Osborne's decision to shove a huge amount of their cuts onto local government at a time when demographics were increasing their obligations. That really matters if you live in a place that is having to close amenities, or which can't pay carers enough to make it an attractive work proposition (so we need immigration to fill those roles).
We now have a very dysfunctional state and a big reason is that the coalition cut to the bone in some areas that were politically relatively painless in order to protect areas that were politically difficult for them. Even though often the things being cut were counterproductive and doing so would create much greater costs and pressures in the future or result in decaying productivity.
One thing we can agree on even on PB, the true history is in defeat in war: the breakaway was thwarted. But did the soul of the whole country change, was their large cultural change following the war, did the “superior race” ideology disappear from America after its defeat in the war, did the class and status of black citizens dramatically change? Did they all leave the plantations of the confederacy racists? Did they have anywhere to go? Indeed was this racism gone a hundred years later in 1960s? Is “the house” still not divided over race and rights even today? ... Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?
OK @MoonRabbit , from memory it went something like this
The South wanted slavery.
The North didn't.
They kept making compromises.
It didn't work.
As the US was expanding West the South grew afeard they would be outnumbered.
The South seceded so they could continue being slavey and lynchy.
The North got upset.
War happened.
The South lost.
The North imposed a lot of politicians (google "carpetbaggers") on the ruined South (google "Reconstruction")
The South got grumbly and non-cooperative and rioty
The Klu Klux Klan got founded to protect white people AND FOR NO OTHER REASON HONEST
About two or three Presidents later the North went "fuck it" (google "Compromise of 1877") and let the South go back to being racist and lynchy (google "Jim Crow laws")
Everybody was happy except for the black people, who for some reason did not like being lynched (google "Strange Fruit")
World War 2 happened. Blacks and whites fought together thru necessity
President Truman desegregated the army (1948, executive order 9981)
Lots of black people got organised and managed eventually to overthrow the Jim Crow laws (1960/70s)
Everybody pretended they weren't racist any more (1980/90s)
Eventually things got better but not perfect by any means
Labour has taken a clear lead over the SNP, according to a major poll.
Sir Keir Starmer’s party is heading for a landslide across the UK at the next general election, according to a survey of more than 10,000 voters by Focaldata carried out for the pro-EU group Best for Britain.
This includes pulling away from the Scottish nationalists north of the border, a hefty sub-sample of the poll suggests.
Scottish Labour is polling at 37 per cent, double its share of the vote at the 2019 general election, and significantly ahead of the SNP, which is on 31 per cent.
The Conservatives, which face the prospect of heavy losses across England and Wales, are down to 16 per cent in Scotland. The numbers do not include undecided voters...
...The poll surveyed 724 people north of the border, 610 of whom expressed an intention to vote, between November 22 and 29. It did not ask for Scottish parliament voting intentions.
>700 sampled, if properly weighted within the Scottish sample isn't this a reasonable poll even if a subsample of a larger poll?
It's not properly weighted.
MOE on an unweighted subsample of 724 and an electorate of 4 million is just over 4%.
That MOE assumes it was a random sample taken from a representative sample frame...and it isn't and isn't. The polling industry spent a decade arguing over this and eventually gave up, which is why polls these days specify the MOE in the small print because the theoretical MOE doesn't work.
The MOE on an unweighted nonrandom sample from an unrepresentative sample frame is "fuck knows".
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
The coalition was continuity New Labour really.
Only in the sense that New Labour was continuity Thatcherism.
That's not true at all. 1997 was when the governance model really changed.
The government model changed slightly, but not radically. Similarly, neo-liberalism (what I mean by “Thatcherism”) contined largely unabated.
I agree there was a cultural shift, though, as the boomers took control for the first time. Something similar happened in the US with Bill Clinton.
Actually I think any anti-Brexit feeling will quickly recede when SKS comes in, doesn't undo Brexit but instead makes it less damaging and more "Labour". Labour is the only party that has any chance of making it "work".
I think you are right; Labour/Centrist remain voters will only accept the things that come with Brexit when it’s their man in charge. For the last few years they must have really felt a lack of control and after nigh on twenty years of Blairite policies that threw them a proper Googly. They couldn’t have thought their time in charge was going to end so abruptly
Our time in charge ended 13 years ago, I think we've made peace with that already.
The coalition was continuity New Labour really.
Only in the sense that New Labour was continuity Thatcherism.
That's not true at all. 1997 was when the governance model really changed.
The government model changed slightly, but not radically. Similarly, neo-liberalism (what I mean by “Thatcherism”) contined largely unabated.
I agree there was a cultural shift, though, as the boomers took control for the first time. Something similar happened in the US with Bill Clinton.
Only in the narrow sense of a shift away from nationalised industries and private sector involvement in public services, but the era of globalisation and mass migration came later and can't really be considered 'Thatcherism' even if it was neo-liberalism writ large.
That November dates feels like a straw man blown in the wind. The powers that be would not want to have the UK election during the US post-election bloodbath. Sunak will be told in no uncertain terms that he cannot do that. Similarly October is problematic because King Chuck has decided to sod off for a month.
Its still May.
Let’s deconstruct “sod off for a month”
- King of New Zealand visits his realm - Head of the Commonwealth attends annual summit - King of Australia visits his realm
Why should our Aussie and Kiwi cousins be denied a visit? And it makes logistical sense to combine with a meeting in Samoa.
Oh I entirely agree. HMK is jefe in so many places.
I'm sure he would have taken perverse pleasure in shutting down Sunak's options in this way.
Whether or not he likes the PM he ought to understand his constitutional duty. He shows signs of self righteous arrogance.
He is fulfilling his constitutional obligations to his other realms.
It’s rather self righteously arrogant to assume that the UK should always be his top priority…
We pay his salary and benefits, the UK should be primus inter pares for the King.
Given your views I thought you’d rather that he spent more time abroad than here!
Labour has taken a clear lead over the SNP, according to a major poll.
Sir Keir Starmer’s party is heading for a landslide across the UK at the next general election, according to a survey of more than 10,000 voters by Focaldata carried out for the pro-EU group Best for Britain.
This includes pulling away from the Scottish nationalists north of the border, a hefty sub-sample of the poll suggests.
Scottish Labour is polling at 37 per cent, double its share of the vote at the 2019 general election, and significantly ahead of the SNP, which is on 31 per cent.
The Conservatives, which face the prospect of heavy losses across England and Wales, are down to 16 per cent in Scotland. The numbers do not include undecided voters...
...The poll surveyed 724 people north of the border, 610 of whom expressed an intention to vote, between November 22 and 29. It did not ask for Scottish parliament voting intentions.
>700 sampled, if properly weighted within the Scottish sample isn't this a reasonable poll even if a subsample of a larger poll?
It's not properly weighted.
MOE on an unweighted subsample of 724 and an electorate of 4 million is just over 4%.
That MOE assumes it was a random sample taken from a representative sample frame...and it isn't and isn't. The polling industry spent a decade arguing over this and eventually gave up, which is why polls these days specify the MOE in the small print because the theoretical MOE doesn't work.
The MOE on an unweighted nonrandom sample from an unrepresentative sample frame is "fuck knows".
Who is Fuck, and where did he get his security clearance? He knows everything.
Comments
I have decided it should be September.
(* Though maybe Reckless is a better label. "Reckless Rishi"?)
But the clear implication of your statements is that a large amount of investors somehow thought 40 was a bigger figure than 80. I can believe that. There's a great deal of stupidity and pack behaviour in all walks of life. And some investors would of course have been aiming at destabilisation to make more money off the back of that. This points to poor presentation and timing on the part of Kwarteng/Truss - but what Labour supporters are desperately trying to make it about is the wicked blasphemy of *unfunded tax cuts* - just ignore the unfunded three times as big Bank of England bung. Their arguments are economically illiterate.
1. "the “ending slavery” element of the civil war is so much more meaningful to people today than at the time".
Not really.
You'd be hard pressed to find politicos, journos, pundits on the eve of, and during the US Civil War, who thought the root cause was something OTHER than slavery. They either wanted it abolished or limited; or expanded or at least protected. Many people were willing to compromise, fudge and/or ignore the issue as much as possible, in hopes of achieving stability, taking advantage, winning elections, saving the Union.
It was the NEXT generation, and generations after, that starting in last decades of 19th though the middle of the 20th, that witnessed the rise of the "Lost Cause" theory, that the War Between the States (classic Southern terminology) was about anything BUT slavery.
2. "Certainly the breakaway was prevented from happening, what else changed?"
For starters, human slavery WAS abolished in the United States. Pretty big deal, especially for former slaves, their masters AND all their descendants.
Other changes include increased federal power viz-a-viz states (and not just in wartime), increasing commercialization and industrialization, increased sectionalism, creation of the modern US party system of Republicans versus Democrats (though with new & different wine today in those old bottles).
To name a few off top of my full head.
Historiography of this topic is VAST.
One good book (mentioned in the past here on PB is "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James M. McPherson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Cry_of_Freedom_(book)
At a time when the Govt Deficit is running at a forecast £130bn for 2023-24.
Even if the OBR are over by 10s of billions, how will it be paid for?
I'd say the most that Reckless Rishi will do is issue a salad of self-serving weasel words about the post-election period.
Much as it's trendy to poo-poo the Caloric theory.
That the Kippers took over the Tory Party, and made a total 'king hash of everything, should provide an avenue of return for Conservative politicians, if they can be arsed to take their party back.
Is there a rule that the meeting between the PM and the King needs to be in the UK?
I assume Sunak will be in Fiji as well for the Commonwealth meeting. So meet privately with the King there, get his blessing and fly home to announce to the commons?
How many people have that level of free assets *excluding their principal residence*
Just outstanding.
Basically these bonds were bought will printed money.
They are being sold for less than they were bought for.
All that means is that the money supply will have permanently expanded rather than been fully sterilised
Its still May.
During the early days of the Republican Party we know today (sorta) it's rival for the support of former Whigs, dissident Dems, etc. was the American Party aka "Know-Nothings" whose Big Issue was NOT slavery, but instead . . . wait for it . . . immigration.
In mid-1850s it was touch-and-go whether the Republicans OR the Know Nothings would ultimately make it into the Top Two of the new American two-party system.
For example, in 1856 both fielded Presidential candidates; John C. Fremont ("the Pathfinder") for Reps and former Democratic POTUS Millard Fillmore for the KNs.
Result was that Democrat James Buchanan got 45% of popular vote and 174 EVs, Fremont got 33% of popular and 114 EVs, and Fillmore got 21.5% of popular and 8 EVs.
Only state Fillmore won was Maryland, with sizable immigrant population and slave state smack on Mason-Dixon line, with Southern roots but tied to Northern economy.
Every other slave state voted for Buchanan, as did his native Pennsylvania plus most of the lower Midwest and also California; Fremont won the rest, notably all New England plus areas in Great Lakes with New England roots.
Before the next election, in 1860, the American Party had fallen apart - broken on the rock of . . . wait for it . . . slavery.
With most "North Americans" = Know Nothings in Northern States, ending up with Republicans, while most "South Americans" trending toward Dems.
We think (or at least I do) of Massachusetts in general, and Boston in particular, of being markedly Irish in many ways, especially political.
Yet in the 1850s the government of the great Codfish Commonwealth was controlled, not by Republicans, but by anti-immigrant (read Catholic, and in Mass also read Irish) Know Nothings.
Who by 1860 were pretty much all Republicans, certainly the politicos.
- King of New Zealand visits his realm
- Head of the Commonwealth attends annual summit
- King of Australia visits his realm
Why should our Aussie and Kiwi cousins be denied a visit? And it makes logistical sense to combine with a meeting in Samoa.
I do this for a living. What do you do?
Either way an election in November ensures maximum time for economic recovery, extra income from tax cuts and falling immigration and leaves Starmer to likely deal with whoever ends up US president in January 2025
'Howell Raines, a former executive editor of the New York Times, is the author of “Silent Cavalry: How Union Soldiers from Alabama Helped Sherman Burn Atlanta — and Then Got Written Out of History.”
A new generation of Civil War scholars is filling in what one commentator calls the “skipped history” of White Southerners who fought for the Union Army. For me, the emerging revisionist account of the conflict is personal. I have discovered the story of a great-great-grandfather who was threatened with hanging as a “damned old Lincolnite” by his neighbors in the Alabama mountains."
(Link omitted.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/howell-raines-alabama-civil-war-history/
Raines says -- and this surprised me -- that these Southern Unionists got "Written Out of History" in large part by scholars (if that is the right word), led by historian William Archibald Dunning, at Columbia University.
(I wonder if MoonRabbit is, unknowingly, recycling the errors made by Dunings school of historians.)
Before then, enslaved people - all Black by American definition anyway - were tallied by number, no names. Like other livestock.
Which makes it tough for Black people today when they try researching their family trees.
Several years ago saw episode of researching your roots show hosted by Dr. Henry Lewis Gates, and one of the subjects was Congressman John Lewis.
Turned out that researchers found property record for land in Alabama, that had been transferred from former slave owner to one of this former slaves: John Lewis's great-grandfather.
Why was not known, but fact was, a man born in chains fated to labor for others gratis, died a free man AND a property owner.
Don't know about the mule . . . but he got his 40 acres. But NOT the right to vote.
It was his descendant and inheritor, John Lewis who as a young college student decades later, stood on the Pettus Bridge at the culmination of the March on Selma, with his hands in his pocket, waiting for an Alabama state trooper to start beating him with a billyclub, because he had the gumption to demand the right to vote.
And what was the result of that deliberate act of nonviolence? The Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I'm sure he would have taken perverse pleasure in shutting down Sunak's options in this way.
Hope that KEVII washed up first.
Copperheads and Southern Unionists were written out. All Southerners were plantation owning cavaliers - the poor whites who went to war with no shoes weren’t included either.
Republican = Abolishionist/John Brown - with the exception of Lincoln, strangely.
The you have the cult of General Saint Lee.
This is a lie
Tories lie again.
Tories get demolished in the Locals
Markets say Oh Fuck No to the tax cut
Rwanda gets laughed out of the Lords
5 Families of Lunatics organise over the summer against Sunak
etc etc etc
Here is wiki link to article on unit mentioned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Alabama_Cavalry_Regiment_(Union)
And here is wiki on Free State of Winston, a Unionist stronghold in northern Alabama, where many troopers in 1st Alabama Cavalry USA originated. And which I first heard about, mentioned in a brief aside when reading "To Kill a Mockingbird".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Winston
Note that Howell Raines was unaware growing up, and for most of his adulthood, of the Unionists in his own family tree.
Why? Because for much of that time, it was socially unacceptable for White Southerners to talk about, let alone brag about, their anti-Confederate kinfolk. For many, even within the family circle.
Wonderful match from 1980 at Wimbledon.
"Chris Evert vs Evonne Goolagong Cawley | Wimbledon 1980 Final | Full Match"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZRTqtKzdYo
TLDR it’s a complete shitshow.
https://x.com/neildotobrien/status/1740996138344612010?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
Labour has taken a clear lead over the SNP, according to a major poll.
Sir Keir Starmer’s party is heading for a landslide across the UK at the next general election, according to a survey of more than 10,000 voters by Focaldata carried out for the pro-EU group Best for Britain.
This includes pulling away from the Scottish nationalists north of the border, a hefty sub-sample of the poll suggests.
Scottish Labour is polling at 37 per cent, double its share of the vote at the 2019 general election, and significantly ahead of the SNP, which is on 31 per cent.
The Conservatives, which face the prospect of heavy losses across England and Wales, are down to 16 per cent in Scotland. The numbers do not include undecided voters...
...The poll surveyed 724 people north of the border, 610 of whom expressed an intention to vote, between November 22 and 29. It did not ask for Scottish parliament voting intentions.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-opens-six-point-lead-over-snp-sx20q3s05
As for Lee and other Confederate generals, from a military perspective they turned out to be a pretty impressive group; and more so on average than their opposite numbers in the Union Army.
PLUS even John Greenleaf Whittier, abolitionist and poet, paid tribute to the charisma of Stonewall Jackson (the Erwin Rommel of the Civil War) and also to "the famished rebel horde" he led against the Union.
BTW, the man who apprehended John Brown at Harpers Ferry in 1859, on behalf of US government, was . . . Robert E. Lee.
MOE on an unweighted subsample of 724 and an electorate of 4 million is just over 4%.
It’s rather self righteously arrogant to assume that the UK should always be his top priority…
So since WWII here's an example or two of every Labour PM's resignation or dissolution honours.
Attlee - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_Dissolution_Honours
and here's his resignation list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Prime_Minister's_Resignation_Honours
Wilson - Here's his two resignation honours list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Prime_Minister's_Resignation_Honours
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Prime_Minister's_Resignation_Honours
Here's Callaghan's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Dissolution_Honours
Here's one of Blair's dissolution list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Dissolution_Honours
Gordon Brown's list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Dissolution_Honours
Edit and pre WWII
Here's Ramsay MacDonald's list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Dissolution_Honours
After all Chris Bryant is known for his absolutely fidelity to the truth at all times *cough, cough*
They said every Labour PM submitted a resignation or dissolution list.
I have proven that is correct.
But if you're not monomaniacal about that issue, there were huge differences. To give just one example, we are seeing a raft of council bankruptcies as a direct consequence of Cameron and Osborne's decision to shove a huge amount of their cuts onto local government at a time when demographics were increasing their obligations. That really matters if you live in a place that is having to close amenities, or which can't pay carers enough to make it an attractive work proposition (so we need immigration to fill those roles).
We now have a very dysfunctional state and a big reason is that the coalition cut to the bone in some areas that were politically relatively painless in order to protect areas that were politically difficult for them. Even though often the things being cut were counterproductive and doing so would create much greater costs and pressures in the future or result in decaying productivity.
So no, they weren't remotely the same.
- The South wanted slavery.
- The North didn't.
- They kept making compromises.
- It didn't work.
- As the US was expanding West the South grew afeard they would be outnumbered.
- The South seceded so they could continue being slavey and lynchy.
- The North got upset.
- War happened.
- The South lost.
- The North imposed a lot of politicians (google "carpetbaggers") on the ruined South (google "Reconstruction")
- The South got grumbly and non-cooperative and rioty
- The Klu Klux Klan got founded to protect white people AND FOR NO OTHER REASON HONEST
- About two or three Presidents later the North went "fuck it" (google "Compromise of 1877") and let the South go back to being racist and lynchy (google "Jim Crow laws")
- Everybody was happy except for the black people, who for some reason did not like being lynched (google "Strange Fruit")
- World War 2 happened. Blacks and whites fought together thru necessity
- President Truman desegregated the army (1948, executive order 9981)
- Lots of black people got organised and managed eventually to overthrow the Jim Crow laws (1960/70s)
- Everybody pretended they weren't racist any more (1980/90s)
- Eventually things got better but not perfect by any means
See alsoThe MOE on an unweighted nonrandom sample from an unrepresentative sample frame is "fuck knows".
I agree there was a cultural shift, though, as the boomers took control for the first time. Something similar happened in the US with Bill Clinton.
The quote said “a Dissolution or Resignation list”
https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1741026447362519221