politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The long tail. Looking at the rise of populism
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The long tail. Looking at the rise of populism
Here's the polling for the primary populist right party in 15 western European countries from 2005 to June 2018 (part of upcoming paper by @AndrewPGeddes and me). Draw your own conclusions ? pic.twitter.com/1eqS9bF2wr
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
FPT: Mr. Borough, as an aside, I'm mildly surprised such isn't already happening as it'd both (legally) circumvent potential future spending limitations and (possibly) increase support for a second referendum.
Edited extra bit: fascinated that my first post today was flagged off-topic, given it was a direct response to the article at the top.
I'm not yet even 40, and the world has been transformed since i was a child in terms of technology It's also got a lot lot more complex, and i'm not sure our monkey brains are handling it too well.
Is it possible we're collectively in some kind of nervous breakdown of society, in that we just can't cope with the world now?
I would have said personally that the key determinant of populism is saying that everything that's wrong is Somebody Else's Fault and it can be easily put right without hurting anyone except those that Deserve It. (Brexit of course is a classic example - 'everything is wrong because the EU is awful'). In normal times this gets ignored. In tough times, such as after, oooh, a decade of stagnation and austerity it suddenly becomes popular (especially when those who caused the problems appear unaffected by them).
The mere fact that populists are also liars who end by making matters a million times worse (Greece and Venezuela are surely warnings enough on their own, but revolutionary Russia under Lenin is arguably also an intriguing example) is generally not considered relevant. Look at the amount of time Corbyn spends trying to blame the Opposition in Venezuela for its problems, when in reality they are all directly attributable to the criminality and incompetence of his friend Chavez.
Economic and identity factors are also driving political change, which has not been helped by the dingbats of Labour unwittingly allowing the far left to capture their party.
What I'd add is that there is a widespread belief that current systems of government Don't Work - or not very well. Many people with limited qualifications may correctly perceive that their outlook is marginal employment and stationary income for the rest of their lives. The rise of easier migration has brought challenges which many resent and feel are essentially uncontrolled. The winds of globalisation blow unpredictably, spurring on one country, knocking back another without very obvious reasons.
People who are well off can afford to take all this in their stride - a bit worrying, certainly, but life proceeds comfortably enough. But if you're not? Then the attractions of trying something different, preferably raucously and obviously different, are obvious.
Either that, or there's somebody on an iPad who's being a bit careless while scrolling.
Thanks as always, Antifrank, for the thought-provoking piece. I certainly agree characterising "populist" parties in terms of left and right is hideously inaccurate. We've been here before of course - look at the 1973 Danish election or the collapse of the traditional parties in Italy or the rise of Freedom in Austria. It's not quite as "new" as some might suggest.
Given most people have a wide (and often contradictory) range of views about most issues, it's not surprising there's a general discontent out there - there always has been. A populist or "outsider" party (a term I much prefer) can come along and say the things people want to hear without the risks of getting near power and having to do anything to carry out these wishes (the Lib Dems were guilty of this but so was Labour in the early 1980s and the Conservatives after 1997).
At a time of relative economic stagnation and uncertainty, the outsider party will always get a fair hearing as it knows who to blame even if it doesn't have the answers - even mainstream politicians like Cameron were good at diagnosis but not so good at cure.
As the outsider party gets closer to power it has to take on the trappings of the established parties in form if nothing else other than to convince the sceptical it can be trusted with the mechanisms of power but as we see in Sweden and Germany the established parties may form the unholiest of alliances to exclude them from influence.
As we've seen from the examples of Freedom in Austria and Progress in Denmark once the outsider becomes the insider they can be very difficult to shift.
Under FPTP, of course, it's a very difficult ball game. FPTP doesn't preclude outsider parties (the SNP is arguably a good example of a successful outsider party) and indeed once a critical electoral mass is achieved the results can be spectacular but the outsider needs that mass (10-15% gets you nothing or very little, 35-40% gets you everything).
Mr. kle4, nah. We'll be arguing about the culpability of Augustus and Tiberius for the unstable imperial regime they bequeathed Rome.
Should I be concerned ? Yes it's been a very warm or even hot summer and anecdotally I've heard it's taken its toll of the elderly population but I need to check the mortality numbers.
No, what concerns me is I hear of heat in northern and southern Europe but heat in Japan and in America as well. Is the whole Northern Hemisphere having a hot summer - is anywhere having a cooler and wetter summer than usual ? It just seems unusual to see so much heat in so many places at the same time.
Is this how summers are going to be 30-50 years from now as the new "normal"?
I don't know.
Boston in Lincolnshire Grimsby Hartlepool Blackpool Southend Stoke-on Trent...............
................Florene Venice Rome Lakes Como Garda Paris the Cote d'Azur Barcelona Amsterdam Hamburg Vienna Prague
I think there's an ad in there somewhere
Edited extra bit: Mr. Roger, correlation cannot be used to prove causation.
The one issue is we're not used to it so don't have air conditioning. If it became "normal" we'd simply install air conditioning.
There's always Hannibal.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/
Of course, even if those temperatures become the norm it would take decades, even centuries for such changes to happen. But we would lose East Anglia very quickly.
And not only does hot weather lead to more violent crime (although that might be a side effect of cold, refreshing drinks) we learn in today's papers that it leads to more suicides.
Was that remark maybe a bit tactless under the circumstances?
Lovely weather should be pleasant - this is scorching
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1021547925313413130
I was driving along the Neath Valley the other day and it was drier than the Galilee.
"It's great weather!"
No, it isn't. It's hot, humid, uncomfortable to work in, and if you stay outside too long it gives you cancer into the bargain. I'd rather return to the -12C blizzards we had in winter than continue with this heatwave.
Why concentrate on Lenin and Chavez (and a cheap pop at Corbyn) and ignore Hitler and Mussolini who came to power as populist politicians ?
Where's @Hunchman when you need him to tell us about how the grand solar minimum is going to trigger the next ice-age?
My other half gets in a foul mood when its too hot though
On Brexit, he has been pretty savvy.
Lift your hand. Stroke the sky.
But free markets don't work either, in a different way (they get the goods distributed, but leave intolerable differences in fairness). So a lot of us are still looking around.
Well done for the sacrifice you're willing to make for your principles.
Again though, you could use Hitler as a good example. I've no quarrel with that. In many ways he is the ultimate example - he promised a reunited, autarkic, all-conquering Germany and he left it occupied, divided, reviled and reliant on food aid.
The main reason I concentrated on the left is because with the exception of Trump and Orban they seem a more immediate menace, and they also tend to end by making a worse mess (again, Hitler is something of an exception)! Orban has made Hungary a pariah. Trump has made the US a joke. Maduro is busily starving the people of a country with the world's largest oil reserves to death. Tsipras very nearly went the same way in Greece.
Perhaps you're not European enough to appreciate the desirability of Boston and Grimsby ?
My point is that populists on the left (this does tend to be a point of those on the left rather than the right) have answers that if implemented end by making matters much worse.
And I seem to recall the Italian Lakes are pretty sympathetic to Italy's more right-populist wings, no?
On which point, I'm off to Stockport (actually there is a lot to recommend about Stockport and it is doing rather better than it was ten years ago).
The trebuchets would see their performance compromised somewhat, though.
Fundamentally, isn't the point of populism to be popular? UKIP's zero seats rather gives lie to the idea they were a populist party.
I think there's a key commonality in national self-identity. Populists flourish when there is a crisis of that identity whether through military defeat or via the perception the country is changing faster than desired (globalisation) and not in a required or desired direction and there seems no way of putting things "back on track" or where there is a perceived threat ("they") which can be scapegoated (individuals, religions, skin colour).
It's part nostalgia though that part is often romanticised part a sense of self-reliance (we can manage alone, we don't need anyone else) and plays on fear and insecurity.
Wonder how our relationship with Brussels would have been like if the EU had been set up at the Last Glacial Maximum....
https://twitter.com/DavidJFHalliday/status/1021535502191812621
The weaselliest of all politician weasel words.
Government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid.
It's a simple fact that UKIP voters, and Trump supporters are just substantially less intelligent than the populace as a whole. The mistake we made was in allowing the dangerously and terminally thick to form a bloc.
The reason we struggle to counter them is that it actually causes us physical pain to think down to their level. My brain just doesn't want to operate at such a restricted intellectual capacity to think like a UKIP voter.
MUSLIM BAD
IMMAHGRUNTS GRRR
QUEERS
BLACKS
GRRRR
ANGERY
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.132117695
The greatest minds of our political generation are wasting their talents trying to work out the best way to bamboozle the very stupidest into not ruining everything.
Better than having the hottest days of the year be decent but that's one weekend and it's done.
No one has devised a system that can place power in the hands of an intelligent elite, without that intelligent elite becoming purely self-serving.
- Incomplete and imperfect information (far better than any alternative, but still a constant issue). Social contexts tend to develop to deal with these differences.
- Much economic activity can't be organized by negotiations between large numbers of potential buyers and potential sellers in impersonal markets; we need to work in organizations and teams and co-operate in small groups. Ethical values, blending of working and social lives are all necessary.
- While co-ordination is more effectively achieved through mechanisms of spontaneous order than central direction, it's not immediate and infallible. Government interventions, social institutions and agreements between firms are often necessary.
- Non-materialist motivations are very important.
- Dealing with externalities and standards and enforcement of the co-operation immediately above are crucial.
However, many politicians who cite free markets these days are to free market economics as cargo cultists are to aircraft: They recite a few things that they're told work, wherever they align with their prejudices, but without attempting understanding or context.