politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » “National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy” – a
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » “National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy” – a review
The book is an overview of “National Populism”, the umbrella term the authors use to describe a political stance of increasing electoral salience in Europe and North America, familiar to us as an explanation for Brexit and Trump. The authors are Roger Eatwell of Bath University and Matthew Goodwin of the University and Kent: both are experts in academic study of the right and all its flavours. The book is a summary of their academic studies, expanded into a medium-size book written in clear, if slightly plodding text readable by the everyman. This is its strength and its weakness, which I will describe later.
Comments
-
First>? Lunchtime in Virginia0
-
First second.0
-
Third!0
-
Good review.
I must admit that I stopped following Matthew Goodwin on Twitter recently. He stopped saying interesting and insightful things, and started just reporting that which fit in with his worldview.0 -
An interesting review; it doesn't sound like the book tells us anything new? In particular I would have expected some suggestions as to how things might play out, drawing on historical examples, and an evaluation of whether and how 'mainstream' politics might recover0
-
How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.1
-
I read National Populism on my summer holidays, and I agree. Good in parts but limited insights.
The problem for National Populists is that what works in opposition doesn't work in government For example Brexit will do nothing to reverse the 4 Ds, indeed it is likely to accelerate those grievances.
0 -
Newcastle United 👌0
-
Which current leavers do you think could or would form part of a GNU? Presumably wanting to be part of it would have to be a required qualification.houndtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
0 -
Time for OGS to go.Gallowgate said:Newcastle United 👌
-1 -
Thanks, @viewcode, that's a good review.
Are books obliged to be a certain length then? I've never thought of it as purchasing words by the so-much-per-hundred approach. I thought they were like meetings - the shorter, the better, as long as they achieve their purpose.
Good evening, everybody.0 -
I agree its not national unity at all. Cross party government would be fine and far more accurate for a name.houndtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Its mandate would be the same as that of the T May and B Johnson governments. Neither won an outright majority but by making deals with others they had the majority of MPs elected in 2017 supporting them (in the latter case still unproven if he ever had that).0 -
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
0 -
With Liverpool next, very possible to be in the relegation zone in a fortnight.DavidL said:
Time for OGS to go.Gallowgate said:Newcastle United 👌
I am not sure any manager can sort out the mess without a major transfer season overhaul.
1 -
God no, he needs more time at the wheel.DavidL said:
Time for OGS to go.Gallowgate said:Newcastle United 👌
1 -
The problems at United are structural, it's a mistake to think that simply bringing in another manager will fix things. Bringing in new owners might help thoughDavidL said:
Time for OGS to go.Gallowgate said:Newcastle United 👌
1 -
I think it fair to describe the 22 independent Conservatives as Leavers. Nearly all voted for May's Deal 3 times, unlike most of the current cabinet, who voted against Brexit.Theuniondivvie said:
Which current leavers do you think could or would form part of a GNU? Presumably wanting to be part of it would have to be a required qualification.houndtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
0 -
Thanks for the review. I read the book over the Christmas holidays last year but I might read it again since it was pretty interesting.0
-
-1
-
If OGS is sacked I hope Manchester United keep Ed Woodward, the man is a genius.
He blew United's chance of getting Klopp in 2014.
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/man-utd-are-like-an-adult-version-of-disneyland-red-devils-crazy-/6cb0l4ouw9y41byr0p01z7lfd-1 -
As long as he's still in charge when they play at Carrow Road, we need all of the advantages we can get...TheScreamingEagles said:
God no, he needs more time at the wheel.DavidL said:
Time for OGS to go.Gallowgate said:Newcastle United 👌
-1 -
What they need to do is nationalize Man Utd.....that's the approach to all failing companies now isn't it?0
-
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
0 -
There's a structural and ownership issue at ManU. They've had good players and good managers since SAF left but have failed to achieve. There's something underlying that needs to change.TheScreamingEagles said:If OGS is sacked I hope Manchester United keep Ed Woodward, the man is a genius.
He blew United's chance of getting Klopp in 2014.
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/man-utd-are-like-an-adult-version-of-disneyland-red-devils-crazy-/6cb0l4ouw9y41byr0p01z7lfd0 -
The ownership is fine, they've spent £900m on transfers since Fergie left.spudgfsh said:
There's a structural and ownership issue at ManU. They've had good players and good managers since SAF left but have failed to achieve. There's something underlying that needs to change.TheScreamingEagles said:If OGS is sacked I hope Manchester United keep Ed Woodward, the man is a genius.
He blew United's chance of getting Klopp in 2014.
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/man-utd-are-like-an-adult-version-of-disneyland-red-devils-crazy-/6cb0l4ouw9y41byr0p01z7lfd0 -
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.PeterC said:
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
0 -
As a Norwich fan I can say with some certainty that it's not always how much you spend but how you spend it. Most clubs, big and small, buy good players and try to fit them into the side that they have. It doesn't work most of the time and ManUre have been as guilty as most of that. When SAF left they needed to work out a long term plan, like liverpool have, and stick to it but they kept going for 'good managers' without one.TheScreamingEagles said:
The ownership is fine, they've spent £900m on transfers since Fergie left.spudgfsh said:
There's a structural and ownership issue at ManU. They've had good players and good managers since SAF left but have failed to achieve. There's something underlying that needs to change.TheScreamingEagles said:If OGS is sacked I hope Manchester United keep Ed Woodward, the man is a genius.
He blew United's chance of getting Klopp in 2014.
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/man-utd-are-like-an-adult-version-of-disneyland-red-devils-crazy-/6cb0l4ouw9y41byr0p01z7lfd0 -
I don't think it would. Having said that, a government composed of mostly (or only) 'No Deal' Leavers would face the same problem.houndtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Compromise. A dirty word these days.0 -
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.spudgfsh said:
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.PeterC said:
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
0 -
A team that totally dominated English football between 1990 and 2012, probably one of the longest 'runs' ever experienced in English footballing history; and now I don't even follow their results.TheScreamingEagles said:If OGS is sacked I hope Manchester United keep Ed Woodward, the man is a genius.
He blew United's chance of getting Klopp in 2014.
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/man-utd-are-like-an-adult-version-of-disneyland-red-devils-crazy-/6cb0l4ouw9y41byr0p01z7lfd
I don't care for football much (being a good Scouser means there is limited choice here in Merseyside
) but I do keep an eye on the Prem table and Manchester United have really gone downhill. -1 -
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.PeterC said:
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.spudgfsh said:
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.PeterC said:
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
0 -
Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.0
-
We had all this yesterday.spudgfsh said:
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.PeterC said:
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.spudgfsh said:
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.PeterC said:
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Why would another EU country veto an extension to help Boris?
If there's going to be a GE how can Boris convince the EU there's no realistic prospect of a deal?0 -
I think its fair to say that a government of extreme Conservatives plus Kate Hoey wouldn't deliver much unity, for sure.TheValiant said:
I don't think it would. Having said that, a government composed of mostly (or only) 'No Deal' Leavers would face the same problem.houndtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Compromise. A dirty word these days.0 -
A companion to the earlier tweet I posted
https://twitter.com/fred_guttenberg/status/1180850339311960076?s=190 -
Thanks Viewcode for the review. I read the book about six months ago and definitely a welcome addition to the literature on populism.
My main concern was that there was a level of complacency as to how national populism could slip slide into fascism.0 -
Oh, it's up - thank you @TheScreamingEagles. I was working. OK, quick roundup.
* @rcs1000 - difficult second album syndrome
* @IanB2 - they don't think mainstream politics will ever recover
* @Foxy - thank you
* @AnneJGP - thank you
* @AndyJS - If you want to reread it, try the local library...
I don't know what the next one will be, and given time constraints it probably won't be before 2020. But will try...
1 -
Thanks for the review Viewcode. I value and respect your judgement on these things so will be adding this to my reading list. But I fear I will start to twitch every time I see the word 'legitimate'0
-
But would be specifically designed to alienate 50% or so of the population. There is no national unity there.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
OGS really needs to be given time.
I'm not a fan, TSE, but prison is a bit harsh.0 -
I don't want to discourage you, Nick: the points are relevant, particularly to those in the political sphere. It's just that to get to the meat you have to cut thru the fat. If you don't want to buy it, you can get it from your local library or you can give it away after purchase: it is a very cheap book.NickPalmer said:Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.
When I wrote the review I mentioned to TSE that it might be a good idea to do a supplemental article as an explainer: a kind of digested version for busy people. If I have time I'll see what I can do, but no guarantees.0 -
@rottenborough - thank you0
-
I agree. But the Black Swan is that one or more countries might veto for their own reasons divorced from Johnson's pleadings. At some point someone in the EU27 is going to get fed up with all the uncertainty. All the more so once the predicted world downturn arrives.Benpointer said:
We had all this yesterday.spudgfsh said:
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.PeterC said:
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.spudgfsh said:
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.PeterC said:
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Why would another EU country veto an extension to help Boris?
If there's going to be a GE how can Boris convince the EU there's no realistic prospect of a deal?
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.0 -
Yes - thanks Viewcode. Interesting - and you've saved me buying it.NickPalmer said:Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.
0 -
Yes, that does appear to be a legitimate complaint.Richard_Tyndall said:Thanks for the review Viewcode. I value and respect your judgement on these things so will be adding this to my reading list. But I fear I will start to twitch every time I see the word 'legitimate'
Btw, I'm about eight chapters into For The Record. So far it's pretty much as expected. It reminds me a lot of Blair's autobiography. It's chatty, gossipy, and readable, but you wonder about the substance - both of the book and the man.
More anon, if I finish it.1 -
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.Richard_Tyndall said:
I agree. But the Black Swan is that one or more countries might veto for their own reasons divorced from Johnson's pleadings. At some point someone in the EU27 is going to get fed up with all the uncertainty. All the more so once the predicted world downturn arrives.Benpointer said:
We had all this yesterday.spudgfsh said:
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.PeterC said:
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.spudgfsh said:
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.PeterC said:
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Why would another EU country veto an extension to help Boris?
If there's going to be a GE how can Boris convince the EU there's no realistic prospect of a deal?
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.0 -
Well, not 50% of the population but a proportion of the 52% of the 72% turnout of the 2016 electorate that voted then, are still with us, haven't changed their minds and don't want to vote again in a new referendum.Richard_Tyndall said:
But would be specifically designed to alienate 50% or so of the population. There is no national unity there.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Also, you could say that the 2017 election superceded the 2016 referendum and gave us a set of MPs to represent the country and now a majority of them may back a GNU.0 -
It's a genuine question only if you don't genuinely understand there's a difference between wanting to remain and not wanting to leave without a deal. I find that difficult to believe, but Brexiteers are always surprising me.houndtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
0 -
Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taken seriously.0 -
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.spudgfsh said:
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.Richard_Tyndall said:
I agree. But the Black Swan is that one or more countries might veto for their own reasons divorced from Johnson's pleadings. At some point someone in the EU27 is going to get fed up with all the uncertainty. All the more so once the predicted world downturn arrives.Benpointer said:
We had all this yesterday.spudgfsh said:
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.PeterC said:
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.spudgfsh said:
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.PeterC said:
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Why would another EU country veto an extension to help Boris?
If there's going to be a GE how can Boris convince the EU there's no realistic prospect of a deal?
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.0 -
These are all just clever excuses for overturning the result of a legitimate vote and they will fall on deaf ears of millions of people. You fall into exactly the same trap that is described in the book of believing it will all just go away if you simply ignore the first vote - and both revoke and revote are exactly that.logical_song said:
Well, not 50% of the population but a proportion of the 52% of the 72% turnout of the 2016 electorate that voted then, are still with us, haven't changed their minds and don't want to vote again in a new referendum.Richard_Tyndall said:
But would be specifically designed to alienate 50% or so of the population. There is no national unity there.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Also, you could say that the 2017 election superceded the 2016 referendum and gave us a set of MPs to represent the country and now a majority of them may back a GNU.
Indeed the lesson you will have taught millions of people is that it is perfectly legitimate to ignore votes and find other means to achieve their ends.0 -
@Barnesian - thank you
@RichardTyndall - thank you, that was remarkably kind.
I was worried that I was putting my own interpretation on the book but I think my central point - it's a good academic article(s) buried in a longer book - is valid. To review a book you have to include things like length, style, flow and all the little quirks and features, and that took up headspace that swamped the points.
When I submitted it I pointed out to @TheScreamingEagles that a second article - an explainer or digested version of the points - would be a good supplemental, although I don't know if I can fit it in before the end of the year.
A point that I should have made is that it was a missed opportunity: if you'd given the material to an Eighties-era PJ O'Rourke or Hunter S.Thompson it would have been magical, but as it was it was...well, work...
0 -
Just on a point of order, those aren't *clever* excuses at all.Richard_Tyndall said:
These are all just clever excuses for overturning the result of a legitimate vote and they will fall on deaf ears of millions of people. You fall into exactly the same trap that is described in the book of believing it will all just go away if you simply ignore the first vote - and both revoke and revote are exactly that.logical_song said:
Well, not 50% of the population but a proportion of the 52% of the 72% turnout of the 2016 electorate that voted then, are still with us, haven't changed their minds and don't want to vote again in a new referendum.Richard_Tyndall said:
But would be specifically designed to alienate 50% or so of the population. There is no national unity there.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Also, you could say that the 2017 election superceded the 2016 referendum and gave us a set of MPs to represent the country and now a majority of them may back a GNU.
Indeed the lesson you will have taught millions of people is that it is perfectly legitimate to ignore votes and find other means to achieve their ends.0 -
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.0 -
You see I knew there was a reason I liked you. You just mentioned my two favourite political writers.viewcode said:
@Barnesian - thank you
@RichardTyndall - thank you, that was remarkably kind.
I was worried that I was putting my own interpretation on the book but I think my central point - it's a good academic article(s) buried in a longer book - is valid. To review a book you have to include things like length, style, flow and all the little quirks and features, and that took up headspace that swamped the points.
When I submitted it I pointed out to @TheScreamingEagles that a second article - an explainer or digested version of the points - would be a good supplemental, although I don't know if I can fit it in before the end of the year.
A point that I should have made is that it was a missed opportunity: if you'd given the material to an Eighties-era PJ O'Rourke or Hunter S.Thompson it would have been magical, but as it was it was...well, work...0 -
Yes, sorry, didn't mean to be quite that negative - you've encouraged me to have a look at it when I'm next in a bookshop, anyway.viewcode said:
I don't want to discourage you, Nick: the points are relevant, particularly to those in the political sphere. It's just that to get to the meat you have to cut thru the fat. If you don't want to buy it, you can get it from your local library or you can give it away after purchase: it is a very cheap book.NickPalmer said:Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.
When I wrote the review I mentioned to TSE that it might be a good idea to do a supplemental article as an explainer: a kind of digested version for busy people. If I have time I'll see what I can do, but no guarantees.
It's really hard to write without preconceptions, isn't it? I remember in the otherwise excellent Reith lectures by Sumption suddenly saying "Oi, you're assuming something I don't agree with" several times. Obviously it's fine if the author realises he's just expressing a view and other views are available, but when it's just assumed that everyone thinks the same way, one worries about depth of perception and self-perception.
I'm reading Emma Sky's account, The Unravelling, of how she as an anti-war civil servant got more or less accidentally drawn into helping the US military run provinces in the post-Saddam occupation in Iraq. She is frank both about the honest idealism of many of the American soldiers and the narrowness of vision - theirs and perhaps hers too - which makes effective cooperation hard. They find it hard to imagine that all Westerners are not uncritically pro-US devout Christians, or indeed that Iraqis don't instantly welcome what they're doing.0 -
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)Benpointer said:
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.spudgfsh said:
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.Richard_Tyndall said:
I agree. But the Black Swan is that one or more countries might veto for their own reasons divorced from Johnson's pleadings. At some point someone in the EU27 is going to get fed up with all the uncertainty. All the more so once the predicted world downturn arrives.Benpointer said:
We had all this yesterday.spudgfsh said:
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.PeterC said:
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.spudgfsh said:
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.PeterC said:
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:How would a government composed entirely of staunch remainers dedicated to stopping Brexit and with no electoral mandate at all be a government of 'national unity'? Genuine question.
Why would another EU country veto an extension to help Boris?
If there's going to be a GE how can Boris convince the EU there's no realistic prospect of a deal?
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.0 -
PeterC said:
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.
My guess is Boris would be content if he gets into some futile court scrap, and/or someone else is mandated to write the letter instead (whether it's Bercow, some senior law official, whoever).
I've never really believed he wants to deliver no deal ..... at least not until he has his majority.0 -
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.0 -
One of the curiosities of the US party system was how extremely broad church they traditionally were.
The Democrats as well as being standard centre-left types also included KKK supporters and southern conservatives.
While the Republicans as well as being standard centre-right types included some extreme north-eastern liberals and Appalachian hillbillies.0 -
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.0 -
I guess that's almost inevitable when you have a two-party system. You can't have a country of millions, or even hundreds of millions, without having a lot of nuance. And two parties are supposed to cover it all?another_richard said:One of the curiosities of the US party system was how extremely broad church they traditionally were.
The Democrats as well as being standard centre-left types also included KKK supporters and southern conservatives.
While the Republicans as well as being standard centre-right types included some extreme north-eastern liberals and Appalachian hillbillies.
It's madness when you think about it that way.0 -
And yet... still more honest than the Faragists and Cummings and all the fascist scum that sniffed around their feet.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.0 -
There's plenty of liars all around.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
One thing though is that one set of lies can be built upon another set of lies.
If you want to take your Turkey example then the British government's support for Turkey joining the EU was the starting point.
And why was that a lie ?
Because the British government doesn't really want Turkey in the EU but it was willing to lie that it did to improve relations with Turkey.
Then you add in the other lies British governments have told about controlling immigration and you have given the Leave campaigners all the building blocks they needed to make big claims about Turkey in the EU.1 -
I think that unfair, it does have some useful points, particularly over the demographics of Populist movements elsewhere..Barnesian said:
Yes - thanks Viewcode. Interesting - and you've saved me buying it.NickPalmer said:Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.
I don't see Populism as akin to Fascism, I don't think we will ever see Fascist type movements like interwar Europe again. I think that sort of overt militarism and overt racism are not tenable in the modern world.
0 -
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.0 -
I hope you are right.Foxy said:
I think that unfair, it does have some useful points, particularly over the demographics of Populist movements elsewhere..Barnesian said:
Yes - thanks Viewcode. Interesting - and you've saved me buying it.NickPalmer said:Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.
I don't see Populism as akin to Fascism, I don't think we will ever see Fascist type movements like interwar Europe again. I think that sort of overt militarism and overt racism are not tenable in the modern world.0 -
There's a wonderful selection of Establishment scum around, their only interest in "democracy" being when it entirely aligns with running things as they always have.... Brexit has fixed a super-trouper on them.Noo said:
And yet... still more honest than the Faragists and Cummings and all the fascist scum that sniffed around their feet.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.1 -
If you want to extend the accusation of lying to successive governments, you'll get no argument from me.another_richard said:
There's plenty of liars all around.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
One thing though is that one set of lies can be built upon another set of lies.
If you want to take your Turkey example then the British government's support for Turkey joining the EU was the starting point.
And why was that a lie ?
Because the British government doesn't really want Turkey in the EU but it was willing to lie that it did to improve relations with Turkey.
Then you add in the other lies British governments have told about controlling immigration and you have given the Leave campaigners all the building blocks they needed to make big claims about Turkey in the EU.
The lies of cowardly Labour and Conservatives governments blaming the EU for policies that they really actually wanted but didn't want to say they wanted. That was a fairly substantial groundwork for the leave campaign even though it was done by both pro- and anti-Europe politicians.
Liars all around. And the liar-in-chief in Downing Street has perhaps the finest and longest-lived pedigree of pants being on fire of anyone still around today, as a journalist and as a politician.0 -
The treasury report commissioned by Osborne in May 2016 was concerned with the immediate effects of the vote not leaving 2 years later. They predicted an immediate recession.Chris said:
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.0 -
I see Richard Tyndall has already provided this.Chris said:
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.0 -
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.spudgfsh said:
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)Benpointer said:
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.spudgfsh said:
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.Richard_Tyndall said:
I agree. But the Black Swan is that one or more countries might veto for their own reasons divorced from Johnson's pleadings. At some point someone in the EU27 is going to get fed up with all the uncertainty. All the more so once the predicted world downturn arrives.Benpointer said:
We had all this yesterday.spudgfsh said:
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.PeterC said:
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.spudgfsh said:
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.PeterC said:
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:
Why would another EU country veto an extension to help Boris?
If there's going to be a GE how can Boris convince the EU there's no realistic prospect of a deal?
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.0 -
@Richard_Tyndall - Thank you. I haven't read most of Thompson's stuff, but I have a now rather old copy of "Generation of Swine" which I've had since new. He was really good. I went thru a phase when I read everything O'Rourke wrote, but I've eased off on him since the Noughties and his latest about the Trump election ("How the Hell Did This Happen?", ISBN 978-0802126191) was not as good as I wanted it to be.
@NickPalmer - Emma Sky's account, "The Unravelling" sounds interesting: I'll keep an eye out when time permits.
Anyhoo, I have to get back to work. Later, alligators... 0 -
"Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU, new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor shows."Chris said:
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-to-enter-recession-with-500000-uk-jobs-lost-if-it-left-eu-new-treasury-analysis-shows
This bit is almost "Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband" -esque
"On 23 June, people face a stark choice: economic security and a vote to Remain, or a leap in the dark which would cost jobs and raise prices."
Dave obvs had his guru War Game the phrasing0 -
To an extent politicians have always been viewed as liars.Noo said:
If you want to extend the accusation of lying to successive governments, you'll get no argument from me.another_richard said:
There's plenty of liars all around.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
One thing though is that one set of lies can be built upon another set of lies.
If you want to take your Turkey example then the British government's support for Turkey joining the EU was the starting point.
And why was that a lie ?
Because the British government doesn't really want Turkey in the EU but it was willing to lie that it did to improve relations with Turkey.
Then you add in the other lies British governments have told about controlling immigration and you have given the Leave campaigners all the building blocks they needed to make big claims about Turkey in the EU.
The lies of cowardly Labour and Conservatives governments blaming the EU for policies that they really actually wanted but didn't want to say they wanted. That was a fairly substantial groundwork for the leave campaign even though it was done by both pro- and anti-Europe politicians.
Liars all around. And the liar-in-chief in Downing Street has perhaps the finest and longest-lived pedigree of pants being on fire of anyone still around today, as a journalist and as a politician.
What I think has become different is that nothing is now regarded as trustworthy.
Together with a sense that 'fatcats' are protected whatever level of incompetence and misconduct they are involved in.0 -
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.0 -
That's what was said before the summer transfer window. Then they did nothing much worth speaking about in that window.Foxy said:
With Liverpool next, very possible to be in the relegation zone in a fortnight.DavidL said:
Time for OGS to go.Gallowgate said:Newcastle United 👌
I am not sure any manager can sort out the mess without a major transfer season overhaul.0 -
The most remarkable thing is that, with a handful of exceptions (only Reagan v Mondale in the last five decades) the difference in popular vote between Reps and Dems is usually only a few %.another_richard said:One of the curiosities of the US party system was how extremely broad church they traditionally were.
The Democrats as well as being standard centre-left types also included KKK supporters and southern conservatives.
While the Republicans as well as being standard centre-right types included some extreme north-eastern liberals and Appalachian hillbillies.0 -
That's a little bit insulting to the millions of people who want a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Still, you obviously have a lot of contempt for the democratic process.0 -
If you have not yet read Hunter Thompson's "The Great Shark Hunt" and "Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail", then you have a real treat in store.viewcode said:@Richard_Tyndall - Thank you. I haven't read most of Thompson's stuff, but I have a now rather old copy of "Generation of Swine" which I've had since new. He was really good. I went thru a phase when I read everything O'Rourke wrote, but I've eased off on him since the Noughties and his latest about the Trump election ("How the Hell Did This Happen?", ISBN 978-0802126191) was not as good as I wanted it to be.
@NickPalmer - Emma Sky's account, "The Unravelling" sounds interesting: I'll keep an eye out when time permits.
Anyhoo, I have to get back to work. Later, alligators...2 -
Nice try....Noo said:
That's a little bit insulting to the millions of people who want a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Still, you obviously have a lot of contempt for the democratic process.0 -
The politicians will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it thoughBenpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.spudgfsh said:An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)
0 -
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.Chris said:
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1180543846243012609?s=190 -
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.MarqueeMark said:
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.0 -
We had a referendum. What is insulting is people like you wanting to ignore the result. Clearly you subscribe to the EU doctrine of keep asking the question until you get the answer you want.Noo said:
That's a little bit insulting to the millions of people who want a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Still, you obviously have a lot of contempt for the democratic process.0 -
A deal by 31st October, which MPs who went to the voters pledging to implement Brexit have to decide to support - or else enable No Deal - is far and away the best way out of this hell-hole.IanB2 said:
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.MarqueeMark said:
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.0 -
I think the standard response is "We haven't left yet"....Foxy said:
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.Chris said:
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1180543846243012609?s=190 -
Off topic:
Has anyone else noticed that the pollsters giving biggest Tory leads (Opinium, YouGov, Ipsos) tend to be those polling for left or centre media (Observer, Times, Evening Standard), whereas those giving the smallest leads (ComRes, Survation, Deltapoll) are polling for the rightwing media (Telegraph, Daily Mail, Express, Sun)?
A conicidence no doubt but the pollsters certainly can't be accused of giving their customers the answers they want!1 -
That means passing May's WA. Boris's proposal has not been a negotiation other than with his own party.MarqueeMark said:
A deal by 31st October, which MPs who went to the voters pledging to implement Brexit have to decide to support - or else enable No Deal - is far and away the best way out of this hell-hole.IanB2 said:
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.MarqueeMark said:
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Watching JRM and co eat their words would be rather amusing...0 -
I want to reverse the result, not ignore it.Richard_Tyndall said:
We had a referendum. What is insulting is people like you wanting to ignore the result. Clearly you subscribe to the EU doctrine of keep asking the question until you get the answer you want.Noo said:
That's a little bit insulting to the millions of people who want a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Still, you obviously have a lot of contempt for the democratic process.
Nothing wrong with that. Democracy is a process. If you think the process must be defined in a way to exclude an opinion you don't like, you ain't a democrat bruv.2 -
The Treasury forecast gave specific quarter by quarter predictions for the immediate two years following the referendum using two scenarios for the effect on GDP:Chris said:
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
Shock Scenario
2016q3 -0.1%
2016q4 -0.1%
2017q1 -0.1%
2017q2 -0.1%
2017q3 +0.2%
2017q4 +0.2%
2018q1 +0.2%
2018q2 +0.2%
Sever Shock Scenario
2016q3 -1.0%
2016q4 -0.4%
2017q1 -0.4%
2017q2 -0.4%
2017q3 +0.0%
2017q4 +0.0%
2018q1 +0.1%
2018q2 +0.1%
Page 46 of this report:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf
What actually happened was:
2016q3 +0.5%
2016q4 +0.6%
2017q1 +0.6%
2017q2 +0.3%
2017q3 +0.3%
2017q4 +0.4%
2018q1 +0.1%
2018q2 +0.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/qna
So the Treasury's range of prediction was -2.0% to +0.4% and the actual out turn was +3.3%1 -
Boris would still trumpet it as doing what no-one else has found a way to do: delivering Brexit.Foxy said:
That means passing May's WA. Boris's proposal has not been a negotiation other than with his own party.MarqueeMark said:
A deal by 31st October, which MPs who went to the voters pledging to implement Brexit have to decide to support - or else enable No Deal - is far and away the best way out of this hell-hole.IanB2 said:
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.MarqueeMark said:
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Watching JRM and co eat their words would be rather amusing...
He'd say "I've ended the bloody interminable Brexit process."
And a grateful nation would put statues of him in every market square....0 -
Only works for remainers - 1st rule of remain clubMarqueeMark said:
I think the standard response is "We haven't left yet"....Foxy said:
This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.Chris said:
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1180543846243012609?s=190 -
No no, don't you know? Democracy was an event that happened once and once only. The only way to honour democracy is to gather around the mystical turd that St Nigel of Farage shat out in 2016, and never, ever question the orthodoxy of the Dear Leader Kim il Boz.IanB2 said:
The Tories have led us into such a hole that all the ways out are bad. Deciding to stay by the Democratic legitimacy of a vote is a strong contender for least worst.MarqueeMark said:
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Democracy means having your opinions vetted by the Brexit droogs; your ideological luggage xrayed and any dangerous dissent discarded, your hands swabbed for traces of free thought.0 -
So a stitch up for remainBenpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.spudgfsh said:
An extension for the sake of an extension is pointless and the EU have already said it. The only way for things to change is to make them change with a General Election (probably first) and then a Referendum (on the next extension in January)Benpointer said:
"...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.spudgfsh said:
This is coming to an end soon. Especially if BJ wins a majority. I'd expect there to be strings attached for any future extensions (like an election or referendum) especially if it's still not looking like there's a deal that can get through parliament.Richard_Tyndall said:
I agree. But the Black Swan is that one or more countries might veto for their own reasons divorced from Johnson's pleadings. At some point someone in the EU27 is going to get fed up with all the uncertainty. All the more so once the predicted world downturn arrives.Benpointer said:
WSNIPprospect of a deal?spudgfsh said:
He could get one of the other EU countries to veto it in the first place or make it clear that there's no realistic prospect of a deal.PeterC said:
Once the extension is agreed and the statutory instrument is passed to change the exit day in domestic law from 31/10/19 to whatever the new exit day is going to be, it is difficult to see what else Boris could do. All that is then needed is to dissollve parliament and proceed to the GE.spudgfsh said:
A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.PeterC said:
Why is a GNU required at all once the putative extension is in place? What is needed is a GE, and Boris has said that is what he wants too. The incumbent government always remains for the duration of the election campaign. I think I detect grandstanding and pointless distraction activity from people who are perhaps not as keen on a GE as they would like us to think.IanB2 said:
Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUPhoundtang said:
Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
What was that about democracy......0 -
As someone pointed out, in a democracy all votes are counted and all votes count. You and your fellow travellers are only interested in democracy when you win.Noo said:
I want to reverse the result, not ignore it.Richard_Tyndall said:
We had a referendum. What is insulting is people like you wanting to ignore the result. Clearly you subscribe to the EU doctrine of keep asking the question until you get the answer you want.Noo said:
That's a little bit insulting to the millions of people who want a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
Hint: the EU imposing a referendum on us - and the question to be asked - as the price for a further Brexit extension is about as far from "the way out of this hell-hole" as it is possible to devise....Benpointer said:
I've been saying for ages that a three-way referendum (Deal v No Deal v Remain) is the only way out of this hell-hole, since Parliament cannot resolve it.
Still, you obviously have a lot of contempt for the democratic process.
Nothing wrong with that. Democracy is a process. If you think the process must be defined in a way to exclude an opinion you don't like, you ain't a democrat bruv.0 -
Experts, huh? What do they know.....another_richard said:
The Treasury forecast gave specific quarter by quarter predictions for the immediate two years following the referendum using two scenarios for the effect on GDP:Chris said:
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
Shock Scenario
2016q3 -0.1%
2016q4 -0.1%
2017q1 -0.1%
2017q2 -0.1%
2017q3 +0.2%
2017q4 +0.2%
2018q1 +0.2%
2018q2 +0.2%
Sever Shock Scenario
2016q3 -1.0%
2016q4 -0.4%
2017q1 -0.4%
2017q2 -0.4%
2017q3 +0.0%
2017q4 +0.0%
2018q1 +0.1%
2018q2 +0.1%
Page 46 of this report:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf
What actually happened was:
2016q3 +0.5%
2016q4 +0.6%
2017q1 +0.6%
2017q2 +0.3%
2017q3 +0.3%
2017q4 +0.4%
2018q1 +0.1%
2018q2 +0.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/qna
So the Treasury's range of prediction was -2.0% to +0.4% and the actual out turn was +3.3%0 -
Each 1% is worth 26.5 billion dollars - say £20 billion.MarqueeMark said:
Experts, huh? What do they know.....another_richard said:
The Treasury forecast gave specific quarter by quarter predictions for the immediate two years following the referendum using two scenarios for the effect on GDP:Chris said:
As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.MarqueeMark said:
Project Fear was pretty damned persistent. That immediate recession, crashing house prices, massive job losses still keeps coming back as a reason to condemn Brexit.....in the light of being so wrong, that is egregious in my book.Noo said:
Well I was careful not to restrict it just to Leavers. The Leave campaigns were merely the most persistent and egregious liars, not the only liars.another_richard said:
So that rules out anyone who said a Leave vote would immediately cause a recession, anyone who said that the City would relocate to Frankfurt, anyone who has claimed that the food was rotting in the fields and anyone who has said "it's happening behind the scenes"Noo said:Just dropping in to say that anyone who campaigned using consciously told lies in 2016 doesn't get to moan about the accuracy of "government of national unity".
Stop telling lies about, say, Turkish accession, and you can get back in the game of being taking seriously.
But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
Shock Scenario
2016q3 -0.1%
2016q4 -0.1%
2017q1 -0.1%
2017q2 -0.1%
2017q3 +0.2%
2017q4 +0.2%
2018q1 +0.2%
2018q2 +0.2%
Sever Shock Scenario
2016q3 -1.0%
2016q4 -0.4%
2017q1 -0.4%
2017q2 -0.4%
2017q3 +0.0%
2017q4 +0.0%
2018q1 +0.1%
2018q2 +0.1%
Page 46 of this report:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf
What actually happened was:
2016q3 +0.5%
2016q4 +0.6%
2017q1 +0.6%
2017q2 +0.3%
2017q3 +0.3%
2017q4 +0.4%
2018q1 +0.1%
2018q2 +0.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/qna
So the Treasury's range of prediction was -2.0% to +0.4% and the actual out turn was +3.3%
So only c.£100 billion out.......0 -
++Richard_Tyndall said:
You see I knew there was a reason I liked you. You just mentioned my two favourite political writers.viewcode said:
@Barnesian - thank you
@RichardTyndall - thank you, that was remarkably kind.
I was worried that I was putting my own interpretation on the book but I think my central point - it's a good academic article(s) buried in a longer book - is valid. To review a book you have to include things like length, style, flow and all the little quirks and features, and that took up headspace that swamped the points.
When I submitted it I pointed out to @TheScreamingEagles that a second article - an explainer or digested version of the points - would be a good supplemental, although I don't know if I can fit it in before the end of the year.
A point that I should have made is that it was a missed opportunity: if you'd given the material to an Eighties-era PJ O'Rourke or Hunter S.Thompson it would have been magical, but as it was it was...well, work...
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 is one of my all time favourite books, and genuinely one of the best books about modern US politics.
Staying on politics, O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores is great as well, and his recent How the Hell Did This Happen? The Election of 2016 was quite good too.0
