Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » “National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy” – a

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited October 6 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.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.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,995
    edited October 6
    First>? Lunchtime in Virginia
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    First second.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,607
    Third!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,006
    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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,995
    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 recover
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 331
    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035
    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.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,957
    Newcastle United 👌
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,173
    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.

    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.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951

    Newcastle United 👌

    Time for OGS to go.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,423
    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.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 2,093
    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.

    I agree its not national unity at all. Cross party government would be fine and far more accurate for a name.

    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).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,995
    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035
    DavidL said:

    Newcastle United 👌

    Time for OGS to go.
    With Liverpool next, very possible to be in the relegation zone in a fortnight.

    I am not sure any manager can sort out the mess without a major transfer season overhaul.

  • DavidL said:

    Newcastle United 👌

    Time for OGS to go.
    God no, he needs more time at the wheel.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,221
    DavidL said:

    Newcastle United 👌

    Time for OGS to go.
    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 though
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035

    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.

    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.
    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.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 28,501
    edited October 6
    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.
  • 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
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 641

    DavidL said:

    Newcastle United 👌

    Time for OGS to go.
    God no, he needs more time at the wheel.
    As long as he's still in charge when they play at Carrow Road, we need all of the advantages we can get...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 35,762
    What they need to do is nationalize Man Utd.....that's the approach to all failing companies now isn't it?
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,187
    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 641

    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

    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.
  • spudgfsh 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

    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.
    The ownership is fine, they've spent £900m on transfers since Fergie left.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 641
    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
    A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 16,330
    edited October 6
    I'm having a politics/Brexit-free Sunday (highly recomend it) but wanted to po in to say:
    AnneJGP said:



    Good evening, everybody.


    Good evening Anne. :)
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 641

    spudgfsh 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

    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.
    The ownership is fine, they've spent £900m on transfers since Fergie left.
    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.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 568
    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.

    I don't think it would. Having said that, a government composed of mostly (or only) 'No Deal' Leavers would face the same problem.

    Compromise. A dirty word these days.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,187
    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
    A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
    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.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 568

    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

    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.

    I don't care for football much (being a good Scouser means there is limited choice here in Merseyside :wink: ) but I do keep an eye on the Prem table and Manchester United have really gone downhill.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 641
    PeterC said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
    A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
    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.
    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.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,120
    Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,221
    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
    A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
    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.
    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.
    We had all this yesterday.

    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?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,995

    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.

    I don't think it would. Having said that, a government composed of mostly (or only) 'No Deal' Leavers would face the same problem.

    Compromise. A dirty word these days.
    I think its fair to say that a government of extreme Conservatives plus Kate Hoey wouldn't deliver much unity, for sure.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,516
    A companion to the earlier tweet I posted

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,056
    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.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 10,265
    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... :(
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 19,377
    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'
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 19,377
    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    But would be specifically designed to alienate 50% or so of the population. There is no national unity there.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,408
    edited October 6

    OGS really needs to be given time.



    I'm not a fan, TSE, but prison is a bit harsh.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 10,265

    Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.

    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.

    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.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 10,265
    @rottenborough - thank you
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 19,377
    edited October 6

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
    A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
    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.
    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.
    We had all this yesterday.

    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?
    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.

    Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,638

    Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.

    Yes - thanks Viewcode. Interesting - and you've saved me buying it.
  • 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'

    Yes, that does appear to be a legitimate complaint.

    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.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 641

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
    A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
    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.
    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.
    We had all this yesterday.

    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?
    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.

    Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
    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.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 7,418

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    But would be specifically designed to alienate 50% or so of the population. There is no national unity there.
    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.
    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.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,570
    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.

    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.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    edited October 6
    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.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,221
    spudgfsh said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
    A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
    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.
    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.
    We had all this yesterday.

    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?
    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.

    Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
    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.
    "...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 19,377

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    But would be specifically designed to alienate 50% or so of the population. There is no national unity there.
    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.
    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.
    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.

    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.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 10,265

    @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... :(
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 815

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    But would be specifically designed to alienate 50% or so of the population. There is no national unity there.
    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.
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Just on a point of order, those aren't *clever* excuses at all.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 15,086
    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.

    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"
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 19,377
    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... :(

    You see I knew there was a reason I liked you. You just mentioned my two favourite political writers.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,120
    viewcode said:

    Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.

    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 641

    spudgfsh said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
    A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
    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.
    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.
    We had all this yesterday.

    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?
    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.

    Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
    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.
    "...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
    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)
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 1,881
    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.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    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.

    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"
    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_richardanother_richard Posts: 15,086
    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418
    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    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.

    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?
    It's madness when you think about it that way.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    And yet... still more honest than the Faragists and Cummings and all the fascist scum that sniffed around their feet.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 15,086
    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    There's plenty of liars all around.

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035
    Barnesian said:

    Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.

    Yes - thanks Viewcode. Interesting - and you've saved me buying it.
    I think that unfair, it does have some useful points, particularly over the demographics of Populist movements elsewhere..

    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.

  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,570

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.

    But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,638
    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    Interestingly nuanced review - thanks Viewcode. I might have bought it, but on balance probably not in view of this.

    Yes - thanks Viewcode. Interesting - and you've saved me buying it.
    I think that unfair, it does have some useful points, particularly over the demographics of Populist movements elsewhere..

    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.

    I hope you are right.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418
    edited October 6
    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    And yet... still more honest than the Faragists and Cummings and all the fascist scum that sniffed around their feet.
    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.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    There's plenty of liars all around.

    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.
    If you want to extend the accusation of lying to successive governments, you'll get no argument from me.
    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.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 19,377
    edited October 6
    Chris said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.

    But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418
    Chris said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.

    But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
    I see Richard Tyndall has already provided this.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,221
    spudgfsh said:

    spudgfsh said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    houndtang said:

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
    A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
    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.
    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.
    We had all this yesterday.

    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?
    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.

    Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
    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.
    "...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
    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)
    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.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 10,265
    @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... :)
  • isamisam Posts: 28,277
    edited October 6
    Chris said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.

    But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
    "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."

    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 phrasing
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 15,086
    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    There's plenty of liars all around.

    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.
    If you want to extend the accusation of lying to successive governments, you'll get no argument from me.
    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.
    To an extent politicians have always been viewed as liars.

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418


    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.

    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....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,534
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Newcastle United 👌

    Time for OGS to go.
    With Liverpool next, very possible to be in the relegation zone in a fortnight.

    I am not sure any manager can sort out the mess without a major transfer season overhaul.

    That's what was said before the summer transfer window. Then they did nothing much worth speaking about in that window.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,995
    edited October 6

    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.

    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 %.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661


    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.

    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....
    That's a little bit insulting to the millions of people who want a referendum.
    Still, you obviously have a lot of contempt for the democratic process.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,256
    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... :)

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418
    Noo 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.

    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....
    That's a little bit insulting to the millions of people who want a referendum.
    Still, you obviously have a lot of contempt for the democratic process.
    Nice try....
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 641

    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)

    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.
    The politicians will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it though
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035
    edited October 6
    Chris said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.

    But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
    This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,995


    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.

    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....
    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.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 19,377
    Noo 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.

    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....
    That's a little bit insulting to the millions of people who want a referendum.
    Still, you obviously have a lot of contempt for the democratic process.
    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418
    IanB2 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.

    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....
    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.
    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418
    Foxy said:

    Chris said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.

    But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
    This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.

    I think the standard response is "We haven't left yet"....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,221
    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!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035

    IanB2 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.

    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....
    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.
    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.
    That means passing May's WA. Boris's proposal has not been a negotiation other than with his own party.

    Watching JRM and co eat their words would be rather amusing...
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    Noo 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.

    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....
    That's a little bit insulting to the millions of people who want a referendum.
    Still, you obviously have a lot of contempt for the democratic process.
    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.
    I want to reverse the result, not ignore it.
    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.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 15,086
    Chris said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.

    But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
    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:

    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%
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 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.

    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....
    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.
    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.
    That means passing May's WA. Boris's proposal has not been a negotiation other than with his own party.

    Watching JRM and co eat their words would be rather amusing...
    Boris would still trumpet it as doing what no-one else has found a way to do: delivering Brexit.

    He'd say "I've ended the bloody interminable Brexit process."

    And a grateful nation would put statues of him in every market square....
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,272

    Foxy said:

    Chris said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.

    But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
    This thread gives some of the forecasts, the OBR being particularly accurate.

    I think the standard response is "We haven't left yet"....
    Only works for remainers - 1st rule of remain club
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    IanB2 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.

    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....
    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.
    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.
    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.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,272

    spudgfsh said:

    spudgfsh said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    spudgfsh said:

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    houndtang said:

    Because it would bring together elected members of possibly eight political parties? Indeed potentially all but the DUP
    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.
    A GNU is only needed if BJ refuses the extension or does something to sabotage it. I still wouldn't put it past him.
    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.
    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.
    WSNIPprospect of a deal?
    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.

    Not sure this is it yet but it will come soon.
    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.
    "...like an election or referendum" Big difference between the likely outcomes of those two conditions.
    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)
    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.
    So a stitch up for remain

    What was that about democracy......
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 19,377
    edited October 6
    Noo said:

    Noo 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.

    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....
    That's a little bit insulting to the millions of people who want a referendum.
    Still, you obviously have a lot of contempt for the democratic process.
    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.
    I want to reverse the result, not ignore it.
    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.
    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418

    Chris said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.

    But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
    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:

    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%
    Experts, huh? What do they know.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418

    Chris said:

    Noo said:

    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.

    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"
    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.
    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.
    As I remember it, the warnings were principally about the consequences of leaving, not about what would happpen in the period before we left.

    But I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can quote evidence to the contrary.
    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:

    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%
    Experts, huh? What do they know.....
    Each 1% is worth 26.5 billion dollars - say £20 billion.

    So only c.£100 billion out.......
  • glwglw Posts: 5,422

    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... :(

    You see I knew there was a reason I liked you. You just mentioned my two favourite political writers.
    ++

    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.
This discussion has been closed.