Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is France the next to fall to populism?

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is France the next to fall to populism?

Emmanuel Macron was always an unlikely revolutionary. Graduate of the ENA, high-flying civil servant, investment banker with Rothschilds, and later Minister of Finance and the Economy: his was the model of an insider’s path to power. And yet En Marche was a revolution of sorts. Despite Macron’s own background, his election was in its own way a rejection of the status quo. His style, however, was never fitted to that role – if it was even a role he accepted, which is doubtful.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,758
    First....
  • "populist" - adjective appealing to the interests of ordinary people.

    We can all do with a bit more populism
  • "populist" - adjective appealing to the interests of ordinary people.

    We can all do with a bit more populism

    Most definitions would be more like "interests *or predjudices*".

    For instance, a populist administration would cut tax on fuel because the result appears in big shiny letters on signs, but they'd still need the money, because austerity is also unpopular, so they'd either levy it somewhere harder to detect or borrow the money and let the next generation pay for it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293

    "populist" - adjective appealing to the interests of ordinary people.

    We can all do with a bit more populism

    We are all ordinary people.

    It is a question, both in France and in the UK, whether the demands of those claiming to speak for "ordinary people" and against "an out of touch elite" can be brought back to representative democracy.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,220
    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293
    edited December 2018
    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.
  • rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

    Our globalised economy is very good at creating wealth. The issue is how it is distributed, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of opportunities, health outcomes, the environment and so on. If you’re well-off and you’re not a social democrat you’re a fool. Either you accept redistribution (ie, paying more tax) within the framework of a managed, wealth-creating, capitalist economy, or you end up losing everything when it’s all swept away. Your choice, my friends!!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293
    edited December 2018

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

    Our globalised economy is very good at creating wealth. The issue is how it is distributed, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of opportunities, health outcomes, the environment and so on. If you’re well-off and you’re not a social democrat you’re a fool. Either you accept redistribution (ie, paying more tax) within the framework of a managed, wealth-creating, capitalist economy, or you end up losing everything when it’s all swept away. Your choice, my friends!!
    The problem in a globalised world is personified by Bezos and Amazon. Popular consumerism and great service, but a corporate structure that declares no profit and pays little tax. The boss is possibly the worlds most wealthy man, yet his company reles on micromanaged serfs on minimum wage, and contributes next to nothing to the social and economic infrastructure that makes his business profitable. It is a parasite and we are the host.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    edited December 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

    Talking only about slowing growth misses the vital dimension of distribution - it is the growing inequality, and specifically the freeze on income and wealth for many whilst those with assets and top jobs have done very nicely thank you - that underlies the dissatisfaction.

    Edit/apologies, I was working up from the bottom and see that SO has already made this point.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341
    edited December 2018
    It was never about Elites. What are Trump, Boris, Mogg, Farage if not part of an Eilte?

    No, this is a reaction by social conservatives against post 2000 metropolitan social liberalism, quite remarkable change in a short time that brought us things like a Black president, gay marriage and people on the bus in small towns with foreign accents.

    It’s a reaction against economic changes that favours big metropolitan centres rather than small towns and rural areas. The yellow jackets, like the red necks and some leavers are from provincial areas not the big cities. Wealth in the cities has not been distributed to the country, the coast or small towns. The biggest populist reaction is in the areas that felt they used to matter.

    It’s the Metropolitan bit that bites. Not the elite part.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    H/t Andy, this is worth pulling from the overnight thread and having a read, on topic:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/france-is-deeply-fractured-gilets-jeunes-just-a-symptom
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    Jonathan said:

    It was never about Elites. What are Trump, Boris, Mogg, Farage if not part of an Eilte?

    No, this is a reaction by social conservatives against post 2000 metropolitan social liberalism, quite remarkable change in a short time that brought us things like a Black president, gay marriage and people on the bus in small towns with foreign accents.

    It’s a reaction against economic changes that favours big metropolitan centres rather than small towns and rural areas. The yellow jackets, like the red necks and some leavers are from provincial areas not the big cities. Wealth in the cities has not been distributed to the country, the coast or small towns. The biggest populist reaction is in the areas that felt they used to matter.

    It’s the Metropolitan bit that bites. Not the elite part.

    Actually wealth from the cities is being distributed to the coast etc. It's just that it's staying with the people who have it. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Cornwall, Devon and N. Wales are often cited, but the Suffolk coast is another area where wealthy incomes come for a few weeks a year and put housing, as just one example, out of the reach of the locals.
  • Well, it's kind of refreshing and reassuring to be honest.

    As bad as the political dramas get here at least we're not like France.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

    Talking only about slowing growth misses the vital dimension of distribution - it is the growing inequality, and specifically the freeze on income and wealth for many whilst those with assets and top jobs have done very nicely thank you - that underlies the dissatisfaction.

    Edit/apologies, I was working up from the bottom and see that SO has already made this point.
    Yes, when GDP growth is the fetish, the question is "whose GDP growth?"

  • IanB2 said:

    H/t Andy, this is worth pulling from the overnight thread and having a read, on topic:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/france-is-deeply-fractured-gilets-jeunes-just-a-symptom

    Yep, the key insight in that piece is that globalisation has been brilliant at creating wealth, but that those who run wrstern democracies have been very bad at ensuring it is distributed fairly. Brexit, Trump, what’s happening in France now and so on are all manifestations of that.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341
    Places like London, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow have boomed and gentrified in the past 20 years, inner city deprivation has been reduced by an economy that demands direct, immediate access to international airports.

    Meanwhile the costs and friction of working in small towns has gone up. It is much easier for everyone to have an office in the city, than an office in a town perhaps 90mins and two changes from the airport.

    In my career I have seen London suck up a number of big provincial employers for that reason. It leads to provincial stagnation and the antipathy towards the metropolitan elite.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341

    Jonathan said:

    It was never about Elites. What are Trump, Boris, Mogg, Farage if not part of an Eilte?

    No, this is a reaction by social conservatives against post 2000 metropolitan social liberalism, quite remarkable change in a short time that brought us things like a Black president, gay marriage and people on the bus in small towns with foreign accents.

    It’s a reaction against economic changes that favours big metropolitan centres rather than small towns and rural areas. The yellow jackets, like the red necks and some leavers are from provincial areas not the big cities. Wealth in the cities has not been distributed to the country, the coast or small towns. The biggest populist reaction is in the areas that felt they used to matter.

    It’s the Metropolitan bit that bites. Not the elite part.

    Actually wealth from the cities is being distributed to the coast etc. It's just that it's staying with the people who have it. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Cornwall, Devon and N. Wales are often cited, but the Suffolk coast is another area where wealthy incomes come for a few weeks a year and put housing, as just one example, out of the reach of the locals.
    For every Southwold, there are 50 Great Yarmouths.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    edited December 2018
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    It was never about Elites. What are Trump, Boris, Mogg, Farage if not part of an Eilte?

    No, this is a reaction by social conservatives against post 2000 metropolitan social liberalism, quite remarkable change in a short time that brought us things like a Black president, gay marriage and people on the bus in small towns with foreign accents.

    It’s a reaction against economic changes that favours big metropolitan centres rather than small towns and rural areas. The yellow jackets, like the red necks and some leavers are from provincial areas not the big cities. Wealth in the cities has not been distributed to the country, the coast or small towns. The biggest populist reaction is in the areas that felt they used to matter.

    It’s the Metropolitan bit that bites. Not the elite part.

    Actually wealth from the cities is being distributed to the coast etc. It's just that it's staying with the people who have it. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Cornwall, Devon and N. Wales are often cited, but the Suffolk coast is another area where wealthy incomes come for a few weeks a year and put housing, as just one example, out of the reach of the locals.
    For every Southwold, there are 50 Great Yarmouths.
    And Jaywicks.

    On your other point, a few days ago there was a discussion which mentioned paternalistic employers such as the Cadburys and Titus Salt, who built villages for their employees. There are, or were when I was younger, dozens of public buildings and public parks in large provincial towns which had been given by wealthy townsmen (usually men) who, having made their money in the town, admittedly sometimes by dubious means, spent it in the town.
    That doesn't seem to happen nowadays.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    Jonathan said:

    Places like London, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow have boomed and gentrified in the past 20 years, inner city deprivation has been reduced by an economy that demands direct, immediate access to international airports.

    Meanwhile the costs and friction of working in small towns has gone up. It is much easier for everyone to have an office in the city, than an office in a town perhaps 90mins and two changes from the airport.

    In my career I have seen London suck up a number of big provincial employers for that reason. It leads to provincial stagnation and the antipathy towards the metropolitan elite.

    More specifically, inner city deprivation has been reduced by the wealthy moving in and the poor being relocated to the fringes of town, the coast, or up north.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145

    Well, it's kind of refreshing and reassuring to be honest.

    As bad as the political dramas get here at least we're not like France.

    You can, nevertheless, feel Corbynism, or something similar, coming toward us.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341
    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Places like London, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow have boomed and gentrified in the past 20 years, inner city deprivation has been reduced by an economy that demands direct, immediate access to international airports.

    Meanwhile the costs and friction of working in small towns has gone up. It is much easier for everyone to have an office in the city, than an office in a town perhaps 90mins and two changes from the airport.

    In my career I have seen London suck up a number of big provincial employers for that reason. It leads to provincial stagnation and the antipathy towards the metropolitan elite.

    More specifically, inner city deprivation has been reduced by the wealthy moving in and the poor being relocated to the fringes of town, the coast, or up north.
    My current firm had offices in Oxford, Guildford and Basingstoke. All now shut in favour of offices in central London and Berlin.

    Why? Direct access for executives to Heathrow and City airport.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341
    It can be easier and cheaper to travel from London to Berlin than from Brighton to Bristol.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    edited December 2018
    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
  • Well, it's kind of refreshing and reassuring to be honest.

    As bad as the political dramas get here at least we're not like France.

    We’re very like France. We’re just not at the rioting bit yet.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,137
    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    Dontcha just love the faux "outrage" of the Daily Express over the use of "bollocks"
  • IanB2 said:

    Well, it's kind of refreshing and reassuring to be honest.

    As bad as the political dramas get here at least we're not like France.

    You can, nevertheless, feel Corbynism, or something similar, coming toward us.

    What will prevent Corbynism is Jeremy Corbyn. Just as Melenchon’s personality and past hinder the far left in France.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    Jonathan said:

    It can be easier and cheaper to travel from London to Berlin than from Brighton to Bristol.

    Didn't someone find it cheaper to go from Newcastle to Stansted via Berlin a while ago?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341

    Well, it's kind of refreshing and reassuring to be honest.

    As bad as the political dramas get here at least we're not like France.

    We’re very like France. We’re just not at the rioting bit yet.

    Smashing up a few Peugeots, cafes and tourist attractions is less damaging than what we’re doing.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Wasn't Macron 'sold' as an outsider?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    It was never about Elites. What are Trump, Boris, Mogg, Farage if not part of an Eilte?

    No, this is a reaction by social conservatives against post 2000 metropolitan social liberalism, quite remarkable change in a short time that brought us things like a Black president, gay marriage and people on the bus in small towns with foreign accents.

    It’s a reaction against economic changes that favours big metropolitan centres rather than small towns and rural areas. The yellow jackets, like the red necks and some leavers are from provincial areas not the big cities. Wealth in the cities has not been distributed to the country, the coast or small towns. The biggest populist reaction is in the areas that felt they used to matter.

    It’s the Metropolitan bit that bites. Not the elite part.

    Actually wealth from the cities is being distributed to the coast etc. It's just that it's staying with the people who have it. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Cornwall, Devon and N. Wales are often cited, but the Suffolk coast is another area where wealthy incomes come for a few weeks a year and put housing, as just one example, out of the reach of the locals.
    For every Southwold, there are 50 Great Yarmouths.
    And Jaywicks.

    On your other point, a few days ago there was a discussion which mentioned paternalistic employers such as the Cadburys and Titus Salt, who built villages for their employees. There are, or were when I was younger, dozens of public buildings and public parks in large provincial towns which had been given by wealthy townsmen (usually men) who, having made their money in the town, admittedly sometimes by dubious means, spent it in the town.
    That doesn't seem to happen nowadays.
    Bet365?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341

    Jonathan said:

    It can be easier and cheaper to travel from London to Berlin than from Brighton to Bristol.

    Didn't someone find it cheaper to go from Newcastle to Stansted via Berlin a while ago?
    Brexit does not address this problem and therefore will not satisfy people. All it will do is make international travel more painful and expensive and deny the govt resources and acces to programmes to fix internal problems.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Inequality is at its lowest point for over thirty years, and those age groups who supported it the most are the ones where poverty as a measure of inequality has all but disappeared.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Wasn't Macron 'sold' as an outsider?
    I guess he was a political outsider. But hardly a social or economic one, other than being rather young. Any elected politician gets pulled towards the base that elected them, and the problem for Macron was that his base wasn't the discontented (who, as noted in the lead, voted for the extremes). It takes a bold politician to get elected by one part of society and commit to an agenda aimed at dealing with legitimate grievances from another. This is of course also why May wasn't able to do anything about her purported agenda.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,100
    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

    Very well observed.

    You also need to end the practice of buying iPhone Xs and Range Rover Evoques on the never never.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    edited December 2018
    notme said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Inequality is at its lowest point for over thirty years, and those age groups who supported it the most are the ones where poverty as a measure of inequality has all but disappeared.
    No, it really isn't. Those comparisons (which arose during the coalition) are based on looking solely at income, ignoring the rising wealth of the rich on the back of inflating asset prices, and the squeezed wealth of the poor and young since they have to pay to rent these assets out of their income.

    Edit/ you are right however that the pensioners who comprise the mass of Brexit support aren't the vanguard of a revolution.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,137
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

    Very well observed.

    You also need to end the practice of buying iPhone Xs and Range Rover Evoques on the never never.
    People as a rule don't use the never never, they either lease or have a PCP both over a set period.... (unless you consider these practices to be never never, (which I do not).
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

    Very well observed.

    You also need to end the practice of buying iPhone Xs and Range Rover Evoques on the never never.
    People as a rule don't use the never never, they either lease or have a PCP both over a set period.... (unless you consider these practices to be never never, (which I do not).
    Very few people buy phones and cars for cash today.
  • rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    i went to China recently to a conference and was speaking to an engineer They were telling me about their new provincial leader /gauleiter (don't recall the exact term), I said something along the lines of "but this person isn't accountable, how do you vote them out of office?"

    He replied, "I don't know anything about running to province of 60 million people, why should i have a say in appointing someone to run it"

    It kind of staggered me, the whole concept of democratic accountably, seem obvious to me, but it was an alien concept to them.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145

    IanB2 said:

    Well, it's kind of refreshing and reassuring to be honest.

    As bad as the political dramas get here at least we're not like France.

    You can, nevertheless, feel Corbynism, or something similar, coming toward us.

    What will prevent Corbynism is Jeremy Corbyn. Just as Melenchon’s personality and past hinder the far left in France.

    He is at least clever enough to realise that he needs a wave of discontent, and is waiting to see from which direction it comes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    Jonathan said:

    It can be easier and cheaper to travel from London to Berlin than from Brighton to Bristol.

    Given how hard it is to get to Berlin by air, that's a damning statistic.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

    Talking only about slowing growth misses the vital dimension of distribution - it is the growing inequality, and specifically the freeze on income and wealth for many whilst those with assets and top jobs have done very nicely thank you - that underlies the dissatisfaction.

    Edit/apologies, I was working up from the bottom and see that SO has already made this point.
    But inequality has *not* grown.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    It can be easier and cheaper to travel from London to Berlin than from Brighton to Bristol.

    Given how hard it is to get to Berlin by air, that's a damning statistic.
    Even by train, get the boat train to Harwich, and from Holland change at Utrecht and Koln, and bingo.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,168

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Wasn't Macron 'sold' as an outsider?
    Now there is a great concept. 'Macron was sold'

    A transfer market in politicians so that they can be sold between parties and countries.

    There would be an awful lot of free transfers and loan deals to get rid of the dross!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    i went to China recently to a conference and was speaking to an engineer They were telling me about their new provincial leader /gauleiter (don't recall the exact term), I said something along the lines of "but this person isn't accountable, how do you vote them out of office?"

    He replied, "I don't know anything about running to province of 60 million people, why should i have a say in appointing someone to run it"

    It kind of staggered me, the whole concept of democratic accountably, seem obvious to me, but it was an alien concept to them.
    It’s not that alien, many big Western companies (and therefore much of our economy) are run on principles very similar to China.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    i went to China recently to a conference and was speaking to an engineer They were telling me about their new provincial leader /gauleiter (don't recall the exact term), I said something along the lines of "but this person isn't accountable, how do you vote them out of office?"

    He replied, "I don't know anything about running to province of 60 million people, why should i have a say in appointing someone to run it"

    It kind of staggered me, the whole concept of democratic accountably, seem obvious to me, but it was an alien concept to them.
    Interesting that you asked about getting rid of them and he answered about appointing them. The part of democracy that chucks the lazy, corrupt or incompetent from office works better than the bit where we identify the best person for the job.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    philiph said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Wasn't Macron 'sold' as an outsider?
    Now there is a great concept. 'Macron was sold'

    A transfer market in politicians so that they can be sold between parties and countries.

    There would be an awful lot of free transfers and loan deals to get rid of the dross!
    No premier division and all vauxhall conference! Vaguely on topic, the Germans seem to have found someone less interesting than Merkel?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341
    philiph said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Wasn't Macron 'sold' as an outsider?
    Now there is a great concept. 'Macron was sold'

    A transfer market in politicians so that they can be sold between parties and countries.

    There would be an awful lot of free transfers and loan deals to get rid of the dross!
    Prime Minister Obama would be fun.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    It can be easier and cheaper to travel from London to Berlin than from Brighton to Bristol.

    Given how hard it is to get to Berlin by air, that's a damning statistic.
    Even by train, get the boat train to Harwich, and from Holland change at Utrecht and Koln, and bingo.
    I don't think somehow it takes 14 hours and €120 to get from Brighton to Bristol by train. In fact, the figures I type in say it's about 3.5 hours and £60.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,168
    IanB2 said:

    philiph said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Wasn't Macron 'sold' as an outsider?
    Now there is a great concept. 'Macron was sold'

    A transfer market in politicians so that they can be sold between parties and countries.

    There would be an awful lot of free transfers and loan deals to get rid of the dross!
    No premier division and all vauxhall conference! Vaguely on topic, the Germans seem to have found someone less interesting than Merkel?
    Do the Germans have the same shallow requirements as us? Telegenic, charismatic, full flowing head of hair etc?

    While Merkel comes over a bit dour, dull and frumpy to the English, I have no idea of her personality and image in Germany
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    It can be easier and cheaper to travel from London to Berlin than from Brighton to Bristol.

    Given how hard it is to get to Berlin by air, that's a damning statistic.
    Even by train, get the boat train to Harwich, and from Holland change at Utrecht and Koln, and bingo.
    I don't think somehow it takes 14 hours and €120 to get from Brighton to Bristol by train. In fact, the figures I type in say it's about 3.5 hours and £60.
    Remember we're talking Southern! But fair point, the easy way is to fly.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    philiph said:

    IanB2 said:

    philiph said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Wasn't Macron 'sold' as an outsider?
    Now there is a great concept. 'Macron was sold'

    A transfer market in politicians so that they can be sold between parties and countries.

    There would be an awful lot of free transfers and loan deals to get rid of the dross!
    No premier division and all vauxhall conference! Vaguely on topic, the Germans seem to have found someone less interesting than Merkel?
    Do the Germans have the same shallow requirements as us? Telegenic, charismatic, full flowing head of hair etc?

    While Merkel comes over a bit dour, dull and frumpy to the English, I have no idea of her personality and image in Germany
    She was very popular, pre-migration crisis, seen as honest, reliable and dependable, a sort of mother of the nation. Not dissimilar to Mrs M's strengths when she followed on from Cammo - indeed I recall such comparisons were often made, in her earlier days.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    IanB2 said:

    notme said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Inequality is at its lowest point for over thirty years, and those age groups who supported it the most are the ones where poverty as a measure of inequality has all but disappeared.
    No, it really isn't. Those comparisons (which arose during the coalition) are based on looking solely at income, ignoring the rising wealth of the rich on the back of inflating asset prices, and the squeezed wealth of the poor and young since they have to pay to rent these assets out of their income.

    Edit/ you are right however that the pensioners who comprise the mass of Brexit support aren't the vanguard of a revolution.
    Wealth inequality is also very low, but not at the lowest point. There’s a slight uptick due to the issues you refer to. But again, a low point in our last few decades.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145
    notme said:

    IanB2 said:

    notme said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Inequality is at its lowest point for over thirty years, and those age groups who supported it the most are the ones where poverty as a measure of inequality has all but disappeared.
    No, it really isn't. Those comparisons (which arose during the coalition) are based on looking solely at income, ignoring the rising wealth of the rich on the back of inflating asset prices, and the squeezed wealth of the poor and young since they have to pay to rent these assets out of their income.

    Edit/ you are right however that the pensioners who comprise the mass of Brexit support aren't the vanguard of a revolution.
    Wealth inequality is also very low, but not at the lowest point. There’s a slight uptick due to the issues you refer to. But again, a low point in our last few decades.
    I would be interested to see data on distribution of income net of housing costs, if it exists.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,341
    IanB2 said:

    philiph said:

    IanB2 said:

    philiph said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Wasn't Macron 'sold' as an outsider?
    Now there is a great concept. 'Macron was sold'

    A transfer market in politicians so that they can be sold between parties and countries.

    There would be an awful lot of free transfers and loan deals to get rid of the dross!
    No premier division and all vauxhall conference! Vaguely on topic, the Germans seem to have found someone less interesting than Merkel?
    Do the Germans have the same shallow requirements as us? Telegenic, charismatic, full flowing head of hair etc?

    While Merkel comes over a bit dour, dull and frumpy to the English, I have no idea of her personality and image in Germany
    She was very popular, pre-migration crisis, seen as honest, reliable and dependable, a sort of mother of the nation. Not dissimilar to Mrs M's strengths when she followed on from Cammo - indeed I recall such comparisons were often made, in her earlier days.
    Sensible, intelligent, conservative, boring, fair. Not popular, but a grown up. The anti Trump, the anti Brexit.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 453
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Wasn't Macron 'sold' as an outsider?
    I guess he was a political outsider. But hardly a social or economic one, other than being rather young. Any elected politician gets pulled towards the base that elected them, and the problem for Macron was that his base wasn't the discontented (who, as noted in the lead, voted for the extremes). It takes a bold politician to get elected by one part of society and commit to an agenda aimed at dealing with legitimate grievances from another. This is of course also why May wasn't able to do anything about her purported agenda.
    He's an enarque like Barnier and Hollande. That makes him as mainstream as you can get.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,168
    Anecdote alert

    Just talking to my sister in law (she is French) who lives in a village 20 miles from Antibes.

    She is not going out today, too many yellow vests about.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293
    notme said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

    Talking only about slowing growth misses the vital dimension of distribution - it is the growing inequality, and specifically the freeze on income and wealth for many whilst those with assets and top jobs have done very nicely thank you - that underlies the dissatisfaction.

    Edit/apologies, I was working up from the bottom and see that SO has already made this point.
    But inequality has *not* grown.
    I think that it is that people at the sharp end are less willing to tolerate it, and see themselves as entitled to their share. In a smartphone connected consumerist world inequality is literally in our faces all the time.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,401
    notme said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Inequality is at its lowest point for over thirty years, and those age groups who supported it the most are the ones where poverty as a measure of inequality has all but disappeared.
    You seem to have some delusion that everyone is awash with cash and having a great time. One can only imagine you are either rich or an MP or both. You are certainly not aux fait with everyday UK life for sure.
  • "If the British are determined to plough on, that is their right. But now that they know what Brexit really means, they deserve the chance to say whether they still want it."
    - The Economist
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    It was never about Elites. What are Trump, Boris, Mogg, Farage if not part of an Eilte?

    No, this is a reaction by social conservatives against post 2000 metropolitan social liberalism, quite remarkable change in a short time that brought us things like a Black president, gay marriage and people on the bus in small towns with foreign accents.

    It’s a reaction against economic changes that favours big metropolitan centres rather than small towns and rural areas. The yellow jackets, like the red necks and some leavers are from provincial areas not the big cities. Wealth in the cities has not been distributed to the country, the coast or small towns. The biggest populist reaction is in the areas that felt they used to matter.

    It’s the Metropolitan bit that bites. Not the elite part.

    Actually wealth from the cities is being distributed to the coast etc. It's just that it's staying with the people who have it. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Cornwall, Devon and N. Wales are often cited, but the Suffolk coast is another area where wealthy incomes come for a few weeks a year and put housing, as just one example, out of the reach of the locals.
    For every Southwold, there are 50 Great Yarmouths.
    And Jaywicks.

    On your other point, a few days ago there was a discussion which mentioned paternalistic employers such as the Cadburys and Titus Salt, who built villages for their employees. There are, or were when I was younger, dozens of public buildings and public parks in large provincial towns which had been given by wealthy townsmen (usually men) who, having made their money in the town, admittedly sometimes by dubious means, spent it in the town.
    That doesn't seem to happen nowadays.
    Bet365?
    Exception/Rule!!!!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,159
    philiph said:

    Anecdote alert

    Just talking to my sister in law (she is French) who lives in a village 20 miles from Antibes.

    She is not going out today, too many yellow vests about.

    Meanwhile, had dinner with a mate who had literally just stepped off the train from Paris. She’d only seen the protests twice in the past month and said they were not really affecting most Parisian. Yet.
  • Is Macron just trying to do the sort of things Thatcher did in the 80s? We had our own protests/riots then.

    OT. BBC saying Amber Rudd backing Norway+ if may deal rejected . leaving aside whether this is possible, how much HoC backing does this have over the deal on offer? It doesn't feel that much of a change and the big difference, FoM, I would have thought makes it less attractive (unless you just want remain anyway). Is it just the least brexitty option that people can claim respects the referendum result?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,401
    Mortimer said:

    philiph said:

    Anecdote alert

    Just talking to my sister in law (she is French) who lives in a village 20 miles from Antibes.

    She is not going out today, too many yellow vests about.

    Meanwhile, had dinner with a mate who had literally just stepped off the train from Paris. She’d only seen the protests twice in the past month and said they were not really affecting most Parisian. Yet.
    Wrecking the tourist trade for sure, so for sure impacting them financially at least.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 22,057
    Voters don't have great expectations of politicians. Experience tells them this. What they hope when casting their vote is that they will be listened to. Because the last lot were deaf to them. Whether the US, France, the UK - they want somebody to pay them attention. And when they don't - well, Macron is discovering.

    And our politicians are not listening to those who wanted Brexit delivering. Next time swathes of voters will try somebody who says they will listen - and act. However unsavoury that individual.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Things sound rather edgy in France. Reminds me a little of the 2011 looting here (mostly London but elsewhere too).
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,965
    In the last year or so, France has done well from a low base on metrics like investment, exports, GDP growth, compared with its peers - UK and Germany. It looks like there is a positive Macron effect, or at least he is riding a wave that is already happening. The gilets jaunes won't help that positive effect however.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,977
    Dr Fox,

    "see themselves as entitled to their share."

    I had a work colleague who used to moan about his finances and was always complaining how poor he was, despite earning a very good salary. My advice … stop playing golf with rich friends and find some other drinking partners. Oh, and don't shop at Waitrose.

    But it's human nature, I suppose.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 106
    The French like the thought of change till the change appears !

    I currently live in France and yes have been caught up in the protests . They’ve generally been quite peaceful here in the sw . However chatting to people whilst they support the protests they were disgusted with the violence and the graffiti daubed onto the Arc De Triomphe .

    The Casseurs as they’re known are hijacking these protests and are going to tarnish some of the genuine concerns people have . France as everyone knows has a history of protest and it’s wired in to most people who are generally a lot more sympathetic to disruption than say in the UK.

    The problem for Macron is he came in as the sensible Liberal but some of his fiscal policies are more to the right . Because of the system here don’t rule him out yet in 2022.

    Often the Presidency comes down to whose the least worst option , and the final run off could see him survive if he’s pitted against the hard left or hard right .
  • Mr. 67, that's what happened last time. So, if the (centre) right chap is not an imbecile or facing legal questions, he'd be the one to challenge Macron, right?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,170

    "If the British are determined to plough on, that is their right. But now that they know what Brexit really means, they deserve the chance to say whether they still want it."
    - The Economist

    I think it's quite simple now. Renegotiation (including Norway) is for the birds, so it's May's deal, no deal or remain. What I think will happen is if, as seems highly likely, May loses the vote is that she'll put it to the people and the options will be 'my deal or remain'. She - and parliament - are not stupid enough to allow a 'no deal' option. She'll only resign if Remain wins. It's really the only way out of this mess.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 13,145

    Voters don't have great expectations of politicians. Experience tells them this. What they hope when casting their vote is that they will be listened to. Because the last lot were deaf to them. Whether the US, France, the UK - they want somebody to pay them attention. And when they don't - well, Macron is discovering.

    And our politicians are not listening to those who wanted Brexit delivering. Next time swathes of voters will try somebody who says they will listen - and act. However unsavoury that individual.

    Brexit is a distraction and, largely, and irrelevance to the economic issues that underpin the discontent across the developed west.
  • Mr. Nashe, there are political as well as economic consequences, however. The focus now is almost solely on the latter.
  • F1: behold: I compare the battle of the team mates in the 2018 season. Numbers galore, tables aplenty!

    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/12/f1-team-driver-battles-in-2018.html

    Some are closer than might be expected. For example, Raikkonen was closer to Vettel than Ricciardo to Verstappen (on a points-per-finish average basis). Some gaps were enormous.
  • We on here know this, but maybe 'Remain' should make it generally better known if there's a new referendum.
    https://twitter.com/i/topics/tweet/1071317477068546048?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&refsrc=email
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 40,941

    And our politicians are not listening to those who wanted Brexit delivering. Next time swathes of voters will try somebody who says they will listen - and act. However unsavoury that individual.

    That may be true, but the people who voted for Brexit are also not listening.

    They refuse to listen to reason, or facts. Anything that doesn't fit their Unicorn fantasy is dismissed as Project Fear. That is the real threat to our democracy.

    As Trump (and Gove) showed, if you can get people to dismiss objective truth as fake news, they will vote for anyone
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    edited December 2018
    (Blokquote fail)
    We’ve already had this discussion. In which I beat you mercilessly. But let’s go again. It isn’t about been awash with cash. It’s comparing like with like and comparing trends. Poverty rates across the board generally dropped during the boom years, some flatlined a little and some saw significant reductions. This pattern carried on through the crash and bottomed out in about 2015. Lowest recorded levels of poverty and inequality for over thirty years on pretty much all levels. Since then there has been a mild increase on a couple of measures and a continuing plataue on others.

    Everyday life in the uk is pretty good for everyone. In 2007 British society reached the most prosperous it had ever been, it took until about 2015/16, after inflation etc to get back to the same level.

    For many there’s been an eroding of the value of their salary, this is more so in the better paying public sector jobs. At the bottom end however there’s been substantial improvements in income, way in excess of anything gained higher up.

    That’s the mistake labour make. They miss this. If you are not working, life is still grim, if you are on a middle income job you’ve probably seen your standard of living freeze, but working on low wages you’ve seen a substantial post inflation growth in your income.
  • Mr. P, people have already seen the original 'Project Fear' prophecies of doom proved false. You'd be better off blaming those who claimed immediate catastrophe with overblown predictions, which were (correctly) disbelieved, than the electorate for not believing them then or believing forecasts of the Apocalypse now.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,425

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.

    Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.

    If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.

    Our globalised economy is very good at creating wealth. The issue is how it is distributed, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of opportunities, health outcomes, the environment and so on. If you’re well-off and you’re not a social democrat you’re a fool. Either you accept redistribution (ie, paying more tax) within the framework of a managed, wealth-creating, capitalist economy, or you end up losing everything when it’s all swept away. Your choice, my friends!!
    I’m not sure it’s forced distribution via that tax system that matters (although clearly a progressive tax system works)

    It’s more that the last 20 years has seen the rise of a footloose global group that believe they have no obligations to any but themselves

    This includes the Russian oligarchs, the Indian steel magnates, our very own Philip Green and others like him, as well as the tax obsessed tech companies

    Fundamentally the wealthy have forgotten that their success isn’t just down to their own brilliance but they have an obligation to the communities that fostered them.

    People resent the flashy, greedy, rub-your-noses-in-it wealth. I don’t think they mind so much the discreet wealth that makes a contribution. For example: people dislike Philip Green, but how many get that worked up about Hugh Grosvenor?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,368
    edited December 2018

    We on here know this, but maybe 'Remain' should make it generally better known if there's a new referendum.

    That's one for the side of a bus.

    Apparently it's devastatingly effective.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,425
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Think you're being a little harsh. She’s been spending quite a lot of time on Brexit when I’m sure she’d prefer to be doing other stuff
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293
    @notme

    The recovery since the GFC has been very patchy, and focussed very much on London and the SE, with a few other university towns. Hence the bewilderment of people like @currystar as to why everyone is not as happy as him. This article covers it well, the graphs are very telling:



    There is also the issue of generational inequality, over and above geographic inequality.



  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,977
    Mr P,

    You encapsulate the Remain problem. "They refuse to listen to reason, or facts." Exactly. There are people who don't share your views, so they are obviously wrong. Populism is something popular with which you disagree. But you only disagree because you know better.

    It must be awful to live among such ignorant people. You have my sympathies.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    notme said:

    (Blokquote fail)
    We’ve already had this discussion. In which I beat you mercilessly. But let’s go again. It isn’t about been awash with cash. It’s comparing like with like and comparing trends. Poverty rates across the board generally dropped during the boom years, some flatlined a little and some saw significant reductions. This pattern carried on through

    Everyday life in the uk is pretty good for everyone. .

    That really should say ‘many’ not everyone.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Think you're being a little harsh. She’s been spending quite a lot of time on Brexit when I’m sure she’d prefer to be doing other stuff
    Exactly, Brexit is a distraction from the real issues, even a displacement activity to divert from the uncomfortable future.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Foxy said:

    @notme

    The recovery since the GFC has been very patchy, and focussed very much on London and the SE, with a few other university towns. Hence the bewilderment of people like @currystar as to why everyone is not as happy as him. This article covers it well, the graphs are very telling:



    There is also the issue of generational inequality, over and above geographic inequality.



    His article is based on a graph for 2014/15 that has both of those years as estimates.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,557
    notme said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Inequality is at its lowest point for over thirty years, and those age groups who supported it the most are the ones where poverty as a measure of inequality has all but disappeared.
    But massively higher than it was during the 60s/70s and early 80s.

    The change in the gini coefficient since 1990 has basically been random walk compared to the explosive increase over the 1980s
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 40,941
    edited December 2018

    Mr. P, people have already seen the original 'Project Fear' prophecies of doom proved false. You'd be better off blaming those who claimed immediate catastrophe with overblown predictions, which were (correctly) disbelieved, than the electorate for not believing them then or believing forecasts of the Apocalypse now.

    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    You encapsulate the Remain problem. "They refuse to listen to reason, or facts." Exactly. There are people who don't share your views, so they are obviously wrong. Populism is something popular with which you disagree. But you only disagree because you know better.

    It must be awful to live among such ignorant people. You have my sympathies.

    Oh dear. This is exactly the point.

    Before the vote there were predictions that we would suffer economically as a result. Which is what happened. That is objective fact.

    Because the scale of the hit does not match the most apocalyptic predictions, Leave voters dismiss ALL the predictions, even the ones that were objectively correct.

    Now we are facing disruption in medical supplies. The Government is buying fridges like it's Black Friday. That is objective fact.

    But leavers insist there is no risk to medical supplies. Not that the scale of the risk is exaggerated, that there is zero risk, that any risk is Fake News.

    That is not true, and those sort of lies are dangerous.
  • "If the British are determined to plough on, that is their right. But now that they know what Brexit really means, they deserve the chance to say whether they still want it."
    - The Economist


    The idea that we 'know what Brexit really means' is, despite the best efforts of the Economist, a complete illusion. It is not possible to know what it is going to be like until it is an actuality. The same is true of what Remain will mean in due course.

    On another but linked point. 'Populist' is another term like 'elites', 'left' and 'right'. Usually used as a lazy way of avoiding the actual discussion of the actual contents of actual ideas and all these terms are used as a way of dismissing thoughts you don't agree with. (Even the Economist keeps on doing it, and it ought to know better.

  • F1: behold: I compare the battle of the team mates in the 2018 season. Numbers galore, tables aplenty!

    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/12/f1-team-driver-battles-in-2018.html

    Some are closer than might be expected. For example, Raikkonen was closer to Vettel than Ricciardo to Verstappen (on a points-per-finish average basis). Some gaps were enormous.

    No mention of team orders?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,749

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    i went to China recently to a conference and was speaking to an engineer They were telling me about their new provincial leader /gauleiter (don't recall the exact term), I said something along the lines of "but this person isn't accountable, how do you vote them out of office?"

    He replied, "I don't know anything about running to province of 60 million people, why should i have a say in appointing someone to run it"

    It kind of staggered me, the whole concept of democratic accountably, seem obvious to me, but it was an alien concept to them.
    Multinationals appoint their leaders the same way as China for similar reasons.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,068
    edited December 2018
    Mr. JohnL, there weren't that many, really.

    One clear example against Bottas, but that wasn't a huge switch. Maybe the odd one for Vettel. They really didn't play a large role this year.

    Edited extra bit: I do mention team orders, though, in a forthcoming post about how the 2019 titles might go. I think that's the last one scheduled, should be up around 5 January.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,965
    edited December 2018

    rcs1000 said:

    There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.

    Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.

    Really, it's about distrust of experts.

    But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.

    i went to China recently to a conference and was speaking to an engineer They were telling me about their new provincial leader /gauleiter (don't recall the exact term), I said something along the lines of "but this person isn't accountable, how do you vote them out of office?"

    He replied, "I don't know anything about running to province of 60 million people, why should i have a say in appointing someone to run it"

    It kind of staggered me, the whole concept of democratic accountably, seem obvious to me, but it was an alien concept to them.
    Think of it like your workplace. You don't get to choose your boss, but if he's any good, and if he wants promotion, he needs to keep the people he's in charge of happy. Chinese politicians are very alert to what people think and can be adopt policies that are quite populist. The mayor introduced a subsidised pension scheme where families could use savings to fund a pension for their elderly parents rather than look after them from their salaries. He made sure the scheme for plenty of positive publicity and went onto higher office.

    On topic, it's remarkable how much Chinese are bought into globalisation, which has lifted a thousand million of them out of poverty in the past thirty years. They and Macron are right, while the gilets jaunes and Brexit leavers are wrong, in an important way. Globalisation is the only game there is. You are either on board or you are left behind. The focus should be on supporting those left behind get on board.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 787
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    It can be easier and cheaper to travel from London to Berlin than from Brighton to Bristol.

    Given how hard it is to get to Berlin by air, that's a damning statistic.
    Even by train, get the boat train to Harwich, and from Holland change at Utrecht and Koln, and bingo.
    There are no longer any trains serving Hook of Holland port, yet alone international expresses. While there still are trains to Harwich PQ connecting with the boat service to the Netherlands, they are not dedicated expresses, unlike 30+ years ago. Low cost air travel has killed off most rail-sea connections, both from the UK to mainland Europe and to Ireland.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Alistair said:

    notme said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    It is perhaps interesting that the same dayglo yellow is the colour of our own crowdfunded Gilet Jaune organised on social media:



    Which begs the question: who are the "ordinary people" and who are the "out of touch elite?

    "Bollocks to Brexit" is a great slogan, and was the cry of the mass demonstration in London in October. It is very Populist in nature, rather like the Gillet Jaune, in that it knows what it is against rather than what it is for. Ultimately that tends to be the rock on which Populism founders. The Populists voted Brexit, against something, but have no agreed plan for what happens next. Even No Dealers are split between protectionism and free traders. Populism is a discontent, not a solution.

    The problem we have is that the Brexit/Remain debate is wholly irrelevant to the issues of inequality and dispossession that underpin the discontent. At least in the US a new President has the prospect of being able to champion changes to address the real issue, even if Trump turned out to be a con. In France it was always peculiar that discontent swept such an establishment figure with mainstream economic views into power, and the backlash was only a matter of time. If reforms are needed, he needed to find a way to deliver redistributive benefit to people at the same time.

    The real tragedy of Mrs M's primacy is that she appeared to recognise very well the reasons for the discontent when she came into power, and committed herself to addressing them, since when precisely nothing has been achieved through a combination of lack of will, lack of ability, and lack of imagination.
    Inequality is at its lowest point for over thirty years, and those age groups who supported it the most are the ones where poverty as a measure of inequality has all but disappeared.
    But massively higher than it was during the 60s/70s and early 80s.

    The change in the gini coefficient since 1990 has basically been random walk compared to the explosive increase over the 1980s
    That is all true. I wouldn’t normally consider inequality to be of much concern, but I know it’s the metric that’s used by the left to determine prosperity, so I actively use it to show up their poverty mongering nonsense about how awful British society has become over the last decade.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,170
    Scott_P said:
    Don't think so. One thing we've learnt: TMay is not Cameron.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Scott_P said:
    That video clip showing him begging the EU to give the uk a punishment beating should be on endless loop by any future leave campaign if there’s a second referendum. The very peak of metropolitan elite.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,760
    The French are revolting but that is a pretty normal state of affairs. Whether it is farmers burning livestock, air traffic controllers screwing up peoples' holidays, the banlieues of Paris becoming no go areas and exporting their violence from their slums into the centre, it is something that happens pretty much every year, several times.

    We in the UK don't really do that sort of thing. We tried it in 2011 but didn't get a taste for it. Why not? I think, until recently, we had a much more cohesive society where strands of the disaffected still thought that the establishment got their problems and were trying to address them, no matter how ineffectually and incompetently. In France if you wanted attention you really had to burn something.

    I fear that we may move closer to the French example for a number of reasons. Firstly, the arrogance and hypocrisy of those who want to overturn the Brexit decision simply because they know best and are so happy to conclude that the great unwashed were deceived or simply ignorant. That is a very French attitude. If millions of our fellow citizens feel that the system no longer respects their views we have a situation where they may need to try something else.

    Secondly, the much slower growth since the GFC has made the inequality of distribution of that growth more stark. When the economy was burbling along at 3-4% a year some of that growth bled out to the provinces even if the majority was in London and the south east. Now, for several years, much of the country has a seemingly unending recession.

    Thirdly, that perception of recession has been increased by the loss of many semi skilled jobs and better paid jobs outside of London. This has had many iniquitous effects. Local economies are depressed by lack of demand, shops close and High Streets are boarded up, the more ambitious youth head to the big smoke leaving behind the less capable, it is a vicious circle.

    As my second and third points show this is a complex and difficult problem which may well be as beyond the capability of our government to fix (even if they had the will) as that of France. I believe that we risk undermining the cohesiveness of our society at our peril.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 2,946
    Scott_P said:

    Mr. P, people have already seen the original 'Project Fear' prophecies of doom proved false. You'd be better off blaming those who claimed immediate catastrophe with overblown predictions, which were (correctly) disbelieved, than the electorate for not believing them then or believing forecasts of the Apocalypse now.

    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    You encapsulate the Remain problem. "They refuse to listen to reason, or facts." Exactly. There are people who don't share your views, so they are obviously wrong. Populism is something popular with which you disagree. But you only disagree because you know better.

    It must be awful to live among such ignorant people. You have my sympathies.

    Oh dear. This is exactly the point.

    Before the vote there were predictions that we would suffer economically as a result. Which is what happened. That is objective fact.

    Because the scale of the hit does not match the most apocalyptic predictions, Leave voters dismiss ALL the predictions, even the ones that were objectively correct.

    Now we are facing disruption in medical supplies. The Government is buying fridges like it's Black Friday. That is objective fact.

    But leavers insist there is no risk to medical supplies. Not that the scale of the risk is exaggerated, that there is zero risk, that any risk is Fake News.

    That is not true, and those sort of lies are dangerous.
    Amazing post and that is why it will go ignored and/or elicit general abuse
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,977
    edited December 2018
    Mr P,

    You can have some advice from an old git for free. Take apocalyptic warnings from media people with a pinch of salt. Check who is issuing it and remember ... cui bono. Politicians brief for party advantage, others sometimes brief for financial advantage, pressure groups brief … well that's the job. They are advocates, not scientists. the media take up stories if they are exciting (they call this being newsworthy), but they don't have to be accurate.

    Even good old Dicky Attenborough can make headlines with apocalyptic warning. Global warming could be worst disaster ever for humanity? He was around in October 1962, when we were a hairs-breath away from all out nuclear war. But I suppose the cockroaches would have survived so that's alright then.

    Well-considered science or factual analysis can be boring and will only be considered if they can put a sensational spin on it. Oh, and 'up to' 1,000 can also mean zero.

    PS It's David Attenborough - these old gits all look the same, don't they?
This discussion has been closed.