Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Ghost Dog

(16,881 posts)
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 05:19 AM Aug 2016

With a solitary MP and a flimsy activist base,

it still played a huge role in embedding the connection between most of Britain’s ills and the EU, and thereby carrying its cause from the margins of politics to its very centre. Here is an example of postmodern politics from which people on the left would do well to learn...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/26/forget-nigel-farage-people-ukip-exploits


High quality analysis, as usual, from John Harris.

The example of postmodern politics shows us the effectiveness of vocal, theatrical, even, opposition, even when personified in only one leading actor (but a harmonious chorus is surely better), in bringing about fundamental change.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
With a solitary MP and a flimsy activist base, (Original Post) Ghost Dog Aug 2016 OP
Sorry, I think the article itself is flimsy. Denzil_DC Aug 2016 #1
I've been thinking about the Personality cult bit recently T_i_B Aug 2016 #2
I don't know about a 'new right-wing populism' LeftishBrit Sep 2016 #3
Very glad you let all that out, LeftishBrit! Denzil_DC Sep 2016 #4
I pretty much agree with all of your comments, especially (7) non sociopath skin Sep 2016 #5
Yes, (7) is the strongest one! LeftishBrit Sep 2016 #6

Denzil_DC

(7,188 posts)
1. Sorry, I think the article itself is flimsy.
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 11:24 AM
Aug 2016

1. It's easy to propel a negative, scapegoating message as the answer to all ills. It's particularly easy when a vast swathe of the media are on board and daily magnify the propaganda against an already unpopular far-off body (not to mention those hapless, almost entirely blameless souls who are the face of immigration in this country), not least because so many of them have vested interests in ensuring that nothing truly challenges the status quo, at least not in a way that may harm the bank balances and political ambitions of media magnates, from Dacre to the Barclay brothers to Desmond to Murdoch. Faced with that reality, it's hard to see what these "lessons" for the left Harris identifies may be.

2. There is no doubt there was an element of the personality cult about UKIP. The flailing now in the run-up to their leadership election bears that out. That's not to dismiss the Brexit vote and the motivations behind it as simply that, but how many media hours and relatively easy rides have Farage and a few other of UKIP's flash-in-the-pan rising stars had to reinforce their message over the years?

3. What exactly is this "fundamental change" that's been brought about? Harris grudgingly acknowledges that immigration, and the casual and not so casual xenophobia that makes for a ready audience for flip answers to serious questions, was a central issue for many: "... it’s painful to make the point, do not underestimate the centrality of immigration to the Brexit vote, and how irate a lot of people may get if the status quo persists – a point underlined by this week’s net migration figures (in the year to March 2016, 633,000 people arrived in the UK, while 306,000 moved overseas)."

But Brexit as anybody at all sane is envisaging it at the moment shows no signs of being able to address this issue without doing untold harm to the UK's own interests (let alone causing misery for many caught up in the machinations). Can anybody realistically look around them at the moment and say that the UK's a better place to live post-referendum, or that there's any clear prospect of how that goal may ever come about?

Making a concerted fuss and turning over a few applecarts, then running away in the hope somebody else will sort it all out, along with a legacy of really ugly racist incidents, isn't a "fundamental change". It's just chaos.

4. As for this: "More generally, there is still a sense of far too many of the political class thinking the vote can soon be nullified – witness the hapless Owen Smith claiming that “we didn’t actually know what we were voting on” and holding out the prospect of another referendum. If the Brexit vote was motivated by people’s sense that Westminster either ignored them or failed to take them seriously, what does he think will happen if their one briefly successful protest is treated the same way?"

I'm certainly no Smith fan, but on the point that people didn't know what they were voting for, he's absolutely right, and it's mindboggling that it's even considered debatable. Once we do know what we may be voting on, why is it unthinkable that we should revisit the issue, either with a general election or - heaven forbid - another referendum?

And what the hell is this "what does he think will happen"?

Within a million or so (quite likely less now that buyer's remorse has set in), just as many people are pissed off with the result as are content with it. Is he implying we may see violence on the streets if immigration isn't curbed? Is he condoning mob rule? We have police to deal with that. Am I going to have to threaten to - or actually - take to the barricades and take out a few windows and police officers etc. before somebody takes just how pissed off I am about the whole situation seriously?

T_i_B

(14,734 posts)
2. I've been thinking about the Personality cult bit recently
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 12:21 PM
Aug 2016

I'm slightly too young to know about Thatcher on this point, but in my adult life two UK politicians have had a major cult of personality about them. Tony Blair and Nigel Farage.

I may heartily dislike both, and certainly disliked the ginormous egos of both men, but both were hugely successful in their own ways.

Looking at Jeremy Corbyn, he is not an obvious candidate for a cringing cult of personality. He's not a brilliant orator like Obama, he doesn't come across as a raging egomaniac, or even somebody who takes much pride in his appearance and in stark contrast to media whores like Blair and Farage he actively shuns mainstream media.

And yet the faction of Labour he heads seems utterly dependent on him staying as Labour leader come what may and has built up a cult like base of followers who seem far more attached to the man than any wider cause. In my experience, you can object to policies like Railway Nationalisation and they won't argue with you about it, but the moment you suggest that he isn't doing a very good job as Labour leader they go apeshit.

So there is a bit of the personality cult with Corbyn, but it's quite different what you usually get with personality politics IMHO.

LeftishBrit

(41,192 posts)
3. I don't know about a 'new right-wing populism'
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 07:36 AM
Sep 2016

We have always had it with us. I'm just old enough to remember the later stages of Enoch Powell's career. And later on, John Major's 'bastard' opponents; and Michael Howard's dog whistle 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?'; and on a more blatantly extreme level, the National Front, and the BNP, and the latter's gains in 2009. And practically everything that went in the Sun, ever. For many years, the stereotypical appeal to the RW Tory base has been satirized - with not much exaggeration of the reality - as 'Hang 'em all, flog 'em all, send 'em all back where they came from!'

The problem is now that the attitude has been given full power to determine policy, and this has several bitter roots:

(1) Something that I do think represents failings on the left: accepting the separation, that has been increasingly common over the last 20 years or so, between social and economic progressivism. I have been saying for years that this is a problem. Economic and social progressivism cannot be truly separated if we are to have progressivism for all. Social progressivism without economic progressivism is only social progressivism for those above a certain income - the threat of destitution is as much of a threat as that of legal punishment or social ostracism. And economic progressivism without social progressivism leads to a right-wing populism which at best excludes those outside the favoured groups from progress, and at worst threatens them with violence. And Blairism and its offshoots did too often represent social without economic progressivism (though in Blair's favour, he did introduce the minimum wage); and this may have increased the attraction of right-wing 'populism' to some. Which of course turns out not to be economically progressive either - the 350 million for the NHS, most notably, turned out a complete lie. One moral of the whole mess may be that if you separate economic and social progressivism too much, you will probably end up with neither.

(2) But much of what is happening is failings on the right rather than the left. The leaders on the right have used the entire future of the UK as a pawn in a power-game. The whole EU debate was really a power battle between the Cameron types and the Tory Right, with UKIP collaborating with the latter. They had no plans beyond that. Unbelievable. I'd always thought our leaders often had bad plans, but not that they had no plans except winning the current power battle. And as regards voters: I think a lot of emphasis has been put on the more 'marginalized' groups who voted Leave, because these are groups that normally vote in the progressive direction, but didn't this time. Which tipped the balance, no doubt. But the core Leavers are IMO the so-called Middle England people, with their nostalgia and their tabloid-fuelled self-righteousness. With all the emphasis on Leavers in the North, let's note that in the South East, though the cities tended to vote Remain, there are an awful lot of very xenophobic, very anti-EU, very anti-immigrant people in the smaller communities. Of my 10 South East Region MEPs, 4 are UKIP or related and 1 is Daniel Hannan. 50% of my MEPs are pretty close to being fascist. Not great.

(3) Having a referendum at all increases the role of right-wing 'populism' and voting one's prejudices. In Switzerland, the referendum led to women not getting the vote till the 1970s. In fairly liberal California, it led to Proposition 8. Having a referendum on complicated economic and constitutional issues without providing adequate information is particularly (indeed breathtakingly) stupid and only happened because of the stuff mentioned under (2).

(4) I suppose the Leavers are correct in a way about something. The country is indeed ruled by unelected irresponsible money-grabbing power-maniacs, who mostly don't live in the UK. But it's not the EU. It's the media. The press barons have done us untold harm by their LIES. In many countries, democracy suffers from government-run media; here it suffers from media-run government.

(5) We really need a written constitution!

(6) Best not to put through constitutional amendments, if you don't have a written constitution. Note that in most countries that do, you cannot put through a constitutional amendment without a majority - and often a supermajority - of constituent states. 2 out of 4 would never be accepted as sufficient. I suppose most countries don't really fancy breaking up, and have provided for it?

(7) AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!



Denzil_DC

(7,188 posts)
4. Very glad you let all that out, LeftishBrit!
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 05:18 AM
Sep 2016

Over the years, UKIP and its stances that chimed with the right of the Tory Party and the country as a whole ceased being a problem just for the Tories and became a problem for Labour (and the rest of us).

Blair's term in office undercut the Tories, and as with the Thatcher/major era, all was well as long as the illusion of economic competency lasted. Both finally imploded under the weight of the contradictions in their economic stances and policies and the pitfalls they entailed.

The problem with the Blair era was that it muddied the waters by cosying up to the big financial interests and becoming dependent on them.

By abandoning any pretence at even a severely watered-down socialist analysis of societal ills, it led the pinning of, then left the way open for others to pin, the blame on a series of outgroups progressively lower down the food chain - union leaders, "the hard left", "scroungers" etc., then ultimately immigrants, amid the long-running grumbling antipathy towards the EU.

Once you accept that, and allow the narrative to be reinforced without pushback over so many years, it's near impossible to walk it back while retaining credibility.

The shame of it is that the Tories were on the brink of one of these cyclical implosions - austerity was demonstrably not working in reducing the deficit, analysts were predicting another crash, then came the killer blow of the Referendum result. Rather than capitalizing on this disarray, a faction in Labour decided to opportunistically pursue their own power struggle at the worst possible moment. So it's not just the Tories who've sacrificed the country's interests to a party in-fight.

How different these last few months might have been if this hadn't been the case.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»United Kingdom»With a solitary MP and a ...