Brexit

The way I get a perspective on what money means at the government level is to keep in mind that our government spends £2.2 billion a day or £1 million every 38 seconds.

I have immediate contact with family who would be described as leave voting working class. It is correct that economic arguments mean little. It took me two hours of argument/conversation to explain the economic issues recently to them. There is a lack of understanding that they had about, what are, complex matters and which they have never had to think about in detail (trade was a complete blank area, for example). Changing minds through explaining economics to destroy populist messaging is possible but may not be worth it in the short run, the need not to know is too ingrained. That will take years and we don’t have the time.

A couple of pointers as to what does work.

1) Destroy the imagined reality of what they think are the benefits to them.

2) Replace that with what does benefit them from a truthful perspective.

A good way was through the NHS, the need for skilled and unskilled immigration to hold it up, the way that any imagined bonus from money not spent to the EU is going to be consumed elsewhere (e.g, businesses to prop them up, refer to the financial crisis as evidence of this etc.) On spending splurges by populists, referring to the destructive long term effect from their own past experience etc.

The vast overarching issue is actually one that we, as theatregoers, are more attuned to than some.

Narratives.

Politics is not a matter of truth it is a matter of compelling stories. Tell a better story, make it land viscerally. Give it a takeaway message that will linger. Populists know this, in fact it’s pretty much all they have, expose the lie, destroy the lie, replace it with something that gives hope and back up your argument with reality (past events, personal memories etc,)

I see that Peaky Blinders’ new series shows the rise of fascism in the UK with the figure of Oswald Mosley, that’s a really useful comparison to make, Populists give those with low information easy answers to complex problems. Destroy them by putting in its place a more compelling narrative; not an easy answer because that’s a lie but a readily understandable distillation.

Writers have long understood the need to use distancing to get across a message that, if told directly, would stumble through it being too close to immediate experience, Miller didn’t write a play about McCarthyism, he wrote it about Salem witch trials. The connection and conversation came afterwards. In my case, they have a visceral hatred of Trump (hardly alone there). That connection and conversation about dangerous populism is an easy one to have maybe.

A good start, ask about nationalism and what they agree with. Then ask about socialism. With those two words you have a very interesting conversation and historical perspective.

We used to have a society where things were explained and people’s lives experientially improved, the post second world war period is the nostalgia that is often referred to. This was based, not on fear, but on hope and on progress. Whether that be the paternalism of politicians or the connections of wider society, it has been replaced with benign neglect. It is that neglect, intellectually as much as economically, that needs to be redressed. It’s what was needed to counteract the pre war flirtation with fascism and it’s what we need now,  

Lovely piece by Cardinal Pirelli above.

The 50's had the you've never had it so good slogan but this was after two World Wars only just over 20 years apart, the depression, national strikes, food rationing so a lot of people had suffered over 40 years hardship.

Nationalism always has a worrying overtone in England but North of the border we have the SNP who is a broadly socialist leaning party who wish to take their country out of the UK but then rejoin the EU.

Family, they don’t have a choice. 

Seriously, it’s worth having these conversations, both ways, otherwise we don’t have first hand knowledge.

The issue with that would be the difference in attitude, then and now. In the 30's there was a sense of together-ness and community. People pulled together to do what they could. Now society is divided and ruled by individualism, there is no wider sense of community, but just small, isolated pockets of it. It's I before We.

So what happened?

They are more informed. What they do with that information is up to them.

Thought this was an interesting reminder of how we are when not mouth-foaming, swivel-eyed and waving Brexit-themed handbags at each other. I liked the two grids at the bottom of the page, though it took a moment or two to tune in:

yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/14/left-wing-vs-right-wing-its-complicated

The ‘don’t knows’ are a considerable bunch. I was a puzzled by the nuclear power result. Why is wanting nuclear power right wing? Obviously nuking the hell out of North Korea is an opinion very slightly to the right but this is about light bulbs and after the recent debacle I think we need to seriously consider our energy providers.

The language is so carefully calibrated. They are still avoiding using the evocative - or provocative - word 'appeasement', but you sense Sir Winston Johnson is heading in that direction.

Theresa May obv. cast as the unfortunate Neville Chamberlain, waving a Withdrawal Agreement from the steps of sleek De Havilland.

In his head, and depending on what he's been snorting - very likely.

It did make me roll my eyes, but then when you actually stop to think about it...

There appears to be some stuff going on that you could call ‘fifth column’. How far do you have to stretch it before that becomes ‘collaboration’? Probably not very much...?