Thread by @Helenreflects

Thread on pluto-populism, no deal and the Conservative Party.
Pluto-populism is the use of populism by governments that seek only to help the very wealthiest through e.g., tax cuts.
How do voters end up voting for parties and policies that help the very rich? 1/

This article by @martinwolf_ is worth re-reading. He identifies as one of the key strategies of pluto-populism the creating cultural and ethnic divisions. Create diversion away from policies that help super-rich by appointing scapegoats. 2/
ft.com/content/e494f4…

An example: 19th century southern US was a plutocracy. Over 300,000 confederate soldiers died defending slavery, yet, "a majority of these men had no slaves. Yet their racial and cultural fears justified the sacrifice." 3/
Could something similar be happening in Brexit Britain?

What sacrifices is the Conservative party asking ordinary voters to make? Not to fight in a war (in spite of all the war rhetoric, but austerity. This is not new. It started in 2015 when Cameron campaigned on an austerity ticket and won the General Election. 4/

Cameron said that we need to live within our means, which means cutting schools, NHS, disability welfare, etc. to the bone. At the same time he pledged tax cuts that would cost £7bn. These tax cuts disproportionately helped people making over £40k. 5/ theguardian.com/politics/2015/…

There was no set target for austerity - no figure to reach. Conservative Party leaders said it should become a way of life. The Telegraph said it would last 50 years telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget… 6/

Now how can people vote for something that affects almost everyone (except the very rich, who can buy themselves: private healthcare, private schools for their kids etc), and yet also tolerate tax breaks for the wealthiest 10% costing £7 billion/year? 7/

The answer: pluto-populism - the early days of Conservative government did this by shifting the blame on foreigners, in particular EU citizens. Rather than acknowledging net tax contributions actually helped fund schools and the NHS, they were now blamed for austerity cuts. 8/

E.g., Priti Patel, now Home Secretary, warned about "overfull class sizes" caused by EU migration. But EU citizens pay more into services they use (including schools for their kids) than they take out. So their taxes could've been used to fund schools 9/

theguardian.com/politics/2016/…

Instead, EU citizens' net tax contributions were used to fund the windfall for the richest, highest earning UK taxpayers. It was brilliant: milk EU citizens for their taxes, then blame them for austerity. Let's fast forward to Johnson... 10/

Johnson's announced tax breaks that would help the richest 8% of the UK populations would cost £9 billion. That's about the cost of EU membership fees. And while the advantages of EU membership are substantial, the advantages of "trickle down" economics are more controversial 11/

Boris Johnson's tax breaks are the real story. The no deal bluster is just the mirage created around it, the identity politics (that the right is so effective in mobilizing) to goad people into needless sacrifice 12/

ifs.org.uk/publications/1…

The UK is woefully unprepared for no deal. Let's recap Operation Yellowhammer around March 2019... No guarantee that there would not be food shortages, medicine shortages, how to deal with civil unrest? One may wonder how can people want this blatant harm to occur? 13/

Well much like the confederate soldiers, they are made to believe sacrifice is necessary because it's all about identity, their own identity. Hence the bluster around the backstop. The backstop, let's not forget, is an insurance policy 14/

The backstop is an insurance policy that will come into effect if no better solution is found for avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is a compromise between the UK and EU and the EU does not want it in particular 15/

A hard border in N Ireland would mean a return of “the troubles” a religious and national conflict that claimed the lives of over 3500 people, most ordinary civilians. It seems surreal to think Brexiters want to jeopardize this pease process 16/

The backstop would keep N Ireland in the single market and the whole of the UK in a customs union with the EU *unless a hard border could be avoided*. Now, this is actually a pretty good deal for the UK. Lots of countries would love to be in a customs union. 17/

Some EU countries worried the backstop would undermine the EU single market and customs union but agreed because it was a compromise. Still now it has become this highly symbolic, charged issue. People seem to forget it is an insurance policy. 18/

But by now pretending the backstop is *not* a compromise between EU and UK but an unreasonable demand of the UK, and conveniently forgetting the troubles, Boris Johnson seeks to shift blame onto the EU when no deal happens. 19/

Who will benefit in the meantime? The very rich can buy up houses, the prices of which will almost certainly crash. The chaos will not benefit ordinary people.
No-deal Brexit, like Brexit in general, is pluto-populism. /end