1/ My pet theory on conservative culture wars the world over is they can be effective politically but only provided the government doesn't get carried and actually try to do anything... at which point the wheels tend to come off.
2/ Whatever you think of its substance or ethics, banging on rhetorically about the War on Christmas, cancel culture, woke statue assassins, student lefties and communist academics clearly has some electoral appeal.
Focus groups are clearly telling governments it's a winner.
3/ However, when you move from railing in principle against these social forces to enacting policies to defeat them you almost inevitably do a couple of things that ruin the appeal.
4/ First, you remind everyone you're actually in charge.
Culture war stuff is based in grievance and powerlessness.
Enacting policy reminds people that you control just about all levers of power. The federal government is not the scrappy underdog in a fight with woke twitter.
5/ Second, it invariably looks kinda pathetic, crypto-fascist or a bit of both.
Whether it's a "Heritage Summit" or Trump's 1776 History Fanfiction Committee, it's hard to come up with policy that doesn't look like you're either flailing wildly or playing thought-cop.
6/ Third, it attaches real people to the tribe you're demonizing.
While you're speaking abstractly your audience conjures up an insidious enemy from all their worst fears about the 'woke mob'.
Enact policy & they discover the 'enemy' is a polite and geeky history professor.
7/ The power of culture war messaging is in its arms length separation from reality.
It's a 'something must be done!" type of rallying cry, where the sweet spot is in winding people up about "the problem" and clearly demarcating teams... not actually trying to solve it. /end
7a/ Addendum: They also tend to work better when there's nothing much going on and things in the country are broadly fine for most people, and voters have the headspace to focus on defending statues instead of feeding their families or healthcare or you know... real stuff.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Regulations are ultimately about managing risk, whether that risk is fraud, unsafe practices or someone building an ugly building.
The more (actually or performatively) worried you are about the specific risk, the more checks, approvals, rules and guidelines you put in place.
2/ Governments on both the left and right actually have similarly low appetites for risk, they just focus primarily on different risk categories and operate from an assumption that different groups are bastards that must be watched.
3/ Left wing governments have a tendency to focus on risks arising from business activities and capital.
Their regulations tend to assume that management are bastards, and must be monitored and constrained lest they exploit people or generate negative externalities for profit.
"If you knew everything you needed to know and did everything right, is your existing business and delivery model still viable and competitive?"
The answer to that question determines if for you the problem is Brexit, or how Brexit was delivered.
3/ Some of the challenges at borders could have been prevented while still having the exact same model of Brexit (No Single Market, No Customs Union, but an FTA).
That they're appearing is an implementation failure and you can fully support Brexit but still be pissed about them.
1/ The EU calculation on fish is relatively simple and very cold blooded (sorry). The latest Barnier comments reflect that.
It wants access to UK waters for its vessels and is seeking to trade for it from a position of strength.
That strength is the threat of tariffs.
2/ The EU wants to avoid a future negotiation where it is seeking access to UK waters without the threat of tariffs in its arsenal.
That's why it wants fish included in this deal and why Barnier wants the ability to leverage tariffs if EU vessels are locked out in the future.
3/ The EU aren't stupid. If this deal locks in some access for 5 years and then goes to a bilateral negotiation untied to anything else, what does year 6 look like?
The Sun:
"PRIME MINISTER DARREN GRIMES TELLS EUROPIRATES NON FISH, NON WAY"
I know the media is eager to points score who 'won' or 'surrendered' on the final outstanding issues in this negotiation.
The fact is, regardless of who moves, where, and how far on fishing, governance and LPF, the final deal will be good for both the EU and UK. 🤷♂️
On fish, the worst case scenario for the UK is that the status quo is maintained in a tiny sector.
The worst case scenario for the EU is they'll have negotiate annually for access to UK waters on behalf of a tiny sector.
On LPF, the worst case scenario for the UK is that at some point in the future, their regulations fall so far behind the EU's that they lose some of the market access this deal secures.
For the EU, it's that in that hypothetical, they have fewer options.
2/ You can have personal views on the merits of those red-lines, but as negotiators that's not your role.
Once you've clearly explained your sides, fully understood theirs, and established to your satisfaction neither side is moving... your job is to invent space between them.
3/ Making EU officials hot-desk instead of having a building may not change much commercially or practically, but it achieves the EU objective of oversight while respecting the UK opposition to a permanent office presence.
It may sound silly, but it clearly worked. Go team.