Another fascinating piece. I see the five missions have now been further redefined and reduced to “bills and borders”. I still think Starmer is closest to Wilson with his emphasis on technological/administrative solutions without the latter’s ability to connect with TV audiences (he recruited Tony Benn to help him with this). I know that “winning the argument” carries certain connotations in the modern Labour Party but (as per Steve Richards) you’re hardly going to connect with voters if you never seem keen on engaging with them. Doesn’t help when several of your policies are more likely to raise prices than lower them.
"Working"? He wants so much to say "normal"... and I don't blame him.
We have entertainment politicians... getting points for saying extraordinary things.
No one - well apart from spivs and genocidal chancers - is served by populism... it is a hit.. nothing more... and we all have to pay for it in the morning.
It's an interesting idea; but extending populism to characters like Blair dilutes the concept beyond any recognition. His period in government entrenched all sorts of elites, and although making occasional grumbles about this, he never showed any real sign of wanting to curb their power. And on the technocracy side in what sense do Trump or Farage really claim a specific 'expertise', as opposed to their claim to reflect what the ordinary voter is actually thinking?
It's B&A's thesis that you're objecting to here, and I will note at the outset that their book has now been cited 120 times, which I think in political science is a lot in that time. It can't just be dismissed out of hand. Then, sentence by sentence...
The idea of technopopulism is not just a category of politician, it is an attempt to describe the kind of politics we now live in. So it is a very broad, encompassing idea (although not without boundaries). I would try to avoid getting hung up on the language. I also bristled at the idea that Blair was a populist, but if you concentrate on how they define technopopulism, it follows. Note that, as B&A put it, the Third Way provides the original pattern for all the mass of anti-establishment parties across Europe that have come later in that it condemns the "...supposed convergence of all mainstream political parties around a common set of ideological premises".
Setting up the (rhetorical) idea of a conflict with a corrupt elite does not in any way mean that you will substantively try to do anything about that elite.
Trump definitely does claim expertise. He claims to be a great businessman at a time when the government needs to be run more like a business; an expert dealmaker who can, for example, bring wars to an end through the art of the deal; and, in passing during his ramblings, to have all kinds of great insights into deep problems, including curing Covid with bleach. Again, the power of this does not reside in any substance, only in its effect on the political audience.
I haven't tried to fit Farage into this framework, but you could be right that he doesn't fit. In terms of techne, he has never been in a position to run for Prime Minister, and so the question of his competence perhaps has never come into it.
I would argue that the 'Third Way' was simply a marketing slogan of no real substance. I am also struggling with the 'convergence' of ideology (which I take to be referring to Neoliberalism becoming the 'common sense' of all mainstream parties) NOT including New Labour, who were unequivocally neoliberal in outlook. To describe New Labour as anti-establishment is stretching credulity to the extreme. They were anti a number of things, but seemed comfortably part of the establishment.
Another fascinating piece. I see the five missions have now been further redefined and reduced to “bills and borders”. I still think Starmer is closest to Wilson with his emphasis on technological/administrative solutions without the latter’s ability to connect with TV audiences (he recruited Tony Benn to help him with this). I know that “winning the argument” carries certain connotations in the modern Labour Party but (as per Steve Richards) you’re hardly going to connect with voters if you never seem keen on engaging with them. Doesn’t help when several of your policies are more likely to raise prices than lower them.
"Working"? He wants so much to say "normal"... and I don't blame him.
We have entertainment politicians... getting points for saying extraordinary things.
No one - well apart from spivs and genocidal chancers - is served by populism... it is a hit.. nothing more... and we all have to pay for it in the morning.
It's an interesting idea; but extending populism to characters like Blair dilutes the concept beyond any recognition. His period in government entrenched all sorts of elites, and although making occasional grumbles about this, he never showed any real sign of wanting to curb their power. And on the technocracy side in what sense do Trump or Farage really claim a specific 'expertise', as opposed to their claim to reflect what the ordinary voter is actually thinking?
It's B&A's thesis that you're objecting to here, and I will note at the outset that their book has now been cited 120 times, which I think in political science is a lot in that time. It can't just be dismissed out of hand. Then, sentence by sentence...
The idea of technopopulism is not just a category of politician, it is an attempt to describe the kind of politics we now live in. So it is a very broad, encompassing idea (although not without boundaries). I would try to avoid getting hung up on the language. I also bristled at the idea that Blair was a populist, but if you concentrate on how they define technopopulism, it follows. Note that, as B&A put it, the Third Way provides the original pattern for all the mass of anti-establishment parties across Europe that have come later in that it condemns the "...supposed convergence of all mainstream political parties around a common set of ideological premises".
Setting up the (rhetorical) idea of a conflict with a corrupt elite does not in any way mean that you will substantively try to do anything about that elite.
Trump definitely does claim expertise. He claims to be a great businessman at a time when the government needs to be run more like a business; an expert dealmaker who can, for example, bring wars to an end through the art of the deal; and, in passing during his ramblings, to have all kinds of great insights into deep problems, including curing Covid with bleach. Again, the power of this does not reside in any substance, only in its effect on the political audience.
I haven't tried to fit Farage into this framework, but you could be right that he doesn't fit. In terms of techne, he has never been in a position to run for Prime Minister, and so the question of his competence perhaps has never come into it.
I would argue that the 'Third Way' was simply a marketing slogan of no real substance. I am also struggling with the 'convergence' of ideology (which I take to be referring to Neoliberalism becoming the 'common sense' of all mainstream parties) NOT including New Labour, who were unequivocally neoliberal in outlook. To describe New Labour as anti-establishment is stretching credulity to the extreme. They were anti a number of things, but seemed comfortably part of the establishment.