The exit of United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU) was shocking to most of the people, but the vote for Brexit was expected as illustrated in “All Out War” by Tim Shipman. Shipman’s book has discussed major issues during the campaign that resulted in the victory of the Leave campaign camp and the errors made by those who lobbied to remain in the EU. The book written within three months following the referendum and published in the fourth month is one of the most interesting books given that it was written and produced in a rush. The six hundred and sixty-three pages’ book is derived from interviews of all the major participants of the leave and remain campaign camps. It is hard for anyone to accept that it is the first book Shipman has written due to the interesting, critical and creativity illustrated. Shipman over the years has built a reputation for being among the best political analysts, and the book demonstrates his prowess in politics and social relations.
The efficiency of Shipman’s analysis of each player in the campaign is critical in determining entertainment and informative as he does not over or under state any participant’s role in the campaign towards the referendum. Michael Gove and Boris Johnson who were the main players in the Leave team are relatively analyzed, and their roles are evident to the extent that none of them can complain about what the author describes. The only person in the Vote Leave camp that can feel that his role in the campaign and victory was understated in the book is Arron Banks, and Niger Farage may also be critical that the author did not challenge the narrative terming him as toxic by the swing voters. The author claims that the political genius of Cummings, one of an unknown key player of Vote Leave camp, formulation of the ‘Take Back Control’(Shipman, 2016) slogan was the primary determinant of the victory of exit from EU. Shipman offers Cummings a high status that most people would believe unwarranted but I concur with the author’s decision as the slogan guided the strategy undertaken by the Vote Leave camp of the likes of Gove and Boris. He claims that the role played by Cummings makes him a necessity in every campaigning group that needs a victory. The slogan was a show of positivity and enthusiastic strategy used by the leave campaigners which promised the voters the need to defy and change the political class that had dominated Britain for many decades. Most of the high political faces were against the exit as they were still gaining from being in the EU. The leave campaign used these chance as a campaign to mobilize the citizens against those in power and used social and economic inequalities as the reason to abandon the complexity of the EU that limited the chances of the middle and lower class citizens.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Unlike the slogan used by the eventual winners, the ‘Stronger In’ had problems of preaching fear to the citizens of the future catastrophes for instance, economic and social issues that would result from the exit but had no positive vision (Shipman, 2016). The public needed changes in running of many government projects and issues of unemployment that the stronger in claimed would only increase if they voted for the exit but it did not demonstrate any decrease in the rate of unemployment if they voted to remain. The Labour Party which was the main party in campaigning for the UK to stay in EU had conflicts from within, and it was evident that they did not agree with Cameron’s call for the referendum. The author claims that Cameron decision to call for a referendum was an unwarranted risk as he knew the risks involved in the case of a loss. He was aware that they had no positive vision and fear approach has failed in recent political campaigns yet he called for the referendum in the bid to fulfill his promise. The author notices that in all the remain campaigners he interviewed, only James McGrory who had a positive vision for staying in the EU (Shipman, 2016). Shipman states that James could have played the role of encouraging his colleagues to change their tactics and would have won more votes from the liberals.
The exceptional use of the swearing during the campaign that has never been known for Britain’s campaigns was evident and portrayed the vulnerabilities, emotional, and human characters that most of the politicians’ strain to hide from the public. The author does not spare the reader from the swearing language used thus leading to a vivid depiction of the nature of politics and politicians. Boris, as demonstrated in the book, is depicted as more human than most people think of him. The author notes that although the referendum would be avoided, it was necessary as the complexity of decision making within EU that would have led to Brexit would have resulted in splitting and bitter relationship with the union if the government was solely responsible for the exit. The people’s choice was more acceptable within the EU as it was in their democratic rights thus did not create much of bad relationship with the other 27 states. Unlike most books that tend to single out immigration as the major determinant of the victory or loss of either side of the Brexit campaign, Shipman’s book is more critical on the political strategies and opinions as the primary determinant of the referendum results. The book is informative, critical of most political decisions, and thrilling for the reader thus one of the books I would recommend to anyone willing to learn more about political strategies and their influences to the public as evident in the Brexit.
Reference
Shipman, T. (2016). All out war (1st ed.). HarperCollins.
