Alf Bentley Posted 20 November 2016 Posted 20 November 2016 20 minutes ago, Countryfox said: Interesting Alf as I'm in that age bracket and everyone I knew (from a varied spectrum of jobs and backgrounds) voted Leave. Statistics show that your experience is more typical than mine in our age group (50+). Whichever way they voted, I bet most people would say that most people they know voted the same way as them. The friends I was referring to are people I knew in London and met at a reunion just before the vote - though most of them originally came from other parts of the country. They were amazed that I even had any doubt about voting Remain. I wonder if there's ANYONE who knew a lot of people voting Remain AND a lot of people voting Leave?
Countryfox Posted 20 November 2016 Posted 20 November 2016 1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said: Statistics show that your experience is more typical than mine in our age group (50+). Whichever way they voted, I bet most people would say that most people they know voted the same way as them. The friends I was referring to are people I knew in London and met at a reunion just before the vote - though most of them originally came from other parts of the country. They were amazed that I even had any doubt about voting Remain. I wonder if there's ANYONE who knew a lot of people voting Remain AND a lot of people voting Leave? Interesting again Alf. We must subconsciously interact with and know people who are in the main similar to ourselves .... Never really thought about that before but how else could you explain it.
Buce Posted 20 November 2016 Posted 20 November 2016 46 minutes ago, Countryfox said: Interesting again Alf. We must subconsciously interact with and know people who are in the main similar to ourselves .... Never really thought about that before but how else could you explain it. Birds of a feather..
Countryfox Posted 20 November 2016 Posted 20 November 2016 10 minutes ago, Buce said: Birds of a feather.. In a nutshell Bucey !
Strokes Posted 20 November 2016 Posted 20 November 2016 22 minutes ago, Buce said: Birds of a feather.. You're in the wrong thread buce, this isn't my favourite to shows
Carl the Llama Posted 21 November 2016 Posted 21 November 2016 6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said: Statistics show that your experience is more typical than mine in our age group (50+). Whichever way they voted, I bet most people would say that most people they know voted the same way as them. The friends I was referring to are people I knew in London and met at a reunion just before the vote - though most of them originally came from other parts of the country. They were amazed that I even had any doubt about voting Remain. I wonder if there's ANYONE who knew a lot of people voting Remain AND a lot of people voting Leave? Pretty much all of my family voted to remain but of my colleagues and friends my experience is that in conversation one said they wanted to remain but didn't bother registering to vote and the rest either weren't eligible to vote in the referendum due to their nationality or they voted to leave. Of those leavers most admitted that they didn't really get the issues nor could they really explain why they voted how they did, a small number claimed to regret how they voted - saying that they only did so because they didn't expect it to actually happen - and about the same number again made earnest cases for departure but only one of them actually had any responses to my counterpoints about the bus fallacy or the immigration control paradox. Nobody I spoke to could name a single one of the European institutions (not even the European Parliament which is doubly astounding because aside from colouring them as horrifyingly ignorant given the key role of a certain well-known and oft-quoted MEP in these debates you'd also imagine it would have been easy enough to name by pure guesswork... apparently not) so were by default unable to explain in detail their problems with the EU's legislative mechanics, in essence they were all parroting various snippets they'd heard on the radio or read in the papers without bothering to independently look into the one thing at the heart of all the side-debates or indeed even fact checking the arguments they were relying on. Apparently certain points of debate just felt right to them so there was no need to question it. Surely if you're going to form an opinion on such an issue, even going so far as to vote on it, it's reasonable to be expected to have some knowledge of the underlying facts? But no. What I have learned this year is a significant proportion of people don't vote based on facts or figures but simply on feeling. They felt the EU was bad so they voted to leave. I think we all know the response to the above: "Bloody leftist sneering at people who don't want to verify whether they actually know things that sound scary and correct. You're the reason we voted to leave with your arrogant poncy facts." To which I ask: "Mr Straw, how the bloody hell do you counter that culture of instinct if facts won't do the trick?"
davieG Posted 21 November 2016 Author Posted 21 November 2016 I think there's also some group mentality going on where some might agree with the majority or the alpha person for fear of appearing out of step, causing an argument or at worst losing the friendship
Alf Bentley Posted 21 November 2016 Posted 21 November 2016 I'm sure that (a) dissatisfaction with living standards/prospects; and (b) feelings of powerlessness vis-à-vis the establishment had a lot to do with both the Brexit and the Trump votes. A significant minority would have voted Brexit/Trump because of their beliefs. But if people had been feeling good about their lives/prospects or had felt that they could influence the authorities, then I reckon Brexit & Trump would have lost. A lot of people felt pissed off and powerless - and the votes gave them an outlet for that. I'm sure "group mentality" does come into it - on all sides. At a time when I was unsure how to vote in the referendum, I couldn't get my Remain-supporting mates to properly discuss the pros and cons. I didn't get much more than "I'm an internationalist, not a Little Englander" and "if Boris, Farage and IDS think it's a good idea, then I'm on the other side". Fine, I share those instincts, but surely you need to challenge your own thinking more than that? There were arguments for Leave that were different from those presented by Boris/Farage: e.g. EU austerity economics policies, future direction of EU, limitations on domestic policy options. I struggle to understand why my mates (intelligent blokes with an interest in politics) didn't want to discuss the pros and cons. I find it easier to understand why people with less interest in politics didn't have arguments to support their voting preferences (e.g. the people @Carl the Llama mentions). Personally, I think politics and economics are important and I take a strong interest - most people posting here presumably agree. But we're a minority. Most people don't pay much attention and do indeed vote based on "feelings" and superficial thinking, not rational analysis. That sounds snobbish, but it's not meant to be. Some people would quite reasonably tell me that I should understand how the electrics work in our house, or how my PC is programmed. I can see that it would be useful to understand such stuff, but I just don't have enough interest. So long as I can do a few basic things like adjust the boiler, change a bulb/fuse, download software onto my PC and use files/web, then I don't want to understand any more. I have other priorities. I presume a lot of people feel similarly about politics. That doesn't really answer Carl's question as to how you influence people who vote by instinct, not reason/knowledge or @davieG's point about "group mentalities". But dealing with the 2 issues in my first paragraph would go some of the way. If most people feel that they're doing OK, have some prospects and that their voices will be heard by those in authority, then they'll be much less likely to lash out wildly when they vote. If politicians want to avoid backlashes like these, they have to somehow ensure that MOST people feel secure or have opportunities - and they have to be less remote and more in touch with the people who elect them....easier said than done.
Nick Posted 21 November 2016 Posted 21 November 2016 Can you get odds on him being assassinated before the end of his term? Gotta be worth a fiver, surely? I bet the Secret Service are drawing straws for Presidential Detail.
davieG Posted 21 November 2016 Author Posted 21 November 2016 Of course it might have helped if the main stream media had spent a bit more time on EU austerity economics policies, future direction of EU, limitations on domestic policy options @Alf Bentley rather than the focus on the childish brickbats and personal insults. I found it very difficult to find any in-depth discussions in the media and had to resort to the internet which not everyone will do and I still found it hard to find definitive answers some of which has only come to light post voting. I still believe the EU is an uncontrolled political monolith that will only get bigger and more convoluted, inward looking and remote from the general populous. In an extreme way it doesn't seem that different to a dictatorship.
Alf Bentley Posted 21 November 2016 Posted 21 November 2016 29 minutes ago, davieG said: Of course it might have helped if the main stream media had spent a bit more time on EU austerity economics policies, future direction of EU, limitations on domestic policy options @Alf Bentley rather than the focus on the childish brickbats and personal insults. I found it very difficult to find any in-depth discussions in the media and had to resort to the internet which not everyone will do and I still found it hard to find definitive answers some of which has only come to light post voting. I still believe the EU is an uncontrolled political monolith that will only get bigger and more convoluted, inward looking and remote from the general populous. In an extreme way it doesn't seem that different to a dictatorship. I completely agree with your first 2 points. But how many people would have paid attention if the media had engaged in more in-depth, serious discussion of such issues? Politicians know that most people don't go into that much depth, so they try to win them over with false promises, emotive statements, childish insults, publicity stunts etc. A more in-depth debate would have helped you and me, but probably only a minority. Until the EU seems as important and accessible to people as national government, it risks being seen in the way you describe in your 3rd point. That's easier said than done. How does a continent-wide organisation earn positive interest from individuals or local communities? It doesn't control national education systems or the media. It could try to promote itself more via national media, but would the media be responsive to that? Probably not. It could operate more on a local level - local meetings or newsletters - but how many people would pay attention? And it'd probably just get slagged off for wasting taxpayer's money. They could make better use of social media - but again, how many people would pay attention? The EU certainly has some major flaws, including the complexity, remoteness and non-responsiveness you describe in your 3rd point. But a lot of those criticisms can also be made of Westminster. I always come back to the fact that the capitalist economy has gone international/global, so we need PART of our democracy to follow suit. Some things can still be controlled at national or local level, but a lot can't....which is why I remain sceptically pro-EU (new concept!). The EU might well continue to struggle and even implode, but I really hope it doesn't. That it manages to reform itself and make it more relevant and responsive to people's lives. For all the EU's faults, life could be a lot more chaotic and brutal without it, I reckon. Better take any more EU debate to the EU thread, though, as this is supposed to be the Trump thread....
davieG Posted 21 November 2016 Author Posted 21 November 2016 2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I completely agree with your first 2 points. But how many people would have paid attention if the media had engaged in more in-depth, serious discussion of such issues? Politicians know that most people don't go into that much depth, so they try to win them over with false promises, emotive statements, childish insults, publicity stunts etc. A more in-depth debate would have helped you and me, but probably only a minority. Until the EU seems as important and accessible to people as national government, it risks being seen in the way you describe in your 3rd point. That's easier said than done. How does a continent-wide organisation earn positive interest from individuals or local communities? It doesn't control national education systems or the media. It could try to promote itself more via national media, but would the media be responsive to that? Probably not. It could operate more on a local level - local meetings or newsletters - but how many people would pay attention? And they'd probably just get slagged off for wasting taxpayer's money. They could make better use of social media - but again, how many people would pay attention? The EU certainly has some major flaws, including the complexity, remoteness and non-responsiveness you describe in your 3rd point. But a lot of those criticisms can also be made of Westminster. I always come back to the fact that the capitalist economy has gone international/global, so we need PART of our democracy to follow suit. Some things can still be controlled at national or local level, but a lot can't....which is why I remain sceptically pro-EU (new concept!). The EU might well continue to struggle and even implode, but I really hope it doesn't. That it manages to reform itself and make it more relevant and responsive to people's lives. For all the EU's faults, life could be a lot more chaotic and brutal without it, I reckon. Better take any more EU debate to the EU thread, though, as this is supposed to be the Trump thread.... Re the last point, sure there are things that are probably suited to a euro wide approach, although why that needs to be within the EU I don't know surely agreements can be made without the need for all this over the top administration. For me they've gone too far and look like they want to go further.
leicsmac Posted 21 November 2016 Posted 21 November 2016 People can vote as they like, from a position of ignorance or knowledge - the blessings of a democratic system. With that in mind however, it cannot and should not be expected for people to show accommodation for that ignorance when, by design or no, it elects a demagogue who (along with the people behind him) could end up leaving division and a lot of historically vulnerable people in trouble again. Of course, that's probably not his intent, but there are many among his backers who want it to be so.
leicsmac Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 An example of the above. Unintended and abstract consequences are still consequences, especially when they seem to be becoming less and less abstract every day. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-nationalist-movement-twitter-faster-growth-isis-islamic-state-study-a7223671.html Of course, it's just words. For the time being, anyway.
Jon the Hat Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 The rise of the right will continue until the left / centre realise that you cant beat them by banning them from talking or ignoring them, you have debate them and let them be seen as the bigoted ill educated idiots they are. When in history did banning anything make it go away? Sunlight is the best disinfectant as they say. It killed the BNP in my view. We also have to recognize the environment if disenfranchised youth which makes the room for this shit to fester.
leicsmac Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 21 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: The rise of the right will continue until the left / centre realise that you cant beat them by banning them from talking or ignoring them, you have debate them and let them be seen as the bigoted ill educated idiots they are. When in history did banning anything make it go away? Sunlight is the best disinfectant as they say. It killed the BNP in my view. We also have to recognize the environment if disenfranchised youth which makes the room for this shit to fester. I don't disagree. If there's anything good about the events of two weeks ago it is that it has emboldened these folks enough to bring them out into the sunlight where they can be seen, as it were. What worries me though is that the idea is already pretty widespread - these aren't lunatic fringe like the BNP, more like the NF in the 80s perhaps? - and they think that they now have, at least in part, the protection of their future government and part of the media (Bannon). Also, the classic methods of bringing down such ideas, by engaging in public debate and recording it in the media don't work as well now as they can just scream conspiracy, use their own media streams and maintain support. So I think such ideas are more difficult to eliminate now than they were before. Economic hard times leading to disenfranchised youth and social consequences is a pattern that has repeated throughout history. You'd have thought we'd have got the message by now.
Alf Bentley Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38062580 " US President-elect Donald Trump has suggested UKIP leader Nigel Farage should be the UK's next ambassador in Washington" A troll has been elected President.... The logical response would be for the UK to announce its preference for Hillary Clinton to be appointed US Ambassador to London.
Wymsey Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 Wonder what the Queen will think of him if he makes a state visit to the UK.
Nick Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 Just now, Wymeswold fox said: Wonder what the Queen will think of him if he makes a state visit to the UK. Well he's free to grab her by the pussy, though I'm not sure it would work out too well for him.
Alf Bentley Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 8 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: Well he's free to grab her by the pussy, though I'm not sure it would work out too well for him. Yes, I know American Presidents have been assassinated in the past, but he'd be the first to visit Buckingham Palace and be ripped limb from limb by a baying pack of corgis.
Jon the Hat Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 30 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Perhaps a bit extreme but... If he thought that in May, what the hell does he think now?
bovril Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: If he thought that in May, what the hell does he think now? Spurs fan having a bad day?
Jimothy Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 34 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: If he thought that in May, what the hell does he think now? March
Jon the Hat Posted 22 November 2016 Posted 22 November 2016 1 minute ago, Facecloth said: March For some reason I assumed he was American.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.