The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I can't recall the Establishment ever having a collective hissy fit on this scale, spewing angst and rage from various bully pulpits in the media and politics to absolutely no effect. 

Seriously?

One of the strangest things about Brexit has been the way in which people with money have persuaded people who are otherwise very intelligent, that what they've done is struck a blow against "The Establishment" - the referendum was two parts of the establishment deciding which of them would be getting the reward. The Establishment won the vote, they would have won the vote no matter which way it went - if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have had a referendum. Their complete control over the use of public opinion is unquestioned.

The idea that there has been a spew of angst and rage from media pulpits is possibly the strangest interpretation of the UK media on Brexit that I've ever seen - Brexit was largely driven by the print media in the UK, it has been resolute and unwavering in its hatred of immigration and the EU for a period of some years - culminating in the financing of UKIP and the creation of Farage. If you've found a column of vicious invective in the British print media, then very well done to you. If you did, there's a reason why it has no effect; the same reason why throwing a match onto a snowman rarely melts it. I guess Channel 4 news would have had a go - but I'd also imagine this is the first time they've been described as a bully pulpit.

Quote

I genuinely believe many of them (a public "them" not a VT "them") will be gutted if the UK comes through this process okay. If we actually do well then change 'gutted' to 'inconsolable'.

People are naturally fearful - they're fearing what their futures will be like - periods of change are always difficult. It's possible things will be better, it's possible that things will be the same, it's unlikely I think that they'll suddenly lurch in either direction. I think you'd struggle to find anyone who would rather their lives were worse. I think there are people that want change and possibly change you'd disagree with, for me for example, I think it would be worth a little disruption in order to change our society for the better - I'd love for us to take this opportunity and introduce social and economic policies that benefit the British people as a whole. Unfortunately, I think history tells us that in moments of chaos and change, the grip of the triumvirate of "deregulate, privatise and reduce public spending" - the free market mantra - is pushed harder than ever. We have a government utterly committed to that, who now don't have the (weak) restraint of the the EU (who are also fairly committed to that, but not so effective at applying it.)

If we do well, I'll be delighted. I like doing well. I think it's less likely than a slight downturn and an increase in the grip of Friedman economics with the accompanied polarisation of our society - I think the economy stands a chance of looking better on paper but the on the streets we'll look a little more like Brasil or South Africa or Baltimore - but I think to some extent that's the case with or without Brexit. Brexit becomes a catalyst, and in a world run by the kind of psychotic system ours is, any opportunity for reform tends to lead to bad reform - I won't be gutted if that's not true.

I think the idea of a "them" who want to fail so that they can be justified is a mixture of their dread (which may or may not be misplaced) and your paranoia.

Quote

Their entire perception of the world and their importance to it has been burnt to the ground in a bonfire of hubris and the public is cheerfully watering the ashes. 

You see Brexit as "The Establishment" seeing their importance in the world burnt to the ground while the public cheerfully water the ashes?

I'm trying to think of where to start, but it's so bizarre I struggle.  

Quote

Seriously, what's not to like? 

Absolutely nothing, It's a brilliant time to be a hedge fund manager.

You are a hedge find manager right?

 

 

[Awol]

39 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Seriously?......

You are a hedge find manager right?

Yes and no.

Obviously we have a very different take on all this, but I'd make a large bet that your post scores one or two more recommends than mine!

[blandy]

5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Seriously?

One of the strangest things about Brexit has been the way in which people with money have persuaded people who are otherwise very intelligent, that what they've done is struck a blow against "The Establishment" - the referendum was two parts of the establishment deciding which of them would be getting the reward. The Establishment won the vote, they would have won the vote no matter which way it went - if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have had a referendum. Their complete control over the use of public opinion is unquestioned.

You see Brexit as "The Establishment" seeing their importance in the world burnt to the ground while the public cheerfully water the ashes?

I'm trying to think of where to start, but it's so bizarre I struggle.  

This is an excellent post.

Just looking at the "Leave" people. In no particular order, there's the UKIPs Farage and funder Aaron Banks A 20 year + career politician (MEP) with a background as a City trader, a Millionaire CEO of an Insurance company. Then there's the likes of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Zak Goldsmith and so on - these are the old etonians, sons of millionaires, the sons of Newspaper editors, the Tory establishment, The former Conservative Secretary of State for education... all supported by the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Times, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Express - all owned by various billionaire media moguls.

With a small number of exceptions - people who are "only" normal members of Parliament -the leave campaign is as "establishment" as you can get.

Maybe it worked, but the portrayal of Leave as the unorthodox rejection of the establishement is a total manipulation, it's a lie. There's plenty wrong with the EU, there are plenty of reasons for leaving, or changing it, but anyone doing so to give the finger to the toffs in the establishment has been fooled, big time.

There's a large group of "leave" backing businessmen waiting to feast on their rewards - reduced protection for workers, the environment and such like.

Us little people, we barely enter their consideration.

 

 

[Xann]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Us little people, we barely enter their consideration.

A Torytopian UK and a Trump/Putin/Jinpingtopian World.

Who wants to buy an island? One that won't become submerged in rising sea levels.

[StefanAVFC]

In 2016, I learned that I was a liberal elite, owned an ivory tower and am part of the establishment.

While Farage, Arron Banks, Jacob RM, Boris etc are anti-establishment voices of the people.

It's been a strange time.

[choffer]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

In 2016, I learned that I was a liberal elite

No need to show off, it's easy to become part of the liberal elite:

 

[darrenm]

It's interesting how all of this toing and froing about in, out, shake it all about is distracting everyone while the NHS is privatised by starvation.

I mean, people are aware but there aren't marches on parliament etc and we've never had people dying in corridors before because there's literally no more room for them.

[markavfc40]

5 hours ago, darrenm said:

It's interesting how all of this toing and froing about in, out, shake it all about is distracting everyone while the NHS is privatised by starvation.

I mean, people are aware but there aren't marches on parliament etc and we've never had people dying in corridors before because there's literally no more room for them.

You make a good point. This couldn't have come around at a better time for the Tories and they couldn't have planned it better.

In fairness the Tories have gotten away with murder since 2010. Standing room only in A and E, can't get to see your GP for weeks, can't get your child into your local school, plenty of people have blamed it on the immigrants as apparently we're overflowing. Stagnation of wages, can't get on the housing ladder, lack of social housing, cuts to in work benefits well blame it on the immigrants coming over here either working and undercutting our workers or claiming all our benefits and walking straight into a 5 bedroom house from the state.

Of course once we get control of our borders again all these problems will go away. It has had f all to do with the ideologically led austerity measures that the Tories have inflicted on us.

With regard the NHS, Chris Grayling was on Question Time last night and he was asked about the extra 350 mill a week that will apparently go to the NHS once we are out of the EU and his answer was that we aren't out yet and suggested that the money may well still be forthcoming. It seems the bullshit is still rife.

Edited January 20, 2017 by markavfc40

[Davkaus]

And somehow, while they get away with that, blanket internet surveillance, and talk about abolishing the HRA, people start shouting about tuition fees as soon as you mention the Lib Dems.

Basically, I think most people just accept that tories are words removed, and expect no better. 

Edited January 20, 2017 by Davkaus

[Xann]

12 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

You make a good point. This couldn't have come around at a better time for the Toies and they couldn't have planned it better.

They're exploiting Butcher Blair's disastrous PFI deals alas, but this is OT.

[villaglint]

7 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

 

Basically, I think most people just accept that tories are words removed, and expect no better. 

Trouble is even if they do think that "most people" still end up voting for them.

[Davkaus]

I like to incorrectly use 'most people' as shorthand for 'people that agree with me'  

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, villaglint said:

Trouble is even if they do think that "most people" still end up voting for them.

Point of order - They don't, though. The tories got just under 37% of those who voted in the last election. Just under 60% of those who voted voted for "not tory" parties and there were also a small number of votes for independents.

the turnout was something like 66%.So all in all 24% of those elligible to vote, voted for a tory.

The tories won more than half the seats available on that 24%.

Broken system. less than a quarter of the country votes for them and they get pretty much free reign on the back of it.

[villaglint]

Ha... very true.

On a side note just been reading an old book called Irony of American History by Reinhold Neibuhr. Among many points one thing he raises is how in a democracy there is a responsibility on the citizen to educate themselves as to the sophistication of the choices ahead of them. If they don't do this the system can be no better than an authoritarian one. 

Broken system indeed. Be interesting to see how it reacts to the big stresses that will be imminently applied from multiple angles. 

Edited January 20, 2017 by villaglint

[limpid]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

the turnout was something like 66%.So all in all 24% of those elligible to vote, voted for a tory.

ITYM 24% of those registered to vote. Not eligible to vote.

[blandy]

5 hours ago, limpid said:

ITYM 24% of those registered to vote. Not eligible to vote.

They're not eligible if they're not registered but yes, that.

[TrentVilla]

8 hours ago, darrenm said:

It's interesting how all of this toing and froing about in, out, shake it all about is distracting everyone while the NHS is privatised by starvation.

I mean, people are aware but there aren't marches on parliament etc and we've never had people dying in corridors before because there's literally no more room for them.

Sure we have, early 90's. You know, the last time these barstewards were in power.

[limpid]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

They're not eligible if they're not registered but yes, that.

I've just checked and you're right. The electorate is defined as the people eligible to vote so I guess there is the registered electorate and the unregistered electorate. You were talking about the registered electorate. I've spent since you posted the above trying to find out how many people are in the "unregistered electorate" count. I'm sure it's somewhere on ONS but I'm giving up and having a drink.

[blandy]

It's maybe semantics, but the electorate is the people entitled to vote. To be entitled you have to registered. There is no unregistered electorate. Those who would be entitled if only they were registered are not part of the electorate in any sense.

[limpid]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It's maybe semantics, but the electorate is the people entitled to vote. To be entitled you have to registered. There is no unregistered electorate. Those who would be entitled if only they were registered are not part of the electorate in any sense.

I disagree. You can be entitled to vote but not register. Someone who has moved house but not yet registered on the electoral roll at the new property is still entitled to a vote, but they aren't registered. Dunno.