|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 2, 2020 9:54:46 GMT
Do you think expressing your own personal feelings is a bad move or something?
|
|
|
Post by tory on Feb 2, 2020 9:56:15 GMT
No, my own personal feelings are what I post.
That is what I feel - I try to see the core truth of what is happening and why it is happening. That means looking to causes and consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 2, 2020 9:57:58 GMT
No, my own personal feelings are what I post. Actually that's exactly what you don't talk about. You deal with facts, historical perspectives. You tend to sidestep any of the personal stuff. It's weird.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 2, 2020 9:58:58 GMT
We elect members of Parliament to make those difficult decisions on our behalf. That's their job as MPs and subsequently, Cabinet Ministers. However, in this instance, Members of Parliament ratified David Cameron's decision to hold a Referendum by a whopping 544 to 90, ensuring that the public would then be asked to vote on this particular scenario. So, by holding a Referendum, Members of Parliament transferred responsibility on this decision back to the public. This was not a sole decision by Cameron - it needed to be given consent by Parliament before doing so. And they did this, in large numbers. It is not the responsibility of the public here to be "fully versed" in the details of the scenario. They were given the opportunity to vote on the situation in a binary manner. The government provided lots of information about it. The public could find out lots of information about the EU if they wished to as well. Referendums are, admittedly, difficult things because they present complex scenarios in a binary fashion. But, if Parliament transfers this decision making to the public, who by their very nature cannot be as "well informed" as them, then they cannot complain about the result. They have abjured their own decision making over to the public to make it for them, and when the result is produced, it is then their responsibility to carry it out.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Feb 2, 2020 10:09:00 GMT
I'm quite offended by that actually.
You are insinuating that because I'm not pulling my hair out at the swivel-eyed loons (who are now the Remainers) or waving a massive Union Jack, I'm a weirdo.
I voted Remain. When the Referendum result happened, I thought "there must be a good reason beyond paranoic fantasies why so many people voted to Leave, when the rational one seemed to be Remain. It seemed self-evident that Remain was the answer.
But, I was living in a bubble of Remain. I knew hardly any Leavers. I spent three years finding out why Leave won - and why a lot of people don't like the EU. It's a hugely complex subject that is also massively fascinating. As someone who hopes to teach History, this whole period has been utterly fascinating, far more so than the dull, inert years of Blairism.
The one thing I always noted about the time leading up to the Referendum, particularly around 2000 - 2015, was this general quote from people who were dissatisfied with "Politics" was that, when talking with them, they always talked about "some sort of change". They couldn't articulate that change, but generally these people were vaguely left-wing in that sort of BCB leftism - they grew up in the shadow of Thatcher, yet in general, these people had hugely benefitted from the economic changes wrought by her - in that virtually all of them were on the housing ladder and had managed to make a tidy profit on their property in some way. It spoke to me of a vague hypocrisy that is at the heart of middle-class Labour voters. They articulate that they want change, but actually they're doing nicely privately, much more so perhaps than their parents, who may have had the stability but not the disposable cash, but also worry about the world their children will grow up in. That fear, particularly after 2008, is well founded.
However, the Referendum was and is REAL change. The Change they wanted had arrived and they didn't want it, because deep down most people are conservative at heart even if they don't know it. They identified something in the EU that they saw was good and they wanted to keep it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 2, 2020 10:13:18 GMT
I'm quite offended by that actually. You are insinuating that because I'm not pulling my hair out at the swivel-eyed loons (who are now the Remainers) or waving a massive Union Jack, I'm a weirdo. Why are you offended? Nobody's expecting you to bang your fists on the table. Just a bit more 'isn't it terrible?' and less of the 'in 1958 what happened was...' Up to you, of course.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Feb 2, 2020 10:22:14 GMT
I don't think it's particularly terrible though! SORRY!
If anything, the whole process has been fascinating. I'm glad that the inertia is over and we have a decision more than anything else.
There you go.
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Feb 2, 2020 11:14:31 GMT
they grew up in the shadow of Thatcher, yet in general, these people had hugely benefitted from the economic changes wrought by her - in that virtually all of them were on the housing ladder and had managed to make a tidy profit on their property in some way. It spoke to me of a vague hypocrisy that is at the heart of middle-class Labour voters. This makes very little sense. What does being on the housing ladder have to do with Thatcher? What if you're not on the housing ladder? How do people make a tidy profit on the property they're living in? Why is it hypocrisy to vote for left wing policies but be well off?
|
|
|
Post by tory on Feb 2, 2020 11:24:38 GMT
Before Thatcher, in general, the notion of buying a house to make a profit was not particularly common. The deregulation of the City produced a flood of income that enabled house prices to rise, because demand for housing in Britain pushed them up. My father was of a generation where you bought a house and you lived in it. You did not expect to make a profit of any real sort.
Most people who bought a house during the 80s and 90s have seen an enormous rise in the value of their house. This is pretty much self-evident, particularly if you live in the SE and London, but also in other parts of the country. A friend of my brother's bought a house in New Cross, London for £80,000 in 1990. That house is worth £1.5 million now. The ability to re-mortgage and subsequently to buy other properties to let and have property portfolios is much more common than before Thatcher.
A good friend of mine is a 2nd generation Indian immigrant whose parents came with nothing. He's a network engineer for EE and his wife has a solid mid-range job at the Tate. They went to average unis, fucked about raving for about a decade. They are Labour through and through. They bought a house in Wimbledon in 2006 and recently were able, with the re-mortgaging, move to Nottingham to put their kids through private school, whilst being able to keep their property by renting it out. They have 3 properties! All down to the London premium. This is quite common amongst a lot of people in my generation. Another I know bought a property for about £400K in 2013 and then sold it this year for £675K. That profit enabled them to buy a smaller house and have a hugely significant drop in their outgoings. This financial agility through buying property with a profit in mind was not around before Thatcher.
A lot of that generation still dislike Thatcher, but many of them have privately done well financially because of her policies.
That is not to say that many people were hurt by her policies, because that is plainly self-evident too.
The most obvious of this is that it is now much harder to buy a house, particularly on your own. I remember working at a job back in 1991 or 1992 where this guy, who was on around £8K a year, had scrimped enough to get a mortgage with a deposit of about £5K to buy a little 2 bed in Croydon. This would be impossible now.
Before Thatcher, it was reasonable for anyone who saved well for a bit of time to get a house. I would argue also that the real issue that we are seeing today is that it is a luxury now to raise a family with one parent at home. That is a real knock-on effect of Thatcher's policies and it has a very real impact, particularly in schools.
|
|
|
Post by Half Machine Lipschitz on Feb 2, 2020 15:01:51 GMT
Why don't you just invite Copehead over here if you want a more "emotional" discourse, John?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 2, 2020 15:17:07 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 16:13:11 GMT
A lot of that generation still dislike Thatcher, but many of them have privately done well financially because of her policies. That is not to say that many people were hurt by her policies, because that is plainly self-evident too. The most obvious of this is that it is now much harder to buy a house, particularly on your own. I remember working at a job back in 1991 or 1992 where this guy, who was on around £8K a year, had scrimped enough to get a mortgage with a deposit of about £5K to buy a little 2 bed in Croydon. This would be impossible now. Before Thatcher, it was reasonable for anyone who saved well for a bit of time to get a house. I would argue also that the real issue that we are seeing today is that it is a luxury now to raise a family with one parent at home. That is a real knock-on effect of Thatcher's policies and it has a very real impact, particularly in schools.
So if you accept it's an issue, why would you call it hypocrisy for the right-to-buy generation to be voting Labour? Not everyone votes purely on their own interests, especially if they have sons and daughters who've been hit hard post 2008. Right to buy was a nakedly short term policy to buy up the "aspirant" working class and lower middle class. By definition short term, as there was never going to be an infinite supply of council houses.
Roughly half of the people I know voted leave. Immigration dominates amongst the older ones (although again, it's not The Reason, at least anecdotally. And where it is, it's often linked heavily with the underfunding of public services in areas where the influx has been highest). Amongst the younger ones it's often to "shake up the corporations", or such like. I know a good few here who voted leave for vaguely left-wing reasons. A work colleague ran a Lexit campaign. More than the south tends to acknowledge.
The historic anti-Tory feeling here can't be discounted either. You hear plenty who talk as if they'd be a Tory in other parts of the country, but soon enough you get them saying "I'm a red, of course I'm a red, everyone here should be, the Tories destroyed this town". That the remain campaign was led at the time by the Tory establishment -- again as the "as-is" option under the guise of Cameron's view of big society under the City -- that has to be a reason why there was little reciprocity to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 16:43:17 GMT
No, my own personal feelings are what I post. Actually that's exactly what you don't talk about. You deal with facts, historical perspectives. You tend to sidestep any of the personal stuff. It's weird. I don't know why you keep saying this. He very much posts from a Conservative perspective, it's not like he's being balanced all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 2, 2020 16:47:49 GMT
OK, so he quotes from right-wing sources, whatever. You know what I mean. There's not much in the way of reaction. There's not a lot of emotion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 16:52:51 GMT
OK, so he quotes from right-wing sources, whatever. You know what I mean. There's not much in the way of reaction. There's not a lot of emotion. Well I know what you mean. He thinks phrasing it that way makes it sound more objective and intelligent and therefore gives his opinion greater authority.
|
|