Who will be the next Prime Minister

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's just a class thing.

As much as you can draw generalisations from a binary vote of 30 odd million, leave voters tended to be lower, less educated, poorer etc. Higher, more likely to be educated etc.

Majority of leavers have less to lose and don't mind if they give the better off a kicking.

The referendum became a declaration of class war through the vehicle of a ref on the EU.

Note the AB CDE social class split.

Academic attainment and age are much bigger. Throw in rural/urban and you have a country being pulled apart at the seams.

pinno

It's an interesting graph no less.

surrey_commuter

orraloon wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Both John Major and George W Bush were both elected on their nations highest popular vote ever

Dubious claim, but is the age of dubious claims is it not?

John Major (Conservatives) in 1992 had 41.9% share of popular vote.
Thatcher (Conservatives) in 1979 had 43.9% share.
Blair (Labour) in 1997 had 43.2% share.

Source: good ol' wikipedia.

What pixxes me off is the degrading of political debate into appeal to lowest common denominator mud slinging and outright porkie pie telling. Is this because there are more, across the political spectrum, who are products of the Oxbridge PPE system and / or have a journalistic background where shouting and sloganising are the norm and you seldom if ever have to own up to your mistakes or live with the consequences of your actions?

He did say "popular vote" and Major got 14 million votes. Thatcher and Blair were both lower.

surrey_commuter

Pinno wrote:

It's an interesting graph no less.

Oh yes!!! Guardian readers are almost as homogenous as UKIP supporters.

rick_chasey

I'm curious who the remain Kippers are however...

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm curious who the remain Kippers are however...

Too stupid to understand the question.

mrfpb

Surrey Commuter wrote:

orraloon wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Both John Major and George W Bush were both elected on their nations highest popular vote ever

Dubious claim, but is the age of dubious claims is it not?

John Major (Conservatives) in 1992 had 41.9% share of popular vote.
Thatcher (Conservatives) in 1979 had 43.9% share.
Blair (Labour) in 1997 had 43.2% share.

Source: good ol' wikipedia.

What pixxes me off is the degrading of political debate into appeal to lowest common denominator mud slinging and outright porkie pie telling. Is this because there are more, across the political spectrum, who are products of the Oxbridge PPE system and / or have a journalistic background where shouting and sloganising are the norm and you seldom if ever have to own up to your mistakes or live with the consequences of your actions?

He did say "popular vote" and Major got 14 million votes. Thatcher and Blair were both lower.

Yes, popular = no. of people.

I got my info from Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain, which predates 2010 and 2015 elections. Turnout is key, as is size of population. When George W. Bush won, Gore also got more votes than any previous President. Similar circumstance to today in terms of controversy of result.

rick_chasey

Bo Duke wrote:

Rick... you're so out of touch mate, so out of touch yet you speak with such confidence.

Many very intelligent and gifted businessmen voted to leave, it wasn't a simple decision like you seem to assume. Why don't you go up to Cumbria and ask why they voted out rather than just blaming a 'class war'.

I'm not going to argue endlessly however you do bang the drum without, with respect, any idea what you're talking about.

I presume this Brexiter MP doesn't either???

https://mobile.twitter.com/danieljhanna ... 2472152064

One of my constituents, a call-centre worker, sums the referendum up like this:
"It was the working classes against the smirking classes".

rick_chasey

I guess this chap doesn't get it either: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016 ... class-war/

Or this voter: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/com ... estminster

Or maybe the evidence cited here: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... ulture-war

Or maybe the mega brain Jim Reid: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-2 ... -class-war

Let's quote Jim, given he, y'know uses actual facts and stuff:

In terms of socio-economic groups, 57% of ABs (upper/middle class – professional/managers etc) voted remain, 49% of C1s (lower middle class – supervisory/clerical or junior management/administrative), 36% of C2s (skilled working class) and 36% of DEs (Ds – semi & unskilled manual workers. Es – casual/lowest grade worker or state pensioner). So there’s no escaping the fact that this is a class war. Whether its globalisation, immigration, inequality, poor economic growth or a combination of all of them it’s quite clear from this and other anti-establishment movements that the status quo can’t last in a democracy. Eventually you’ll have a reaction.

Or maybe the UKIP boys on here talking about sticking it to the "Islington elite."

rick_chasey

Whatcha got for me Bo? A Kirby quote?

bendertherobot

Since this now seems to be the de facto thread. I see that the various FM's are now demanding the Government set out its stall on EU citizens living in the UK. They should, under various boring legal rules, be ok. Should. Thought struck me as well on how Governments and Democracies work in relation to protecting those without a voice from certain consequences and the fact that those potentially affected had no vote.

bendertherobot

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36686361

However you feel about the people it's certainly an interesting and, perhaps unexpected, watch.

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36686361

However you feel about the people it's certainly an interesting and, perhaps unexpected, watch.

"Then they came for me and there was nobody left to speak for me"

Maybe we should do him a favour and deport him. Then he can come back in with all the other immigrants and have it easier.

Pross

Gove on TV now, it takes some skill to stand out as being slimy amongst other politicians. He did what he did for the benefit of the country and he's prepared to sacrifice his personal reputation for the good of the nation. Phew, thanks Mikey - you're like a political superhero!

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

I guess this chap doesn't get it either: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016 ... class-war/

Or this voter: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/com ... estminster

Or maybe the evidence cited here: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... ulture-war

Or maybe the mega brain Jim Reid: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-2 ... -class-war

Let's quote Jim, given he, y'know uses actual facts and stuff:

In terms of socio-economic groups, 57% of ABs (upper/middle class – professional/managers etc) voted remain, 49% of C1s (lower middle class – supervisory/clerical or junior management/administrative), 36% of C2s (skilled working class) and 36% of DEs (Ds – semi & unskilled manual workers. Es – casual/lowest grade worker or state pensioner). So there’s no escaping the fact that this is a class war. Whether its globalisation, immigration, inequality, poor economic growth or a combination of all of them it’s quite clear from this and other anti-establishment movements that the status quo can’t last in a democracy. Eventually you’ll have a reaction.

Or maybe the UKIP boys on here talking about sticking it to the "Islington elite."

Good article in the NS - maybe because it agrees with me that the biggest driver is education. I accept that the most of the other factors stem from education.

Also agree the problem is not the have nots resenting the haves. The problem is that the haves now resent the have nots for holing the economy under the waterline.

They may feel good at the moment but imho they have royally fucked themselves - giving power to the right wing of the Tory party with a mandate based upon "you broke it, you pay to fix it"

surrey_commuter

Pross wrote:

Gove on TV now, it takes some skill to stand out as being slimy amongst other politicians. He did what he did for the benefit of the country and he's prepared to sacrifice his personal reputation for the good of the nation. Phew, thanks Mikey - you're like a political superhero!

Meanwhile across the corridor it turns out Andrea Leadsom way back in 2013 thought that Brexit would be " a disaster for our economy" and refuses to rule out bringing in Farage to lead Brexit negotiations :shock: ffs - if ever there was an easy question to answer that was it!!!!

4kicks

Surrey Commuter wrote:

[quote="mrfpb"

As a Leave voter I have to say I was surprised at how the markets reacted so sharply and the government (and Boris) ran for cover so quickly. Real damage has been caused. I have to also acknowledge that their are lots of people on my side of the debate that I would not care to spend any time with, let alone a pint or a political platform. It's not a great situation.

Don't worry about the markets. It is the real economy that has hit the buffers, the experts tell me that it is far worse than they forecast.

[/quote]
How can anybody be surprised at the markets and economy tanking when all the experts told us...oh, wait, I see the problem.

I genuinely think this is one instance when people should have been more protected from their own stupidity and credulity

verylonglegs

So Leadsom is happy to be considered a new Thatcher style PM according to an interview. 'You couldn't make it up' is an over-used phrase but it's perfectly apt for a situation where voters in disaffected Northern areas spawned in the Thatcher era vote in the referendum in a way that could cause someone who sees herself as her successor to become PM. It would almost be funny but as mrfpb suggests it points to a really messed up situation across the country.

mrfpb

Large parts of this country have watched jobs and industries go down the toilet over the last four decades - mining, shipbuilding, steelworks, car making. Every time they protested they were told it was for the good of the wider economy, and that the benefits would trickle down to them. But they didn't.

Then in 2008 the banks go belly up and get a big bailout that was never available to any heavy industry. This is then clawed back through cuts in public service spending and people on the remaining manufacturing lines faced pay freezes or part time hours for years. Now people are worried about living in areas where the self-employed are being undercut by immigrant workers happy to work below minimum wage.

One of the EU funded projects in the North East is the Woodhorn Colliery Museum. It's a nice place to visit and I'd recommend it if your ever near Newcastle or Ashington. However it used to a working pit employing around a thousand men - and providing all the local trade that implies. However in the 80's the government decided to buy coal from abroad and the pit closure followed. Local economy pretty much destroyed. So yes, the EU funding is nice, but don't think it takes away from the pain or anger people feel.

So I am not surprised that "it's for the good of the economy" no longer works as a campaign argument with the "lower economic classes" that many on this forum look down on.

bendertherobot

Absolutely true. And they've stuck it to the man. We just need to wait and see whether they've shot the enemy or it's a case of friendly fire.

mrfpb

bendertherobot wrote:

Absolutely true. And they've stuck it to the man. We just need to wait and see whether they've shot the enemy or it's a case of friendly fire.

Or maybe it's time for politicians to realise that people in the DE economic group didn't vote leave because they are racist or stupid, but because "the economy" is so geared against them succeeding, and immigration is a component of that.

I didn't vote leave because of immigration, as I said elsewhere, we will continue to depend on it, but looking at the reaction of some Remainers to the vote, they haven't learnt or even listened to realise why they lost.

Pross

As someone who grew up just outside the fringes of the South Wales coalfields in the late 70s and 80s I can never decide if the demise of the industry is good or bad thing. It obviously decimated the communities and cost jobs that in many cases have never been adequately replaced but there is also no doubting that the environment in those areas is hugely improved as a result. The industry also made a huge impact on the health of those involved which you still see clearly today.

bendertherobot

mrfpb wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Absolutely true. And they've stuck it to the man. We just need to wait and see whether they've shot the enemy or it's a case of friendly fire.

Or maybe it's time for politicians to realise that people in the DE economic group didn't vote leave because they are racist or stupid, but because "the economy" is so geared against them succeeding, and immigration is a component of that.

I didn't vote leave because of immigration, as I said elsewhere, we will continue to depend on it, but looking at the reaction of some Remainers to the vote, they haven't learnt or even listened to realise why they lost.

The remainers as people can't do anything more than the brexiters. The power is still with the democratically elected. While it may well fall to be more a case of indiscriminate fire the question is rather what happens next in relation to the whole. For democracy as a two party system doesn't really do very much at all, passes law, passes budgets, holds people occasionally to account. Is Brexit a sea change that puts the fear into those who govern? Perhaps, but that will pass. The bigger issue is perhaps what democracy, as a concept, becomes. It will be fascinating to see whether the target for their feelings is dealt as big a democratic blow as that dealt to the faceless bureaucrats.

mrfpb

Pross wrote:

As someone who grew up just outside the fringes of the South Wales coalfields in the late 70s and 80s I can never decide if the demise of the industry is good or bad thing. It obviously decimated the communities and cost jobs that in many cases have never been adequately replaced but there is also no doubting that the environment in those areas is hugely improved as a result. The industry also made a huge impact on the health of those involved which you still see clearly today.

I grew up in Cardiff, so didn't feel the brunt of the mines closing. I did do a work placement at Port Talbot steelworks in the mid 80's before privatisation. Two men died in an accident my first week there, you like me probably heard the story of Aberfan growing up. Heavy industry was dangerous and mining barbaric in many respects. But we didn't end these things, we just outsourced them to other, poorer countries for "economic" reasons, ignoring the economic cost that mass unemployment would bring.

When I first moved to the North East (mid 90's) I quickly realised they were way behind South Wales in the recovery. But on the local news, not long after I arrived I heard a local councillor complaining that they could no longer get a particular EU grant as the local economy had recovered enough not to need it. That started me thinking that the UK and EU economies had a dysfunctional relationship and probably set me on the Eurosceptic path I now follow.

verylonglegs

Totally agree with that mrfpb, I've family in the North West and yes the lack of investment goes back a long way now. The abscence of joined up thinking regarding people, skills and employment has been an utter failure by successive governments.

surrey_commuter

In many ways the end of the coal industry was a political decision. In echoes of the referendum the miners were used to try and bring down another Tory govt. Then got royally fucked. Still I am sure Scargill is fine.

If an industry is in temporary trouble and pumping in money for a restructure ensures it's long term viability then good. If the industry is not viable why not shut it down. If you acted quickly then the money saved could be used for retraining or other mitigating measures.

If the banking industry had gone under we would all be in deep trouble. The banks were too big to fail and this has been rectified. The U.S. Govt made a sizeable profit on the bailout. You would have to ask El Gordo why he spared the bondholders.

mrfpb

Surrey Commuter wrote:

In many ways the end of the coal industry was a political decision. In echoes of the referendum the miners were used to try and bring down another Tory govt. Then got royally farked. Still I am sure Scargill is fine.

If an industry is in temporary trouble and pumping in money for a restructure ensures it's long term viability then good. If the industry is not viable why not shut it down. If you acted quickly then the money saved could be used for retraining or other mitigating measures.

If the banking industry had gone under we would all be in deep trouble. The banks were too big to fail and this has been rectified. The U.S. Govt made a sizeable profit on the bailout. You would have to ask El Gordo why he spared the bondholders.

I'm not trying to argue the economic reality, just trying to give some perspective; ie, when a politician tells them "This is what's good for the economy" many of the working classes hear "We're going to shaft you again"

BelgianBeerGeek

Mining always comes up, and has been discussed endlessly on here. We are no different to the rest of the world in that we held on longer than others should. Yes, Britain mined, and had some amazing deposits of coal. As did the mines of the US etc. We could have dealt with this earlier, but didn't. Held on to outdated systems. Did Thatcher have a plan to re-educate miners? No. Did they want to? Not really. Hang on to the rules as they knew them.
Doesn't mean anything. The steel workers in Redcar and Port Talbot need to know that fine words from the Govt mean squat.
And yes, you are all right, an industry that has a tangible outcome, like steel or coal, well, fuck 'em. But shuffling money around? These people are gods! Get over it people.

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

In many ways the end of the coal industry was a political decision. In echoes of the referendum the miners were used to try and bring down another Tory govt. Then got royally farked. Still I am sure Scargill is fine.

If an industry is in temporary trouble and pumping in money for a restructure ensures it's long term viability then good. If the industry is not viable why not shut it down. If you acted quickly then the money saved could be used for retraining or other mitigating measures.

If the banking industry had gone under we would all be in deep trouble. The banks were too big to fail and this has been rectified. The U.S. Govt made a sizeable profit on the bailout. You would have to ask El Gordo why he spared the bondholders.

I'm not trying to argue the economic reality, just trying to give some perspective; ie, when a politician tells them "This is what's good for the economy" many of the working classes hear "We're going to shaft you again"

Fair point.

I guess if you felt like that then choosing to shaft yourself would feel empowering.

BelgianBeerGeek

Quite so. I don't mind being shafted but I'd rather choose who did it.
(Is that consent?)