Chelsea Manning

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Harry Stottle, Jan 19, 2017.

  1. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    (Whoever the hell you are actually referring to!)

    You, and doesn't matter a 'jot'!

    You were aware of that anyway, weren't you?:p
  2. btiw

    btiw Well-Known Member

    Yes, and that "etc" covers a lot. It basically covers a lot of the jobs that keep the economy going.

    Roughly a little less than half of students leave school without formal qualifications (taken to mean 5 GCSEs including maths and English).

    So there are a lot of parents who have at least one child in that situation. Some of them will look at the job market and worry how their child will compete.

    The immigrants who have the gumption to move overseas for work will have a tendency to be the most ambitious and hard working from those countries (let's ignore for a second how this exodus affects those countries).

    I'm sure I've heard you write that you don't criticize immigrants for moving to where there's more opportunity, so there's probably not a debate on that point.

    But back to the British parent who thinks their child may leave school without formal qualifications...
    That parent may have a real concern about how their children will compete in the job market. How they'll compete in the job market for, yes, cleaners but also coffee shop managers, the warehouse operatives, mechanics, agricultural work and all the rest of that pretty big etc.

    That parent is told that a vote for leave will mean there'll be a few pence on fuel, marmite will be a little more expensive and a new smartphone will cost more... and then compare that with their child being on the dole? Their child's future?

    Who knows, if questioned for their voting reasons then family loyalty is going to dictate that they give the reason "umm... cucumbers?" rather than "I'm scared my children can't compete and I love them".

    This is just considering parents. Similarly, someone may fear for how their spouse, their grandchildren or even themselves can compete in this very new labour market.

    "Oh, won't somebody think of the GDP!?" was never going to work as a reason to remain in the EU for those people. ...and statistics suggest there's a lot of people in this situation.

    My point is that that this (fictitious) parent would be acting perfectly rationally in their vote to leave.

    That doesn't make them stupid. That makes them a rational economic agent. I don't buy the "stupid people vote leave" model. I think it's... well... stupid.

    However, I know this forum is pretty tribal. Just because I disagree with DA on this point, it doesn't mean I am now on "Team Phil". Just so we're clear. Okay?
    longboat likes this.
  3. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    Absolute rubbish!
    Don't you know from which side of the cloth you are cut?
    What he ^ said.
    btiw likes this.
  4. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    However, I know this forum is pretty tribal. Just because I disagree with DA on this point, it doesn't mean I am now on "Team Phil". Just so we're clear. Okay

    No, but you obviously adore Trump, AND don't accept that the holocaust actually happened, and, and, and, I bet you wear a white pointy hat at least once a month when you attend those repugnant meetings of yours, hmm, hmm?

    btiw likes this.
  5. btiw

    btiw Well-Known Member

    Longboat. I know I've just attempted to explain why I don't think people who voted leave are cut from an intellectually inferior cloth (that's a chilling phrase) - but in your case I'll make an exception.

    Now you'll have to excuse me, I'm finding it difficult to type under this pointy bed-sheet and my lederhosen chafe something wicked.
    longboat likes this.
  6. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    So be it.
    Let's just find out how many of your fingers I need to break before you find it impossible to type anything?

    It's true, Trump authorised that, yes, all journalists. It's true. E-mailed.
    btiw likes this.
  7. btiw

    btiw Well-Known Member

    Well, that escalated quickly.

    E-mailed? Believe me, losers email. Smart people tweet. I have such beautiful tweets. SAD!
  8. Thank you for your alternative explanation, btiw.

    And little doubt it has as much validity as my own comment.

    I was initially questioning Longs' assertion that those who voted 'Leave' knew exactly what they were voting for, including a reasoned jettisoning of the single market...

    Pah and piffle.

    I was pointing out that that was complete bar locks.

    I see you support Longs' comment by claiming it was an 'economically rational' choice by Leavers, and not a simplistic knee-jerk 'pick on someone to blame ad punish'?!

    Surely the reasoned rational economic decision would be to acknowledge we'd be well and truly stuffed without immigration and that although illegal immigration in particular is certainly a perfectly valid issue to become exercised about, it is not at all the cause of our country's ills?


    But that would have required the majority of Leavers to actually consider a bunch of slightly complex facts and issues other than "It's the bludy immigrants, innit?!"

    Sorry, btiw, I disagree with you completely. And I base that on virtually every street interview, voxpop, my own personal discussions, the threads on here - and the simple fact that the Leave campaign was driven by lying manipulators such as Gove, Farage and Johnson.

    Tell me where the rational economic decision existed amongst them?

    (Hmmmph - me bragging about my IQ? When it's only a fraction of Phil's)
    Deleted member 164349 likes this.
  9. Yes, that parent would be acting perfectly rationally in their vote to leave - given the very limited depth of their knowledge of the larger issues.

    Just as if a cove on the street muttered his decision to vote leave was because he personally likes bent cucumbers and that's as far as his thinking goes..

    Wait wait! - don't shoot me! That was taking it to the ultimate silly conclusion! What I'm trying to say is, many Leavers may have genuinely thought they were making a rational decision, and you can argue that they were, but it was in many (most?) cases based on very limited understanding and very dodgy (deliberately so, Messrs Farage and Johnson...) information.

    Hence "Too much immigration..." was often given as a 'rational' reason in many counties such as Devon - where a dark face is pretty hard to find...:rolleyes:

    So I suspect it comes down to our respective opinions on what a 'rational' decision is when it's based dodgy or limited evidence?
    Deleted member 164349 likes this.
  10. proby

    proby Active Member

    Would that be an Adrian Mole pointed bed sheet :oops:
    Not aimed at you but these more educated people that voted remain, would that include the usually university educated clergy that believe in at least one thing that doesn't exist?

  11. Exactly.

    Swapped sides to keep power, not to keep with er beliefs.

    And this is who we should follow? I would rather follow somebody who believes in what they actually say.

    It's like the right wing saying " we are the anti establishment" and then believing them. But lots of thoughtful peope do.

    For those that want to believe what they hear, not what is actually happening it's a good choice and reason.
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.

  12. It' s been covered in previous posts. If you didnt want to understand it then, it won't change now, will it
  13. proby

    proby Active Member

  14. It's a sad political situation, but she is simply doing what she has to. To save her party. As is Jeremy Corbyn. To try and save his.

    May won because she was the least repulsive of the options. The Tories voted for the safest bet, also knowing she was luke-warm about Brexit.

    Once in, the poor lady had simply no option but to 'honour' the vote - because she'd have been forced by the population - via their MPs - to resign otherwise - and the Tories would be out. That was simply not an option, regardless of her own personal beliefs.

    Ditto with Corbyn - he has to say he's voting 'for' Brexit 'cos the Labour party would be finished if he did not (they are pretty much there anyways...). If Corbyn voted 'No' to Brexit, then May would simply trigger an election and the Tories would win by a land-slide.

    So neither of them had any option. Regardless of what they, themselves, feel or want. That's how sad politics can be.

    May, to give her 'credit', is now grasping the Brexit option with both boney hands - she realises there is no half-way option, so simply has to give it her best shot. But, as we can see, she is selling the country's soul down the swanney as a result.

    Longs? You listening? You reckon the Remainers and the Anti-Trumps should chust shut up and accept it?!

    Not a chance.

    We are going to rescue this country from its hellish fate.
  15. btiw

    btiw Well-Known Member

    I don't know, DA. I'm starting to think there's something different going on here. We debate this like it's a given that economics will continue to be neoliberalist (Thatcherite, globalist, pick your favourite synonym) and what works best under that economic philosophy.

    But I'm not so sure anymore. Politicians are talking about how the UK will become a beacon of free trade (except in labour), but it's impossible to ignore what's happening elsewhere and free trade is starting to look soooo 20th century.

    The US is gearing up for protectionism, Europe has important elections this year and we haven't fully recovered from the last financial crisis. The next few years could get very weird.

    It looks like we're debating what colour masonry paint to use, and everyone else is debating what colour dynamite to use.

    It used to be that an anti-globalization protester looked like this:


    Now they look like this:

  16. I think all I can say with near certainty, btiw, is that history looks to be repeating itself with nationalism, protectionism, jingoism, racism, fascism, populism and lies - call it what you will.

    That has never turned out all that well in the past.

    The average cove on the street seems to think that life should be MILES better for them than it is. Actually, for virtually every single one of us, it is. Who would really want to go back 20 years, or 40, 60, 100?

    We are on a path. Mankind is on a path. We just happen to be here now. Could have been 100 or 1,000 or 50,000 years ago. Or ditto in to the future. Personally, I thank my lucky starts that I'm here now and in this country - how lucky is that?!

    But, it's still a path, and that's a path towards the type of world we would want to be in. 500 years ago, we were chopping off heads in the street. 70 years ago our European neighbours were roasting their fellow man in ovens. Only 20-odd years ago our fellow Europeans were lining up men, women and children and shooting them in rows. Or locking them up in churches before burning it all down.

    That can't possibly happen again, can it? Of course it can.

    But we are 'getting there', you know, and I think our time as part of the EU has simply been the best for our country in - ooh - probably ever. In terms of neighbourly relations, safety, basic human rights, health and - yes - economic growth.

    But let's chust throw all that away, eh? On wishful thinking (or pretty evil thinking in some cases...)

    We are in danger of setting too much store by the damage the credit crunch did to us all. That hellish blip. That did cause most of us all a lot of financial pain.

    But, is that really all it takes for half of us to start screaming and braying for someone to pay the cost? And blaming the hand that has fed and helped protect us?

    Sorry, btiw - the average Leaver on the street did not consider this MOST important of issues anywhere as deep as even this simple post. You know they didn't. It was largely just "Bludy too many immigrants, innit?"
    Jord86 and Deleted member 164349 like this.
  17. btiw

    btiw Well-Known Member

    You know that they say? History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Let's hope not.

    I agree, but let's test it and take a country that's as far from the EU as you can get.
    Australia. Similar to Britain in many ways with our shared heritage. They've improved human rights, safety, heath and economic growth too (although huge mineral resources helped too) without the EU.

    Membership of the EU isn't necessary to improve living standards. It usually happens naturally.

    Nah, let's not eh?

    Apology accepted.

    Everyone is different. There were 17.4 million composite reasons why people voted leave, unfortunately there were only 16.1 million reasons to remain.

    Even if the "average (whatever that means) leaver" did think is was because of immigration then disagreeing with the reason doesn't make it stupid.

    If they'd said it was because there were too many hippopotamuses then that'd be stupid.
    If they thought they'd have £350 million to spend on the NHS every week then that was either careless, stupid or gullible, because it's a testable proposition.
    If they thought it was because the Express printed the EU said we had to have less powerful kettles or any of the other bizarre and untrue stories from before the vote, then that was careless, stupid or gullible too. Again, because they are testable.
    But immigration? Not a reason I agree with. Not stupid either.
  18. Is it not 'stupid' if they would destroy all they have on a fib? On the belief that all their woes are because of too many immigrants?

    I think it is.
  19. btiw

    btiw Well-Known Member

    We got that.
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice