4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jan 24, 2017 16:32:57 GMT
A significant percentage of the left seems rather unable to accept democracy when they lose.
As for Generation Snowflake, I can't post what I would like to say about people who are protesting ONLY because Trump won and they don't like the result because it upsets them....
People would be more prepared to give consideration to what you're saying if you didn't spend so much time telling everyone what they're thinking and why they're thinking it.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jan 24, 2017 16:41:11 GMT
Whereas claiming the right wouldn't have protested - against all evidence - if they had lost the election and constantly calling people snowflakes and despicable is reasoned argument at its very best! Some idiots on the right would have protested but would we see the hundreds of thousands protesting as we have done for Trump and what we got for Cameron and Brexit?
A significant percentage of the left seems rather unable to accept democracy when they lose.
As for Generation Snowflake, I can't post what I would like to say about people who are protesting ONLY because Trump won and they don't like the result because it upsets them....
We've had 8 years of large proportions of the right, including the new president, refuse to accept Barack Obama was born in the US or claiming he was a Muslim on absolutely no evidence. They didn't just oppose him, they refused to even accept he was a legitimate president. Trump said before the election that the only way he could lose was if he was cheated out of it and his rallies were full of chants about locking Hillary up. Republican politicians made it clear they were going to put her under investigation constantly if she became President (though they are now ignoring Trump's flagrant breach of ethics) and saying they wouldn't accept anyone she nominated for the Supreme Court. We've had decades of the right complaining about the EU and Nigel Farage made very clear a narrow remain win wouldn't end the matter. The concept that it is only the left who can't accept an election defeat is utterly unsupported by evidence. The right are much worse in every respect.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jan 24, 2017 17:20:27 GMT
Gina Miller contested Theresa May's attempt to erode the right of Parliament to make laws. Miller did both Brexiters and Remainers a huge favour, and we should all be thankful to her, for preserving the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. While it is true that many actions the Government takes stem from exercising the power of the Queen, changing the law of the land (which all sides conceded would be the result of triggering Article 50) is NOT one of the Queen's powers, and is reserved to Parliament. Thank you for standing up for this key principle, Gina Miller, in the face of tremendous personal abuse, and against an overwhelming tide of ignorance fueled by the Daily Mail! As has been pointed out, the choice to make the Referendum advisory was made by David Cameron's Government, it was a mistake, and it is his fault that public money has been wasted today, as well as Theresa May's fault for compounding his mistake, and not consulting Parliament about Article 50 in the first place. Liked, as any attempt to attack anyone liking this post needs to be ignored. On the subject raised before, my family was split, the traditional working class labour voters of the older generation voting remain and the younger, more upwardly mobile, voting leave. I know full well the old labour voting complaints about immigrants and such from the former but, in the end, they knew that leave were selling them a false prospectus. Both sides, in the end, voted with their self interest - as that's what people do. Leave won with the votes of those working class voters who were led to believe that they would benefit. They were misled and, sadly, they will find that out the hard way. Anyone believing that Brexit is good for the working class is either a liar or a fool.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jan 24, 2017 17:23:28 GMT
And to add, it is a badge of honour that in our society somebody can question the government in an impartial court. Personally, I wasn't keen on what she did, but I respect her right to have the freedom to be able to do so. Compare with the heavily politicised US supreme court. At least the traitor Scalia has gone now, even as another traitor becomes President.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 17:26:45 GMT
Amazing that someone that uses the term 'generation snowflake' without irony numerous times in a day expects others to take them seriously.
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2017 17:30:28 GMT
On the subject raised before, my family was split, the traditional working class labour voters of the older generation voting remain and the younger, more upwardly mobile, voting leave. I'd have thought it'd be exactly the other way round.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jan 24, 2017 17:31:52 GMT
Amazing that someone that uses the term 'generation snowflake' without irony numerous times in a day expects others to take them seriously. The authoritarian left and the authoritarian right can be, at times, indistinguishable. The liberal left and right (and centre) need to realise they have common cause and that some element of realignment, or at least co-operation may be necessary if the rising spectre of strong-arm nationalism and protectionism is going to be vanquished.
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jan 24, 2017 17:32:06 GMT
On the subject raised before, my family was split, the traditional working class labour voters of the older generation voting remain and the younger, more upwardly mobile, voting leave. I'd have thought it'd be exactly the other way round. That's exactly what I thought.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jan 24, 2017 17:42:19 GMT
I'd have thought it'd be exactly the other way round. That's exactly what I thought. Why? There was nothing trustworthy for the older labour working class voters from leave. Yes, the guff about immigrants which they saw through (they moan about the Poles etc. but as much about about the native youth who they see as less hardworking and less polite) and the fuzzy maths similarly, which seemed to promise the earth by spending any financial benefit numerous times over. The younger, richer, conservative ones realising that any benefits would be going their way. I tend to vote Lib Dem so am in the middle and get it in the neck from both sides!
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jan 24, 2017 17:43:29 GMT
Thank for that wonderful counter-argument.
I live in hope that you will appear on Question Time as a guest and I will not only record it on my Virgin Box but watch it regularly to marvel at the 21st Century's Cicero.
Hi ldm2016 There are people on this board who I like and respect but who have very different political stances from me. But what makes it work is that when I read their views it's part of the fabric of my understanding of them that we share a love of theatre and an appreciation, when possible, of constructive disagreement. If someone has recommended a show you like or directed you to good seats or made you laugh with a funny review you can forgive each other a lot. I feel like the majority of your postings (but do correct me if I'm wrong) are in this topic - which is fine, obviously - but I just don't see what fun it can be for you and since I don't have an understanding of you in another context it is just feels like someone shouting 'snowflake' on a theatre forum for no particular reason. Perhaps you could point me towards your theatre postings? Maybe we share a great love of the Young Vic or musical revivals or Andrew Scott or something. If there's some common ground then maybe that would make the conversations less polarising?
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2017 18:18:00 GMT
That's exactly what I thought. Why? There was nothing trustworthy for the older labour working class voters from leave. Yes, the guff about immigrants which they saw through (they moan about the Poles etc. but as much about about the native youth who they see as less hardworking and less polite) and the fuzzy maths similarly, which seemed to promise the earth by spending any financial benefit numerous times over. The younger, richer, conservative ones realising that any benefits would be going their way. I tend to vote Lib Dem so am in the middle and get it in the neck from both sides! I assumed that the younger generation would very much welcome the opportunity to easily work, live and/or study in the entire EU, is well-travelled and thus more open-minded to foreigners and values the opportunity to travel freely (keep in mind, as an EU citizen, you may not be denied entry to any EU country and the border police may only check your identity and that you can use the dedicated EU line at passport control). Also, I thought that the younger generation is less nationalist and less protectionist.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 18:34:21 GMT
Why? There was nothing trustworthy for the older labour working class voters from leave. Yes, the guff about immigrants which they saw through (they moan about the Poles etc. but as much about about the native youth who they see as less hardworking and less polite) and the fuzzy maths similarly, which seemed to promise the earth by spending any financial benefit numerous times over. The younger, richer, conservative ones realising that any benefits would be going their way. I tend to vote Lib Dem so am in the middle and get it in the neck from both sides! I assumed that the younger generation would very much welcome the opportunity to easily work, live and/or study in the entire EU, is well-travelled and thus more open-minded to foreigners and values the opportunity to travel freely (keep in mind, as an EU citizen, you may not be denied entry to any EU country and the border police may only check your identity and that you can use the dedicated EU line at passport control). Also, I thought that the younger generation is less nationalist and less protectionist. I'm from one of the regions that most heavily voted for Brexit and I still don't know anyone my age (early 20s) that voted leave. Statistics back up that younger people overwhelmingly voted remain as well.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jan 24, 2017 18:48:08 GMT
Aha, I think my older/younger is the confusion, it being a movable feast. Older, for me in this context is sixties/seventies and younger thirties/forties.
Which, again puts me in the middle!
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jan 24, 2017 18:49:13 GMT
I remember reading (but can't cite, unfortunately) a report of some research that looked to see what sort of factors influenced the way people voted, and although there were weak correlations with things like age and level of education the strongest correlation with voting Leave was belief in "traditional values". I'm not quite sure what "traditional values" means — the report mentioned things like support for capital punishment — but the general idea was that people who look to the past as a better time tended to vote Leave while those who look to creating a better future tended to vote Remain. Certainly all the Leave voters I personally know also think we should return to imperial measurements, non-decimal currency and National Service, so there may be something in it. Mind you, all but one of the Leave voters I personally know are over 70. All this is getting tense, so relax with a video of a horse playing with a rubber chicken.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jan 24, 2017 19:02:05 GMT
My uncle and aunt (late-70s) are gleefully proud to have voted Leave. They say "we managed on our own before".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 19:06:49 GMT
I think foxa hits the nail on the head above. We may vary slightly or widely in our political opinons here but as we 'know' each other from the forum across many topics the majority of us can have a discussion, and agree to disagree then go back to talking about the Wicked cast change, or Russell Tovey taking his shirt off or y'know an actual play! In the same way we might disagree about the best Elphaba (poor example? good example?) we can also go about talking about all the other weird and wonderful stuff because we can see there's more than one side to a person. But when a person is only giving us one side (I think also Foxa, you're right ldm2016 does seem to mainly be in here) then it's hard to maintain that respectful discussion everyone else manages 99% of the time, because it feels like being called names out of the blue.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 19:17:03 GMT
the general idea was that people who look to the past as a better time tended to vote Leave while those who look to creating a better future tended to vote Remain. How can anyone think of the past as a better time? Sure, those roughly 12 years between the end of the Cold War and 9/11 might have been better than our current situation. Basically the 90's were okay. But before that? Maybe the 20's? Let's go back to that time then.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Jan 24, 2017 19:55:33 GMT
Gina Miller contested Theresa May's attempt to erode the right of Parliament to make laws. Miller did both Brexiters and Remainers a huge favour, and we should all be thankful to her, for preserving the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. While it is true that many actions the Government takes stem from exercising the power of the Queen, changing the law of the land (which all sides conceded would be the result of triggering Article 50) is NOT one of the Queen's powers, and is reserved to Parliament. Thank you for standing up for this key principle, Gina Miller, in the face of tremendous personal abuse, and against an overwhelming tide of ignorance fueled by the Daily Mail! As has been pointed out, the choice to make the Referendum advisory was made by David Cameron's Government, it was a mistake, and it is his fault that public money has been wasted today, as well as Theresa May's fault for compounding his mistake, and not consulting Parliament about Article 50 in the first place. Or, alternatively, she is somebody who, as punishment to the British people and Nation for voting to Leave, has delayed the inevitable and wasted millions in the process.
She didn't stand up for any key principles but because she is bitter and can't accept the result and was trying to buy the Remain campaign some time to somehow turn the decision around. She failed.
Miller is obsessed with money, money, money and notoriety. She doesn't care about the "common man" but making money for herself and her cronies (most of whom live as tax exiles outside the UK btw), that's all.
Cameron should have made the referendum binding but he's another politician who wasn't listening to the nation. If he was, he wouldn't have been so confident in his faith that Remain would win and would have helped create a better campaign rather than attempting scaremongering....
That's the truth no matter how many of the obvious people "like" your post...
Gina Miller stood up for the key principle of our constitutional democracy - that Parliament is sovereign. It has been for hundreds of years and that's not going to change. As has already been pointed out to you, the referendum was advisory, not legally binding, therefore it is necessary under the laws of this nation (hilariously, given the Leave campaign was all about the UK being sovereign!) for Parliament to rubber stamp the act of leaving. The Supreme Court by a substantial majority decided that this principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty carries greater weight in the politics of the UK than the Royal Prerogative which allows the Prime Minister and other members of the Government to take certain decisions by executive order. If that isn't a decision about key constitutional principles then I don't know what is. And that's before you even consider that she had arguably the brightest and best legal mind in the land as her barrister (whose job it was to advise her as to the prospects of success of her case based on the law of the land). To say that Gina Miller wasn't standing up for any principles is to belittle her point of view, which means you're no better than a certain Mr Morgan and others who have been belittling those who marched at the weekend for simply standing up for what they believe in. The millions that were wasted were wasted by the Government in bringing the appeal - that was their choice to do so. And on a more general point, having read through the last few pages of this thread, your increasingly bitter, divisive tone and childish name-calling and generalisation are doing your arguments no favour as far as I'm concerned. If you can't have a civilised debate without resorting to lazy labelling like "these people" then I really don't see any point in wasting my time responding any more.
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 24, 2017 21:45:38 GMT
On the subject raised before, my family was split, the traditional working class labour voters of the older generation voting remain and the younger, more upwardly mobile, voting leave. I'd have thought it'd be exactly the other way round. That's what has generally been spun by the pro EU media.
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 24, 2017 21:49:31 GMT
Also, I thought that the younger generation is less nationalist and less protectionist. We will never truly know.......as two thirds of the lazy buggers could not be bothered to vote.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jan 24, 2017 21:56:32 GMT
Also, I thought that the younger generation is less nationalist and less protectionist. We will never truly know.......as two thirds of the lazy buggers could not be bothered to vote. That number was debunked months ago. Turn out was lower among 18-24s but more like 65% than 33%.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jan 24, 2017 22:05:48 GMT
That's what has generally been spun by the pro EU media. We have pro EU media?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jan 24, 2017 22:11:05 GMT
I'd have thought it'd be exactly the other way round. That's what has generally been spun by the pro EU media. Already explained and cleared up. My 'younger' was referring to people in their 30's and 40's, not the younger group that you subsequently mischaracterise.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jan 24, 2017 22:11:55 GMT
Well there's The Guardian, probably The Independent and FT as well but that's about it.
Utterly dwarfed by the other side though obviously.
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 24, 2017 22:46:11 GMT
That's what has generally been spun by the pro EU media. We have pro EU media? Sky, BBC
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jan 24, 2017 22:57:14 GMT
The BBC has a rule of impartiality where they give weight to other points of view www.quora.com/Why-does-the-BBC-give-so-much-coverage-of-Nigel-Farage-and-his-UKIP-partyMany feel that UKIP, for example, has a disproportionate amount of time on Question Time because they only have 1 MP, but it is justified apparently by their share of the vote. (Considering Farage was only an MEP think about how much airtime he receives.) If you are interested you can trawl through the lists of Question Time shows and I think you'd find it would be really hard to argue that the panels were pro-EU. I don't watch Sky so can't really comment on it.
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 24, 2017 23:10:00 GMT
We will never truly know.......as two thirds of the lazy buggers could not be bothered to vote. That number was debunked months ago. Turn out was lower among 18-24s but more like 65% than 33%. From my understanding the problem lies in what percentage are not registered to vote. It may well be 65% of those who voted, but could also be only 33% of the total 18 to 24 age that actually voted.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 23:24:09 GMT
The BBC has a rule of impartiality where they give weight to other points of view www.quora.com/Why-does-the-BBC-give-so-much-coverage-of-Nigel-Farage-and-his-UKIP-partyMany feel that UKIP, for example, has a disproportionate amount of time on Question Time because they only have 1 MP, but it is justified apparently by their share of the vote. (Considering Farage was only an MEP think about how much airtime he receives.) If you are interested you can trawl through the lists of Question Time shows and I think you'd find it would be really hard to argue that the panels were pro-EU. I don't watch Sky so can't really comment on it. The BBC has a rule of impartiality but I don't remember the last time I watched them report on something political and thought "man, I'm so happy they're impartial". I think they've fallen for the idea that being impartial means giving equal weight to both sides of an argument, even if the argument is something as bizarre as "all children need an education" vs "80% of children should be drowned at birth" which shouldn't even be an argument, let alone one where the latter side deserves as much consideration as the former. And Sky has Kay Burley, so I don't watch Sky either.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jan 24, 2017 23:28:30 GMT
Yeah. I also think there is the entertainment factor. They don't want to have a bunch of people being well-informed and reasonable on a show, they want a bust up.
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 24, 2017 23:29:06 GMT
That's what has generally been spun by the pro EU media. Already explained and cleared up. My 'younger' was referring to people in their 30's and 40's, not the younger group that you subsequently mischaracterise. Yes, though I didn't read your previous point only the one I quoted you on, so my error. Thank you for placing me in the younger bracket. I don't think I have acted in a misleading manner, only reporting what I've heard as a low turnout in the % that voted. If the figures are wrong then it is they who have mislead me and not vice versa. Various sources have given different figures of % of the turnout, the confusion may lie in how many of that age group were registered to vote.
|
|