Brexit

[David]

1 minute ago, Dead Mike said:

Yeah, it's his smarts that did it, same with Osborne & Cameron. The fact they all went to Eton & were part of the Bullingdon club is just a coincidence. It's definitely not a case of it being a 'old boys network' & privilege. It's their savvy & intelligence.

You mentioned intelligence. I never said they were intelligent. I said they were smart. There's a difference. I know guys from my early school days who have never worked a day in their lives, who spend most of their lives pissed up on Buckfast, who can barely read or write to a primary school level, but dump a load of heroin or coke on a table in front of them and ask them to divvy it up into bags of a certain weight and tally up the street value versus the amount paid and work out the profit level of each bag and they'll have the answers for you within half an hour or less.

Look up the book I mentioned and give it a read. 

[BomberPat]

Blair getting into bed with Murdoch is what won '97 for him. 

I'm not sure whether right wing media is the proverbial chicken or egg - it's been the case for decades, so how do you measure it? YouGov did a survey that found more Brits think the media is too right wing than citizens of any other European country, which would suggest that the opinions of the 'papers actually don't match up all that well to Joe Public. But it's less about whether people blindly agree with what they read, as much as whether it's their chief window on the world, and how it informs their thinking. When I worked in a garage, we got the Star, and I remember being disgusted that they would routinely use "Brits" and "Muslims" as two mutually exclusive terms - just typical, basic, ugly othering. But I was just flicking through bored at work. If it was the only news I was getting, maybe it would colour my mindset a little more.

1 minute ago, Dead Mike said:

Yeah, it's his smarts that did it, same with Osborne & Cameron. The fact they all went to Eton & were part of the Bullingdon club is just a coincidence. It's definitely not a case of it being a 'old boys network' & privilege. It's their savvy & intelligence.

 

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - it's all about exploiting networks and connections, just that the Bullingdon lot have one hell of a leg-up. There's a Stewart Lee interview I can't find at the moment, where he talks about having been at Oxford with a lot of Tory politician types, and how the entire political system for them was just an extension of the school debating society, just a game that they all played together, and never stopped. 

It's true that Johnson, Osborne et al have been good at exploiting connections, but it's also true that we have to look at when, where and how those connections were made - they weren't spending ten years interning at Smash Hits, earning the trust of the higher-ups through grit and determination; Johnson's dad got him a job at the Times, he got sacked for inventing quotes, and then still walked into a job at the Telegraph because he'd been mates with the editor at Oxford. It's not that he's smart, or even particularly savvy, it's that everyone who matters wears the same school tie - and, for the most part, live in a world and have a spoken and visual language utterly alien to the rest of us.

 

Now, again, all of this is stacked against the odds of Corbyn. But rather than shrugging our shoulders and making excuses as to why we keep losing, we need to say, "yes. All of this is true, now how do we still win anyway?". And I'm convinced the answer is stories. You don't win people with data, or even really with reason. You win them with a narrative.

[David]

2 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

It's true that Johnson, Osborne et al have been good at exploiting connections, but it's also true that we have to look at when, where and how those connections were made - they weren't spending ten years interning at Smash Hits, earning the trust of the higher-ups through grit and determination; Johnson's dad got him a job at the Times, he got sacked for inventing quotes, and then still walked into a job at the Telegraph because he'd been mates with the editor at Oxford. It's not that he's smart, or even particularly savvy, it's that everyone who matters wears the same school tie - and, for the most part, live in a world and have a spoken and visual language utterly alien to the rest of us.

That's the thing though, does "earning the trust of the higher ups through grit and determination" really work all that well in isolation? For the most part a reliable donkey who displays grit and determination will always be considered a good footsoldier, but rarely anything else. The company I work for is a prime example of that. Whenever we're looking to recruit someone for a key position the discussion is never about who shows up on time, works late and never takes time off sick, and goes about their duties with diligence, it's about who has the best contacts in the industry, who's got a knack for getting results regardless of the circumstances, and the old classic of "yeah, this guy worked with Rob at company X for a while, he's a good lad and will fit right in then."

If the candidate in question has a dodgy attendance record, or shows up late regularly we can overlook that as long as he's got the connections and the know-how to get the job done and benefit the company as a whole. We'll take him over a grit and determination type every day of the week, because those types are ten a penny and most of the time are happy to accept the position they're already in. Every company needs good footsoldiers, right? Normally those ones are the intelligent ones, the people with the University degrees and who are well-read. Intelligent isn't good enough, key positions need people who are smart. And that's the difference.

In many ways the reason the likes of Johnson is in this position is because his parents have known how the game is played, and they realise that sending him to a certain school isn't just about education, it's about putting him in a position to make the right connections. Plenty of people pass through these private schools and never establish the type of connections that they could have done. They go there, they get their education and they use that education to get a good job. It's not as though they're all involved in a wink-wink society.

The ones who are, are the ones who are savvy enough to know that making pals with the types who go on to become editor at the Telegraph is the way to go. That's what I mean when I say that they're smart rather than intelligent. I'm not saying they're the type to go from being born in a slum to the heights they're at, but regardless of the circumstances you're born into, you need to be savvy enough to make the most of them.

[BomberPat]

Yes, but "savvy" only gets you so far. 

My Dad worked in a factory, and my Mum was at home raising three kids. They didn't have the money to send me to a private school regardless of if they "knew how the game was played" or not. 

A lad who started training long after me is now wrestling in the US. Someone on Instagram asked him for advice on getting started wrestling when there are no training schools anywhere near him, and he replied, "if you were determined enough, you'd relocate to train", or words to that effect. Because it wouldn't have even occurred to him that, for most other people, having parents paying to put him through a private school, after-school sports clubs, and expensive coaching to earn him a soccer scholarship in the US, then paying for him to relocate the US, the couple of grand to go to his preferred wrestling school, and then keeping him in money while wrestling was only paying him in hot dogs and handshakes, simply isn't an option. We're all our own baseline, and without the self-awareness to recognise his own privilege, all he could see was "I did it, so anyone can".

Quote

They go there, they get their education and they use that education to get a good job. It's not as though they're all involved in a wink-wink society.

Boris Johnson was educated at Eton and Oxford.

Jeremy Hunt was educated at Charterhouse and Oxford.

Theresa May - Oxford.

David Cameron - Eton and Oxford.

George Osborne - Oxford.

Philip Hammond - Oxford.

Michael Gove - Oxford.

Rory Stewart - Eton and Oxford.

 

What a coincidence that all these smart people, all this savviness, happened to be isolated in one university. 

You're right that it's about knowing how to play the game - the problem is that most of us aren't even given the rules.

[Chris B]

If he was really savvy, he'd have been born rich with good contacts.

[SuperBacon]

1 hour ago, David said:

You mentioned intelligence. I never said they were intelligent. I said they were smart. There's a difference. I know guys from my early school days who have never worked a day in their lives, who spend most of their lives pissed up on Buckfast, who can barely read or write to a primary school level, but dump a load of heroin or coke on a table in front of them and ask them to divvy it up into bags of a certain weight and tally up the street value versus the amount paid and work out the profit level of each bag and they'll have the answers for you within half an hour or less.

Look up the book I mentioned and give it a read. 

Check out Tony Montana over here 

[David]

5 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Yes, but "savvy" only gets you so far. 

Of course it does, we all have limitations and environments that dictate how far we can go, which is why I posted the example of the two guys I know from school who are, for all intents and purposes, absolute losers. They're not intelligent by any stretch, but they have taken what they were given and used their circumstances, however dodgy and harrowing, to the best of their advantage. And they both do well for themselves financially, which isn't the be all and end all of course, but they were smart enough to take advantage of their circumstances. Many others like them are homeless and living in terrible conditions.

Now, we can obviously argue the moral aspect of what they do, but that takes intelligence. Which many of these types simply don't have.

9 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Boris Johnson was educated at Eton and Oxford.

Jeremy Hunt was educated at Charterhouse and Oxford.

Theresa May - Oxford.

David Cameron - Eton and Oxford.

George Osborne - Oxford.

Philip Hammond - Oxford.

Michael Gove - Oxford.

Rory Stewart - Eton and Oxford.

 

What a coincidence that all these smart people, all this savviness, happened to be isolated in one university. 

My point was that not everyone who passes through the gates of Oxford goes on to reach the heights (or infamy?) that those types do. I have worked with guys who've went to Oxford, and they are just regular Joe's with a decent school on their CV. 

What separates the Johnson's, Hunt's, Cameron's and Osborne's from the countless more people who shared a school with them and ended up like the guys I've worked with, aside from their sociopathic tendencies? That's my point. The list of people you mention knew from a relatively early age that the contacts they made, the clubs they joined, would stand them in good stead later in life. If you read back to my original point, it's that the likes of Corbyn, whilst undoubtedly intelligent, isn't all that smart. That's why he's "planting tomatoes with children in Macclesfield" while the likes of Hunt and Boris are out there doing their thing and furthering their own agendas. 

Corbyn is doing what he's doing because he believes it's the right thing to do, it's "proper" politics, same as he did when he refused to pay the poll tax and ended up wasting hours and days dealing with the situation, fighting it in court and so on. 

The left is littered with people like Corbyn, people who are book-smart, intelligent types, but who just aren't very smart in the real-world sense. That's why the left rarely amounts to anything while the right frequently seems to have its shit together. I saw enough of it from the inside, watching these people who were essentially sitting in their house arguing about the colour of the curtains while a fucking tornado was a mile or two away and headed right for them. 

24 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

You're right that it's about knowing how to play the game - the problem is that most of us aren't even given the rules.

You don't have to wait to be given the rules, you can easily figure them out for yourself. Like I said, it's not the intelligent types who are playing this game, you don't need a degree to apply. 

[David]

7 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

Check out Tony Montana over here 

I just know them from school, we aren't hitting up the Babylon Club on the weekends.

[Michael_3165]

Talking of educational establishments and becoming PM, there have been 19 - NINETEEN! - PMs that came from Eton. That's 35%. HUGE number. It is sinister and deeply troubling that one organisation can have that much influence over the governance of the country. They get into places of influence, get jobs with Daddy's friends, get into senior positions and work up into leadership posts - ALL with little need for hard graft or a degree of understanding of the political system.

[Carbomb]

3 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said:

Talking of educational establishments and becoming PM, there have been 19 - NINETEEN! - PMs that came from Eton. That's 35%. HUGE number. It is sinister and deeply troubling that one organisation can have that much influence over the governance of the country. They get into places of influence, get jobs with Daddy's friends, get into senior positions and work up into leadership posts - ALL with little need for hard graft or a degree of understanding of the political system.

Not just that - out of Britain's 54 PMs, 40 of them went to Oxbridge, 27 going to Oxford.

[Michael_3165]

3 hours ago, David said:

I saw someone mention earlier that the press is predominantly right-wing. Why is that? It's a bit like the whole chicken and the egg scenario in my opinion. Do people have right-wing tendencies because the media influences them in that direction? Or, does the media present a right-wing bias because that's what the majority of their customers want and it's what sells newspapers?

I read a book not that long ago titled "The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People do Stupid Things" and when reading it I was actually reminded of some of the people I'd encountered during my interactions with some of the far left groups I mentioned earlier.

A lot of the people who were active on the left were former University lecturers, Professors, really intelligent people. But they weren't smart. They seemed incredibly naive in many respects, and made some right howlers when it came to decision-making.

There's a lot of people out there who take great satisfaction in telling everyone how stupid Boris is, for example. He's a dimwit, he gets his shit mixed up all the time, he's made to look stupid in debates and so on. Yet, those same people can't understand why he gets an easy time from the media while the likes of Corbyn gets shat on from a great height.

Boris has been smart enough over the years to realise that if you want to be successful in politics, as is the case in most walks of life, you need to make the right contacts and possess some influence in the right circles. His stints in the media over the years have built him a foundation where he can rely on former and current colleagues in that industry to do him a solid if needed. 

While Corbyn was out there in the early 90's refusing to pay the poll tax and spending time in court because of it, Boris was making the moves required to land himself the position of assistant editor at the Telegraph. There's a lot Johnson can be criticised for, but a big part of the reason why he's given such favourable coverage by the media is because he's spent years making the right connections in the right places. Osborne did the exact same thing, and is reaping the rewards today. A brief look into the history between him and the owner of the Standard, Evgeny Lebedev, highlights the lengths that people like Osborne and Johnson will go to in order to make the moves needed to establish themselves in positions of power. 

The truth is, the left just aren't able to match that. In many instances those operating on the left of politics and activism believe that being being decent and doing the right thing is what wins the day. It isn't. It really never has, and it likely never will. As much as I hate to say it, someone like Corbyn never had a chance. 

 

Some thoughts on politics and Brexit...

1) Corbyn will always struggle to reach the average guy on the street despite having some decent ideals. Reason? Most people don't want to be labelled as a victim and Corbyn's whole schtick is based on helping those in need. The average person works hard and doesn't want a hand out, they want fairness. 

2) The left believe that we should be 'good' for the sake of being good. That is fine in principle but the UK (I believe) has a strong belief that you must work for what you get and there must be justice. Corbyn throwing around money left, right and centre at the expense of the rich alienates some in society. You can be working class and still see unfairness in taxing the rich to the hilt to give it to less fortunate. 

3) Nobody trusts a government that will likely crash them back into a recession. In some ways the Tories have played a blinder. They have pushed austerity so hard whilst blaming the Labour government under Blair and Brown. You hear it all the time 'we inherited...'. They have conditioned people to think that Labour = recession and nobody wants another ten years of economic hell. Couple that with Corbyn's constant claims that he will throw money all over the place and people will simply turn off.

4) The UK has shown itself to be a fairly uncompassionate society through decades of media propaganda. We have always had the 'other' that we persecuted and whilst it was the Pakistani's, Irish and Africans in middle of the 1900s we now have the Romanians and Polish. In 50 years the EU citizens that stay here will be seen as 'one of us' and this rhetoric will shift. I hear terms like 'look after our own' and 'taking our jobs' but rarely about Africans or Asians any longer. 

5) Being 'good' isn't enough today. Sadly I feel that a large portion of the population have no interest about the plight of the homeless, poverty stricken estates, refugees and victims in war torn countries. It is always about US. What WE can get from any situation. If we don't get a benefit we aren't that interested. That is why Corbyn will struggle, because many people simply aren't interested in his banging on about privatisation, the bottom percentage in the country etc because it doesn't impact them directly. It simply isn't 'cool' to be kind and compassionate. 

 

[David]

31 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said:

Talking of educational establishments and becoming PM, there have been 19 - NINETEEN! - PMs that came from Eton. That's 35%. HUGE number.

 

26 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Not just that - out of Britain's 54 PMs, 40 of them went to Oxbridge, 27 going to Oxford.

It should shock absolutely no one that the people in the top positions tend to come from the top schools, should it? 

[Michael_3165]

Its not the top school though. Its the most privileged school but I would hardly say that one school alone is the best for education in the country.

[The King Of Swing]

Wasn't there a survey of people that put a bunch of policies to them and they were overwhelmingly popular, only for those same people to completely turn on them when they were informed that they were Labour policies?

Seen similar reports of "conservatives" in the US being very supportive of left wing policies.

I'd argue that politically most people don't actually have a fucking clue where they stand and just pick a label that they think fits them. I've seen Lib Dem supporters moan about Corbyn sucking up the the Muslims for crying out loud.

In a weird twist I'd say the left wing of the Democrats is probably doing a better job than the UK left, despite the "centrist" wings best efforts to fuck them at every turn.

You would have been laughed out of Washington if you had said that Medicare for all would be a serious talking point in 2019.

[CavemanLynn]

Some great points about the current system here. I don't know if it's age or awareness, but I've never felt so dissociated from the political process as right now. It's like watching a game, but the problem is at the end we have to vote between contenders who don't offer actual practical proposals for change or progress, because that's not politics. Politics is people management, and that's not what we need.

I agree that the majority of British people just want what's fair, albeit coloured by their own experiences and biases. I'd wager that for that reason the majority couldn't give a flying fuck about fishing quotas or a lot of the items detailed in deal drafts.

Ultimately, it comes down to taxes and the services they provide, so a computer could probably do a better job than a PM. These debates are another routine to be played out as quick as possible so a minority-voted chosen one can attempt to stave off Brexit for four more years while collecting material for their <insert name>: My Story memoir. And, again, like May, whoever gets the Premiership will get in without needing to get on the side of the electorate, just the other party members, which makes the public show even more farcical and irrelevant beyond PR.

I'd not vote for any of the candidates, and I don't have a chance, which is insane and broken. It's a dictatorship of encumbents. And yet, I'll vote for Corbyn on his record rather than anything in particular he's done in the lead up to the next election.