|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 10, 2016 10:33:31 GMT
At least a quarter of the population have the greatest difficulty of even half running their own lives and coping with day-to-day normality. They have a bare understanding of how to function at all and bumble through a life needing support at every level for them to even survive. I am amazed at how well you know me even though we've never met. In my defence I can only say that I'm doing the best I can.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 10, 2016 10:36:04 GMT
I was attempting to show that it was not just one side that had been 'seen through' as certain sections seem to paint Trump as a monster and Clinton as a saint. In fact I don't think Trump was 'seen through' at all because he was just accepted for what he is, warts and all, for the blunt instrument that served their purpose. But Hilary really was seen through on many levels and found very, very wanting. I think that's very sound. If your main motivation is to vote against the status quo, then Trump's flaws don't matter much - he is just very obviously not the current political establishment in either his own or the other party, and that is all that matters. (Given that he has inherited huge wealth, and then exploited the state of the USA over 5 decades to become much wealthier still, and that his vaunted "ability to make deals" seems to involve doing business with utterly corrupt individuals such as Putin, I think it is an utterly flawed approach; but then, I would.) Conversely I think any Democrat leader has to be able to stand for progress, and Clinton was as you say very flawed in that respect. I think she would have been a very capable President, certainly better than Trump, but as an agent of radical change she doesn't pass muster. And, given that 8 years ago she lost to Obama on pretty much that point, and damn near lost to a rank outsider in the form of Sanders (only being saved by the Party establishment) the alarm bells perhaps should have rung louder than they did. I still think Trump ought to have been unelectable, and before we all decide the USA is now Trumpland we ought to remember that he failed to win the popular vote. But the failure of the Democrat establishment to test her out was a big error I think. But that is the essence of why he won. The inability of the majors to put up a credible and likeable candidate, which this year was made blatantly obvious with Clinton and Cruz who in their own unique manner exemplified all that was worst about each party. What crass stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Nov 10, 2016 10:45:11 GMT
I suppose the paternalistic postwar politics of the welfare state did cushion this too. The traditional Tories who believed it was their role to look after those beneath them as well as Labour. But as I have said before a very competitive system needs losers to survive. And if those people are then treated as pond life and badged as failures the consequences are obvious. It's even more damaging when there are other minorities who have different sets of challenges and where those at the bottom can be very easily used against each other and that's what I see Ukip and Trump doing 'Beneath' isn't the word I would use- but we still do. Rather than absolve ourselves of responsibility by delegating that responsibility onto other people, through the medium of the state.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2016 10:55:18 GMT
I suppose the paternalistic postwar politics of the welfare state did cushion this too. The traditional Tories who believed it was their role to look after those beneath them as well as Labour. But as I have said before a very competitive system needs losers to survive. And if those people are then treated as pond life and badged as failures the consequences are obvious. It's even more damaging when there are other minorities who have different sets of challenges and where those at the bottom can be very easily used against each other and that's what I see Ukip and Trump doing 'Beneath' isn't the word I would use- but we still do. Rather than absolve ourselves of responsibility by delegating that responsibility onto other people, through the medium of the state. I used it deliberately because I think it's how they saw it. The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate....They saw this as the natural order and saw it as their role to preserve it and part of that was a paternalistic concern for those they viewed as beneath them. My grandparents were in service - a farm labourer and a seamstress. Deferential Tories of course - and they were poor. But the people they worked for did have that sort of sense of responsibility. I think that the state is an expression of the collective good. Or at least can be though it often falls short. And I prefer that to paternalism and its off the scale in comparison to free market barbarism. You don't but that's where our politics are as different as they could be.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 10, 2016 11:05:46 GMT
I don't agree that it's down to benefits. Most people who receive them are working. I think it's far more about the decline in basic unskilled work which simply isn't there. We assume that somehow the population will alter to be able to step up to the higher jobs available. It's not that simple. And remember that employers offer jobs. People don't get them - and if employers decide they want one sort of person as opposed to another that's what will happen. Employers want short term and flexible people without family commitments wiling to do menial tasks when required. He last people they would want are people who find life hard to cope with who have 'baggage'. And I think modern life itself brings baggage a lot of people just can't handle. I also think society has changed in terms of its speed, the pressures of everyday life - and we assume that everyone can cope with these. It's easy to say that things were harder many years ago but of course the vast majority were in that boat. And there was a degree of community solidarity and support which doesn't exist now in much more isolated and private styles of life. The expectations of what it means to be a functioning individual are to those who can cope unproblematic. But that does nothing to enable who those who really can only just function to survive. And I think that will never change as we head down the hi-tech, fast moving competitive route. It's just not designed with humans in mind. I suppose the paternalistic postwar politics of the welfare state did cushion this too. The traditional Tories who believed it was their role to look after those beneath them as well as Labour. But as I have said before a very competitive system needs losers to survive. And if those people are then treated as pond life and badged as failures the consequences are obvious. It's even more damaging when there are other minorities who have different sets of challenges and where those at the bottom can be very easily used against each other and that's what I see Ukip and Trump doing I can accept quite a lot of that but with exceptions of nuance and with complete differences of opinion on some aspects as well. Ignore who gets benefits and just concentrate on the sector living near whole-life dependency and now increasingly second generation of whole life dependency. That is my area of major concern. I contend that there is and has been plenty of unskilled and semi-skilled work they could have taken. They failed to do so for three reasons 1) There was no incentive nor less compulsion for them to do so. 2) It was often in a place a bit away to completely remote from where they live. 3) We imported a workforce to do it because of the desires of global capitalism, EU free movement and political complicity and neglect. People should be obliged to work not just exhorted and bribed to do so. Living on the backs and out of the pockets of the working class is not acceptable. Going to where the work is should also be an obligation. It was for me so why not for them? The 'I was born in Preston and I like Preston and I refuse to leave Preston' is not acceptable when there is lots of work in Luton. Go to Luton or lose all benefits. Why should others subsidize their life in Preston and carry the on-costs of also importing Romanians to do the work in Luton and have to teach their children English? Modern life 'brings a lot of baggage some people just can't handle'! Is that acceptable? No, it isn't. Learn to handle it. Take a grip. Stop the recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol abuse, get some exercise and proper sleep, eat better and you will be better equipped to cope. If you don't why should Ted down the road have to personally pay for your flagrant, self-induced inadequacy. Now here I interject a let for the small minority with real physical and mental problems; but it is a small minority. The feral drop outs who have wrecked themselves by self abuse should not be a burden on the decent and the hard working because it is so very unfair. Yes, I am a bit of an authoritarian and think that running the country more like a military unit would be good for this sector. The idle and the shiftless to be spruced up and turned into adequate soldiers. Many are turned into first rate citizens, but it took hard work, coercion, shouting and direction to do it. I am prepared to do that for the good of the nation and for the good of each individual concerned. Yes, I have a bit of the patronizing Tory about me in that like the Victorian self improvers I think people should be compelled to move out of squalor and indolence to usefulness and involvement.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 37,479
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 10, 2016 11:18:21 GMT
Of course errors regarding turnout (specifically, overestimating how many younger voters would turn up) was a significant reason for last year's GE polling here getting it wrong - even if it has recieved far less attention than the sampling issues. (also worth reiterating that "shy Tories" weren't really a thing then despite some still insisting otherwise, and it seems "shy Trumpkins" might not be a big thing now)
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2016 11:24:54 GMT
I can accept quite a lot of that but with exceptions of nuance and with complete differences of opinion on some aspects as well. Ignore who gets benefits and just concentrate on the sector living near whole-life dependency and now increasingly second generation of whole life dependency. That is my area of major concern. I contend that there is and has been plenty of unskilled and semi-skilled work they could have taken. They failed to do so for three reasons 1) There was no incentive nor less compulsion for them to do so. 2) It was often in a place a bit away to completely remote from where they live. 3) We imported a workforce to do it because of the desires of global capitalism, EU free movement and political complicity and neglect. People should be obliged to work not just exhorted and bribed to do so. Living on the backs and out of the pockets of the working class is not acceptable. Going to where the work is should also be an obligation. It was for me so why not for them? The 'I was born in Preston and I like Preston and I refuse to leave Preston' is not acceptable when there is lots of work in Luton. Go to Luton or lose all benefits. Why should others subsidize their life in Preston and carry the on-costs of also importing Romanians to do the work in Luton and have to teach their children English? Modern life 'brings a lot of baggage some people just can't handle'! Is that acceptable? No, it isn't. Learn to handle it. Take a grip. Stop the recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol abuse, get some exercise and proper sleep, eat better and you will be better equipped to cope. If you don't why should Ted down the road have to personally pay for your flagrant, self-induced inadequacy. Now here I interject a let for the small minority with real physical and mental problems; but it is a small minority. The feral drop outs who have wrecked themselves by self abuse should not be a burden on the decent and the hard working because it is so very unfair. Yes, I am a bit of an authoritarian and think that running the country more like a military unit would be good for this sector. The idle and the shiftless to be spruced up and turned into adequate soldiers. Many are turned into first rate citizens, but it took hard work, coercion, shouting and direction to do it. I am prepared to do that for the good of the nation and for the good of each individual concerned. Yes, I have a bit of the patronizing Tory about me in that like the Victorian self improvers I think people should be compelled to move out of squalor and indolence to usefulness and involvement. I just don't accept that those jobs were they to be 'taken'. Employers didn't and don't want them. And I'm not necessarily criticising them. People with chaotic lives and mental health problems (which have hugely expanded as people find they can't cope with modern life) aren't easy and reliable employees. Compulsion largely doesn't work unless there are support mechanisms available, and employers are unlikely to provide them particularly in the profit masking sector. So, unless the underlying problems can be dealt with, and you can't in any case compel private employers to take people on, the only way this could work is a very large supported worker scheme run by the state not for profit. And I'm afraid that no matter how much you tell people to 'get a grip', they won't and can't. So you have to deal with that reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 11:36:11 GMT
My reading of the various data was that the "Democratic" vote just stayed at home. Or the swing vote couldn't be arsed to troop down to the polling centres. It was equally important that the educated suburban GOP vote stayed with Trump despite their contempt for him. The Clinton campaign was banking on that a lot of white upper middle class Republicans (especially women) would defect, and the polls confirmed this - and that this would off-set the drop in blue collar whites or slightly depressed turnout among Blacks. There was a substantial "shy Trump vote" in the suburbs. Clinton only got 1% more female votes than Obama and that was a big surprise. There are also some Democratic groups in important states that simply went for Trump. Their vote among Mid-Western farmers and other rurals collapsed. And Trump got 45% of union members, which is very high for a known union buster. Strict voter ID-laws, cutting the early voting period etc. also mattered in especially Wisconsin. A state Clinton would have won otherwise (ie. with a Democratic governor). Polarization and party loyalty stayed high in an election where one of the candidates was a known conman and sociopath. That may not be surprising to you because you despise Clinton so much, but its fairly remarkable how relatively little it changed running someone as Trump compared to a normal Republican.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Nov 10, 2016 11:49:09 GMT
'Beneath' isn't the word I would use- but we still do. Rather than absolve ourselves of responsibility by delegating that responsibility onto other people, through the medium of the state. I used it deliberately because I think it's how they saw it. The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate....They saw this as the natural order and saw it as their role to preserve it and part of that was a paternalistic concern for those they viewed as beneath them. My grandparents were in service - a farm labourer and a seamstress. Deferential Tories of course - and they were poor. But the people they worked for did have that sort of sense of responsibility. I think that the state is an expression of the collective good. Or at least can be though it often falls short. And I prefer that to paternalism and its off the scale in comparison to free market barbarism. You don't but that's where our politics are as different as they could be. Of course, you've changed tribe from your grandparents now- you sit in your palatial mansion, looking down at the poor people of Bootle.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2016 12:00:39 GMT
I used it deliberately because I think it's how they saw it. The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate....They saw this as the natural order and saw it as their role to preserve it and part of that was a paternalistic concern for those they viewed as beneath them. My grandparents were in service - a farm labourer and a seamstress. Deferential Tories of course - and they were poor. But the people they worked for did have that sort of sense of responsibility. I think that the state is an expression of the collective good. Or at least can be though it often falls short. And I prefer that to paternalism and its off the scale in comparison to free market barbarism. You don't but that's where our politics are as different as they could be. Of course, you've changed tribe from your grandparents now- you sit in your palatial mansion, looking down at the poor people of Bootle. If there's one thing I really can't bear its people who pretend to be 'prolier-than-thou' - or for that matter the rather rose tinted view of the working class that only someone born outside it can have!
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Nov 10, 2016 12:13:36 GMT
I think it's far more about the decline in basic unskilled work which simply isn't there. A solution might be to tax energy instead of human labour.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 10, 2016 12:16:51 GMT
Both Nigel Farage and Sarah Palin are being seriously mooted as possible members of the next United States administration. I guess anyone writing that sentence a few months ago would have looked around for the men in white coats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 12:25:07 GMT
Both Nigel Farage and Sarah Palin are being seriously mooted as possible members of the next United States administration. I guess anyone writing that sentence a few months ago would have looked around for the men in white coats. By whom?
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 10, 2016 12:39:39 GMT
Both Nigel Farage and Sarah Palin are being seriously mooted as possible members of the next United States administration. I guess anyone writing that sentence a few months ago would have looked around for the men in white coats. By whom? The BBC (and Farage himself, although that's probably just his ego talking).
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 37,479
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 10, 2016 12:39:56 GMT
My reading of the various data was that the "Democratic" vote just stayed at home. Or the swing vote couldn't be arsed to troop down to the polling centres. It was equally important that the educated suburban GOP vote stayed with Trump despite their contempt for him. The Clinton campaign was banking on that a lot of white upper middle class Republicans (especially women) would defect, and the polls confirmed this - and that this would off-set the drop in blue collar whites or slightly depressed turnout among Blacks. There was a substantial "shy Trump vote" in the suburbs. Clinton only got 1% more female votes than Obama and that was a big surprise. There are also some Democratic groups in important states that simply went for Trump. Their vote among Mid-Western farmers and other rurals collapsed. And Trump got 45% of union members, which is very high for a known union buster. Strict voter ID-laws, cutting the early voting period etc. also mattered in especially Wisconsin. A state Clinton would have won otherwise (ie. with a Democratic governor). Polarization and party loyalty stayed high in an election where one of the candidates was a known conman and sociopath. That may not be surprising to you because you despise Clinton so much, but its fairly remarkable how relatively little it changed running someone as Trump compared to a normal Republican. I do wonder if the infamous Comey intervention was particularly significant with the group that you mention. It provided them with the excuse (or, if you prefer, "validation") to not vote for Hillary but instead stick with a GOP standard bearer that many of them disliked.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2016 12:51:40 GMT
Though the negativity rate for both of them was very high.....I couldn't have voted for either
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 12:53:45 GMT
I do wonder if the infamous Comey intervention was particularly significant with the group that you mention. It provided them with the excuse (or, if you prefer, "validation") to not vote for Hillary but instead stick with a GOP standard bearer that many of them disliked. In the end, it seems, the crook was too much to bear and they chose the 'fascist'. Trump is both a crook and a fascist - mostly the first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 13:16:23 GMT
Trump is both a crook and a fascist - mostly the first. Yes perhaps, but it's public perception that matters. I think The Bishop makes a good point about Clinton being put back under investigation by the FBI perhaps being the straw that broke the camel's back. Julian Assange and Wikileaks played their part too. Apart from a core of "true believers" Trump voters seems generally to be rather cynical about Trump and his moral habitus. They just hope he will "drain the swamp" in Washington. I think its more likely that the shy Trump vote existed all along. It was simply not socially acceptable to say you voted for Trump in some circles and people internalized it to a degree where they wouldn't even say it to a pollster. I doubt there was a significant shift in it during the campaign, but such things are nearly impossible to measure, so we will never know.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 37,479
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 10, 2016 13:19:46 GMT
Though of course we shouldn't forget that Clinton has still "won" the US-wide popular vote - meaning the *national* polls weren't that far out overall.
Certain states are of course a different matter......
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Nov 10, 2016 13:52:03 GMT
Though of course we shouldn't forget that Clinton has still "won" the US-wide popular vote More seemed to be made of the EC/PV split in 2000 than now, possibly because 2000 was the first time it had happened since the 19th century.
|
|