Jacob Rees-Mogg and the 48%...

Poor people are too stupid to leave a burning building. (Doesn't matter that they were told to stay put by authority/the experts).
52% of voters are too stupid to know what is good for them.
The arrogance and contempt for less-fortunate-others is an eye-opener. It makes me wonder whether this is just the case for England, or if every human population harbors the same % of misguided self-regard.
JRM is a leaver, but what I see is the same arrogant mindset as major media and the "elite" in general. (Elite is in their own eyes, and their wallets - only).
Does anyone else see wisdom of a different (and VALUABLE) kind in regular people (defined as not politician or self-designated elite).

Comments

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    If it helps, as a Remainer I'm happy to acknowledge that many of the 48% don't know what they're talking about, and are only correct by coincidence ...

    What percentage of the population, in 2015, could actually tell you how the WTO is for and how it works? 4%? 1%? Why should people know that sort of thing?
  • MoyessaMoyessa Shipmate
    Most people don't need to know how the WTO works, and in 2019 I would wager the majority still don't know. That is not what it takes for democracy to work. But it does require vote-losers to do the honorable thing and accept the expressed will of the majority of their fellow citizens.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Moyessa wrote: »
    Most people don't need to know how the WTO works, and in 2019 I would wager the majority still don't know. That is not what it takes for democracy to work. But it does require vote-losers to do the honorable thing and accept the expressed will of the majority of their fellow citizens.

    But I didn't think the question in the OP was 'Should the referendum result be honoured?' I thought the question was 'Is it arrogant to assume that people don't know what they're talking about?'

    Being in cynical mode, I think it's not arrogant, but accurate - however that's not because people are stupid as such, but because an informed decision on the EU, or on fire safety, requires specialist knowledge that most people don't have a reason to obtain.
  • Moyessa wrote: »
    Most people don't need to know how the WTO works, and in 2019 I would wager the majority still don't know. That is not what it takes for democracy to work. But it does require vote-losers to do the honorable thing and accept the expressed will of the majority of their fellow citizens.

    It's the lack of logic here that's the problem.

    If there are key issues that the majority are voting on but do not have detailed knowledge of, then the key to democracy working is the honesty and integrity of those campaigning.

    For example, in the last 3 years, it has become common place for advocates to talk about how WTO rules will make the No Deal option work. Unfortunately everything they have stated about the WTO is untrue.

    Yet, in this election, a proportion of the electorate will vote Conservative or Brexit party on the basis of these myths.

    That is what's killing our democracy.

    The notion that the referendum hasn't been respected is so ludicrous. What the hell have we been doing for the past 3 years????

    AFZ
  • Moyessa wrote: »
    JRM is a leaver, but what I see is the same arrogant mindset as major media and the "elite" in general.
    Nobody has the monopoly on arrogance. There are different kinds, though.

    JRM's arrogance is to assume he knows better than what research carried out by qualified experts demonstrates, and to look down on everybody else in ignorance and/or defiance of the facts.

    Remainers may have their faults, but on the whole, I don't think ignorance and/or defiance of the facts is one of them.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Moyessa wrote: »
    JRM is a leaver, but what I see is the same arrogant mindset as major media and the "elite" in general.
    Nobody has the monopoly on arrogance. There are different kinds, though.

    JRM's arrogance is to assume he knows better than what research carried out by qualified experts demonstrates, and to look down on everybody else in ignorance and/or defiance of the facts.

    Remainers may have their faults, but on the whole, I don't think ignorance and/or defiance of the facts is one of them.

    I'm fairly sure it is deeper, and more stupid than that.

    This is a situation where a complicated issue has been reduced to a soundbite. Namely that advice in a tower block fire was wrong.

    But the soundbite ignores the complexities, the reality that this kind of fire in these circumstances is incredibly unusual and even that the investigation as to who did what and who is responsible for it is still ongoing.

    Part of JRM's privilege is to hear a soundbite with the benefit of hindsight and to a) assume that he would have known better at the time without the need to actually read the paperwork and then when challenged to b) suggest that "everyone" now knew that ignoring the fire authorities was the correct thing to do in a tower block fire.

    Which I think is subtly different to your characterisation. Eton appears to mostly be an education in confidence and in believing your own words because you said them. It isn't just that JRM believes himself to have a superior intellect and that he has surrounded himself with people who tell him it is true.

    This is a person who has been trained to believe in himself, who knows the power of assertion in a certain tone of voice and who believes everything be else will eventually accept whatever he says as the truth.

    There is an incredible risk that he may be right.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Shipmate
    Also seen in Johnson's speech yesterday. It doesn't matter how many lies he spouts (30 new hospitals, that parliament rejected the Brexit deal, that he didn't want a General Election) the point is not about *what* he says but that he is confident in saying it.

    People who reach the highest echelons of government seem to have a tangential relation to reality at the best of times, but mix in the background of an Eton education and life of privilege and you get someone who only sees the benefits of self-confidence and any challenge is brushed of with mumbling, bullshit and bluster.
  • The term "the will of the people" only appears to be used by those who want the UK to leave the EU, so it makes me wonder if "the people" have any other discernible will on any other subject, and more particularly, whether such views on other issues should be taken into account.

    It is a problem with referendums, especially binding ones and those taken as binding, in that they impact every other aspect of government policy and administration. Sometimes progress on one issue affects another in unanticipated ways such that those who, say, voted Leave, find unacceptable. The Government has to be responsible and accountable for everything and if they have to concentrate on a single topic to satisfy "the will of the people" on this, then everything else will suffer from lack of attention.
  • And, of course the problem with the 2016 vote is that it falls so far short of the bar for a meaningful referendum that there's no reason to respect it at all. If you're willing to respect that vote you might as well respect a financial advisor who knows a Nigerian prince with a lot of money to move from the country.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I think stupidity / lack of knowledge is a separate issue from legitimacy.

    It was stupid to vote for Trump, but he was legitimately elected.

    It was not necessarily stupid to vote for Catalan independence, but that referendum was not legitimate.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    The OP seems to attempt to draw a false equivalence between JRM saying people should ignore the advice of experts, and Remainers saying that people should take into account that nearly all the experts in the economic field say that leaving the EU is a really bad idea.

    In fact, JRM is mining from the same anti-expert, anti-intellectualist seam that the pro-leave organisations did before the referendum.
  • The will of the people is a right wing con-trick, enabling them to avoid talking about what kind of Brexit they want, what kind was specified in 2016, and how we've ended up with a hard Brexit. Did we vote for that?
  • In 2016, we didn't vote for anything. We expressed our opinions on the general concept of UK membership of the EU. When we were given the option of voting on EU membership (and other policies) the party then advocating leaving the EU couldn't manage a majority in Parliament, even with the rigged system we have, and needed to get the support of some bigoted religious fundamentalist terrorists to even have a nominal government.
  • MoyessaMoyessa Shipmate
    Ricardus
    ...I thought the question was 'Is it arrogant to assume that people don't know what they're talking about?' Being in cynical mode, I think it's not arrogant, but accurate - however that's not because people are stupid as such, but because an informed decision on the EU, or on fire safety, requires specialist knowledge that most people don't have a reason to obtain.

    In that case, the most ignorant people are those at the top of "the elite" who decided to put staying/leaving EU in the hands of the people as expressed by vote.
  • MoyessaMoyessa Shipmate
    edited November 7
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Moyessa wrote: »
    JRM is a leaver, but what I see is the same arrogant mindset as major media and the "elite" in general.
    Nobody has the monopoly on arrogance. There are different kinds, though.

    JRM's arrogance is to assume he knows better than what research carried out by qualified experts demonstrates, and to look down on everybody else in ignorance and/or defiance of the facts.

    Remainers may have their faults, but on the whole, I don't think ignorance and/or defiance of the facts is one of them.


    Truly an amazing thing to say, and supports my contention that stupidity and wisdom are equally distributed throughout the populace (with perhaps more wisdom given to the people who don't assume their own superiority)
  • Moyessa wrote: »
    Ricardus
    ...I thought the question was 'Is it arrogant to assume that people don't know what they're talking about?' Being in cynical mode, I think it's not arrogant, but accurate - however that's not because people are stupid as such, but because an informed decision on the EU, or on fire safety, requires specialist knowledge that most people don't have a reason to obtain.

    In that case, the most ignorant people are those at the top of "the elite" who decided to put staying/leaving EU in the hands of the people as expressed by vote.

    So David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Gove...

    Yep, sounds about right.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    In 2016, we didn't vote for anything. We expressed our opinions on the general concept of UK membership of the EU.

    Totally agree - a majority of those who bothered to vote said that they did not want to remain part of the EU. Where we disagree, I think, is that I'd say that they did not care all that much, if at all, about the manner of leaving, they just wanted to get out.
  • Respecting that opinion didn't need to launch us on the route out of the EU without so much as a sketch of a plan. It could (possibly should) have been for the different parties to get individually and collectively determine at least one viable option for leaving the EU (individually because it's good for each party to define their own position before talking to the other parties, collectively because those who advocated leaving were distributed across several parties and it isn't something either Labour or Conservative could unilaterally act on as both would have significant numbers of "rebels" who would struggle with leaving the EU). That process should have involved the public as well, ideally IMO including the parties putting forth their proposals in their manifesto for the next GE (which at the time would have been 2020) but also consultation with trade, business, science, medical bodies etc.

    Launching the country into years of chaos and acrimony disrespects the people who voted for people to represent them and govern.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    In 2016, we didn't vote for anything. We expressed our opinions on the general concept of UK membership of the EU.

    Totally agree - a majority of those who bothered to vote said that they did not want to remain part of the EU. Where we disagree, I think, is that I'd say that they did not care all that much, if at all, about the manner of leaving, they just wanted to get out.

    If I say that I "want to leave", it might mean that I want to leave my wife or my house or my job. It might mean all or any combination of those things.

    It is a lie to say that all those voting in 2016 meant the most extreme version. It is a lie that Faragé even meant that, given that he specifically said at the time that he didn't.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Moyessa wrote: »
    Ricardus
    ...I thought the question was 'Is it arrogant to assume that people don't know what they're talking about?' Being in cynical mode, I think it's not arrogant, but accurate - however that's not because people are stupid as such, but because an informed decision on the EU, or on fire safety, requires specialist knowledge that most people don't have a reason to obtain.

    In that case, the most ignorant people are those at the top of "the elite" who decided to put staying/leaving EU in the hands of the people as expressed by vote.

    Well, I do think Mr Cameron was an idiot, but I also think that having agreed to the referendum*, MPs should implement the result unless there is a compelling reason not to.

    However I think it is fallacious to talk as though the referendum gave a mandate for or against any particular kind of Brexit, e.g. customs union, WTO, etc. Firstly it is second-guessing the reasons why people voted, and secondly, even if individual constituents do tell their MPs that they want a customs union, WTO, etc, it's not clear they really know what those things imply.


    * I'd give the SNP a pass here since IIRC they didn't agree to it.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Moyessa wrote: »
    Most people don't need to know how the WTO works, and in 2019 I would wager the majority still don't know. That is not what it takes for democracy to work. But it does require vote-losers to do the honorable thing and accept the expressed will of the majority of their fellow citizens.

    But it wasn't the expressed will of the majority of their fellow citizens.
    It was 37% of the electorate that voted leave. Thats all. 37%.
    I have no idea what proportion of the citizens that is ..... less than 30% at a guess. Certainly not the majority.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    In 2016, we didn't vote for anything. We expressed our opinions on the general concept of UK membership of the EU.

    Totally agree - a majority of those who bothered to vote said that they did not want to remain part of the EU. Where we disagree, I think, is that I'd say that they did not care all that much, if at all, about the manner of leaving, they just wanted to get out.

    If I say that I "want to leave", it might mean that I want to leave my wife or my house or my job. It might mean all or any combination of those things.

    It is a lie to say that all those voting in 2016 meant the most extreme version. It is a lie that Faragé even meant that, given that he specifically said at the time that he didn't.

    I did think it pretty obvious that I was referring to the UK's leaving the EU.
  • Giving Faragé an accent makes me think of the egg chap. Are they related?
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited November 8
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Moyessa wrote: »
    Ricardus
    ...I thought the question was 'Is it arrogant to assume that people don't know what they're talking about?' Being in cynical mode, I think it's not arrogant, but accurate - however that's not because people are stupid as such, but because an informed decision on the EU, or on fire safety, requires specialist knowledge that most people don't have a reason to obtain.

    In that case, the most ignorant people are those at the top of "the elite" who decided to put staying/leaving EU in the hands of the people as expressed by vote.

    Well, I do think Mr Cameron was an idiot, but I also think that having agreed to the referendum*, MPs should implement the result unless there is a compelling reason not to.

    On current evidence so is Johnson - he attempts his familiar tactic of blustering and throwing in a McGuffin to serve as misdirection ("Crisps!"). He also appears rather well lubricated -- I'll leave the media treatment of this vs that of any other politician to the reader.

    Note; he got a worse deal than May, purely by talking to the EU.
  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    Moyessa wrote: »
    Poor people are too stupid to leave a burning building. (Doesn't matter that they were told to stay put by authority/the experts).
    52% of voters are too stupid to know what is good for them.
    The arrogance and contempt for less-fortunate-others is an eye-opener.

    I don't think that's a meaningful comparison at all.

    JRM may or may not have contempt for ordinary people, but that is not remotely the same thing as having contempt for Leavers (or Remainers).

    Because, obviously, if most of the 52% of Leave votes cast were from ordinary people, then so were most of the 48% of Remain votes cast. In addition, both factions have spokespeople amongst the privileged. And, demonstrably, both factions contain many who are prepared to be rude about the other as a class. Neither side represents ordinary people against some mythical, unified elite.

    If you have strong opinions on Brexit either way, you must necessarily think that about half the electorate to record an opinion chose the less good option. Thinking that about half the active electorate is wrong, does not imply that you must hold that half in contempt, and even if you do, that does not imply that you hold ordinary people generally in contempt.

    The attempt to portray the debate as salt-of-the-Earth British citizens using their native common sense to reject the self-interested schemes of a condescending political class is basically bullshit.

  • Boris got a worse deal because he has less credibility than May. The EU negotiators had seen his performance as Foreign Secretary and he was well and truly rumbled before he became PM. At least May took the job seriously. Boris doesn't take anything seriously: everything is a huge game.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Moyessa wrote: »
    Ricardus
    ...I thought the question was 'Is it arrogant to assume that people don't know what they're talking about?' Being in cynical mode, I think it's not arrogant, but accurate - however that's not because people are stupid as such, but because an informed decision on the EU, or on fire safety, requires specialist knowledge that most people don't have a reason to obtain.

    In that case, the most ignorant people are those at the top of "the elite" who decided to put staying/leaving EU in the hands of the people as expressed by vote.

    Well, I do think Mr Cameron was an idiot, but I also think that having agreed to the referendum*, MPs should implement the result unless there is a compelling reason not to.

    On current evidence so is Johnson - he attempts his familiar tactic of blustering and throwing in a McGuffin to serve as misdirection ("Crisps!"). He also appears rather well lubricated -- I'll leave the media treatment of this vs that of any other politician to the reader.

    Note; he got a worse deal than May, purely by talking to the EU.

    He really is a mendacious sociopath, isn't he!

    And while I completely understand that alcoholism is a terrible sickness and painful for all concerned, I will still cackle like a demon on Walpurgisnacht if he has a Yeltsin-style meltdown on the campaign trail ...
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited November 8
    Yes, his manner of speech often does give the impression of his being under the influence. Has anyone picked up any rumours of this from any different source than that general impression?

    After all, Tr**p sounds pretty incoherent virtually every time he opens his mouth. He's famous for it. Yet apparently he's a total abstainer.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate

    On current evidence so is Johnson - he attempts his familiar tactic of blustering and throwing in a McGuffin to serve as misdirection ("Crisps!"). He also appears rather well lubricated -- I'll leave the media treatment of this vs that of any other politician to the reader.

    I think it would be more appropriate to say that he throws in a red herring, rather than a McGuffin.

    A McGuffin isn't a distraction from the main narrative, it is central to the main narrative. The distinguishing thing about a McGuffin is that the actual details of its nature are not important.

    For example, audiences watching The French Connection were thrilled to be following along as the cops bust up a group of heroin smugglers. But the fact that it was heroin, rather than cocaine, marijuana, counterfeit money, or some other contraband material, was not important. What was important was that the smuggling gave rise to a lot of cool chase scenes.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    Yes, his manner of speech often does give the impression of his being under the influence. Has anyone picked up any rumours of this from any different source than that general impression?

    After all, Tr**p sounds pretty incoherent virtually every time he opens his mouth. He's famous for it. Yet apparently he's a total abstainer.

    Of alcohol, yes, but there have been persistent allegations about his use of cocaine and amphetamines, not to mention serious mental decline.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Boris and Jeremy appear to me to be a couple of prize idiots, but Lenin would describe only one of them as being 'useful'. The other definitely is not.
  • If there are key issues that the majority are voting on but do not have detailed knowledge of, then the key to democracy working is the honesty and integrity of those campaigning.

    This ignores the question of whether the "key issue" is something that we should be voting on at all. There are any number of issues that I know are important, and I also know I don't have the competence to think about properly.

    I could acquire the competence, but there are so many issues in so many different fields that there simply isn't enough time for me to acquire adequate competence in all of them.
Sign In or Register to comment.