My family's protest vote - about what?

[Mom2Monkeys]

I can't talk to my family about this, as I was the only person who voted remain amongst them. So sorry, I'm letting off steam here.

I am really fed up of my family going on about how they voted Leave as a protest vote and using words like 'exploitation', 'lies', 'struggling', etc, to justify it. My Dad said angrily the other day that 'as a white middle-aged, middle class man he is last in the queue for everything'. It made me fume inside. He means opportunities in life.

He actually believes it. He worked really hard through the years, but my Dad, and the rest of the family, have done pretty well for themselves, when compared with lots of people who ARE actually struggling.
He could have gone to university if he'd wanted (his sister went). He had one stable middle-management job his whole life, with a lucrative pension (cash payout and generous monthly payments), which enabled him to retire in his late forties. He then bought a flat (cash) to rent out as extra income. He also paid off the mortgage on his house completely years ago. He is careful with money and always been a saver, so does OK.

My husband and I, on the other hand, have no personal pension (SAHM and moved around in jobs) and who knows what the state pension will be like when we retire. House prices are now astronomical. Yet, my mother talks to me as if we are really well off and in a better situation than they are (we do OK, but not well off). They don't seem to realise that their retirements are probably way more comfortable than we could ever hope for.

When my family talk about being 'expoited', they are not talking about other people - they believe it about themselves. My aunt, retired in her big country house - talks as if she is the 'under-class', looking up at people better off than her.

Why don't they realise they ARE the ones who've had it good!?!

I listened to A LOT of debate about the referendum before it took place, and I did not hear anyone talking about the fact that it would be advisory. The 'it was advisory' argument came about after the result, and that's why it's not seen as a credible argument in the eyes of Leavers. It just sounds like we are now moving the goal posts.

I hate the result. But they should have shouted about it being advisory before the vote. I agree that we are stuck with the decision, unless a different argument arises, that will be accepted by Leavers. Probably, if their pockets are severely hit as a consequence of Brexit then the tide will change. But who wants that?!

But there does seem types - there were disparities in area, age and education, etc.

I'm not getting why its such a problem to admit this?

"There were so many different elements to both sides of the vote:
rich, comfortable people voted both ways; poor, disenfranchised people voted both ways;
minority groups voted both ways;
guardian readers voted both ways;
daily mail readers voted both ways;
middle income people voted both ways;
degree educated people voted both ways; people with only high school education voted both ways;
Etc etc etc"

This is such a simple point but it is so true and so often ignored. I completely agree with those saying that we need to be able to discuss these issues. I think it is important to understand who voted how

1. to see that stereotyping either type of voter is cobblers and
2. to try to understand what people's concerns are but
3. not to sort of write people's votes of, as many seem to do in a kind of "well, leave only won because all the less educated/poorer/unemployed/choose your demographic voted for it". Some people (generally, not on this thread) almost seem to be trying to use analysis of voting demographics to diminish people's democratic rights. So what if a result is partly due to white/working class/unemployed etc etc? We all have one vote and all voted are equal. Rant over.

Well two people I know to voted leave because 'the EU are trying to abolish the queen' it's literally so stupid I don't even know where to begin to start arguing with them

What can you do?

On the other hand people tried to persuade me to vote remain because they didn't want Boris Johnson as prime minister. What can you do?

Birdy - I agree there were disparities and trends when you look at who voted what. But it's not the full picture. There are also significant chunks of voters who do not fit into those trends. What I have a problem with, are voters who are now acting as if they belong to that group of 'disadvantaged', 'struggling', 'left behind', 'not benefitted from the status quo' group, who quite clearly have done very well for themselves.

tiggytape I am grateful to AC Grayling, in part, for answers to a) & b):

a) this was a Referendum, and not a General Election. In a General Election the Government goes to the Country regularly, so if people don't like what they are doing they can vote them out. It's difficult with FPTP but witness Blair's 97 landslide.

b) You have introduced a point which I haven't mentioned. I was thinking of a friend who had to chase up a proxy vote for her son, who was able to prove that she had applied in time via the paper trail. Ditto, voters in France whose papers arrived too late. EU citizens not offered the franchise - it was not a GE so no reason why GE rules should have pertained.(After all Gibraltar isn't represented in Parliament and doesn't go to the Country when we do.) UK citizens abroad for more than 15 years had been told in the Conservative manifesto that they would get a vote but the legislation was not brought in in time, so they are right to feel aggrieved.

c) The Tory party manifesto also promised to support the single market. This has been conveniently forgotten. Or did they rank their pledges in order - this one is cast iron, this one comes in the 'nice to have category'? I don't think there is any argument that it's Parliament's duty to promote the well-being of the Country. If they believe it's the case, they why aren't they telling us what the advantages are? So far we have seen largely empty talk. Theresa May went to India - it was not exactly a howling success - the Indians will want more visas as a quid pro quo. If Parliament examine the issues and see that it is a potential disaster they have a duty to say so. To say 'the people have spoken' is the biggest cop out going, and worthy only of Dictators. In practice, the Tories are frightened of a split and they are all frightened of UKIP.

I tend to agree with you on d). Leaving or Remaining in the EU is a complex question which can't be reduced to yes/no. Ages ago Wales had a referendum on whether counties should be wet or dry on Sundays. Simple question with a simple implementation.

e) I can only agree. The behaviour of the official opposition has been a disgrace.

and it also goes the other way....Remainers who have struggled with opportunities in life.

It's a characteristic feature of the authoritarian mindset to see diversity of opinions as a negative, and to want to try to shut down and silence discussion and dissent. The "we won, now shut up" argument reeks of this.

I agree with the 'advisory' bit being highlighted after the fact, and it does seem to me like a moving of the goalposts. Then again, what's new?

MPs that said they would automatically abide by an advisory referendum without a thorough examination of the future implications of such a decision, are negating their responsibilities to act in the best interests of this nation. A thorough debate in parliament is required - as the court case has backed up. It is a shambolic situation that we find ourselves in and this is down to the MPs and their rush to push through the referendum without proper consideration of its legal status and the importance of imparting that information clearly to the electorate. We don't tend to use referenda in this country - and this lack of experience in such matters is disturbingly evident.

As for the Tory pledge to reduce immigration - we have always had control over non-EU immigration but have chosen not to exercise sufficient control over that.

It's a characteristic feature of the authoritarian mindset to see diversity of opinions as a negative, and to want to try to shut down and silence discussion and dissent. The "we won, now shut up" argument reeks of this.

Absolutely, and its so odd to see it on a discussion website. Is it a lack of intellectual curiosity?

Q.Who were the main instigators of the Russian Revolution?

A. Fgs, the Communists won. Get over it.

Q. How did Nazis rise to power?
A. Does it matter? They just did, alright. Move on.

Q. Who were new Labour supporters/Thatcher?
A. Oh they had exactly equal amount of support from everyone apparently.

Wrong trouser there was a credible chance that Boris could have become PM. Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it was unlikely.

The EU and the queen stuff however is far far outside the realms of possibility.

This reminds me why there's no point arguing with brexiters or using logic. Must step away from the thread.....

It's a characteristic feature of the authoritarian mindset to see diversity of opinions as a negative, and to want to try to shut down and silence discussion and dissent.

Agree.

This reminds me why there's no point arguing with brexiters or using logic.

Lol at the irony of that post hot on the heels of the previous statement.

There are trends, and I agree it's useful to discuss them. But they can be mis-stated and false conclusions drawn, whether deliberately or not. For example with university education, the correlation explains a certain amount of the vote. But not that much, 43% of graduates voted leave according to Ashcroft (I know, polls, scmolls, but anyway). So one problem is that people are doing poor statistics and talking as if almost everyone with a degree voted remain, when actually the 57%/43% difference, whilst substantial, is not enough for you to guess how any given graduate voted.

The second conclusion some people are drawing is that it is the education itself which leads more graduates to vote remain (they answered the question correctly). But correlation does not equal causation. There are lots of other difference between graduates and none graduates than intelligence and education outcomes - social class, experience of deprivation, type of employment, just experience of a university environment. These factors might explain the, not huge, differences in voting.

So it's useful to discuss and understand but people need to get passed the almost cartoonish representations of voting patterns that some have presented.

Also, when people don't get what they want, it seems to me that they protest with every shred of excuses they can find- usually incorporating statistics, quoting well versed ideology, and reverting to vitriol (however veiled) against anyone they CONSIDER a supposed opposite.

Seen this on both sides btw

Greengager Do you really think it would have been sensible to have treated your EU referendum vote as some kind of proxy Tory leadership contest ballot? I don't.

This reminds me why there's no point arguing with brexiters or using logic. Must step away from the thread.....

Yes, perhaps best to. Everyone else on this thread seems to be managing to discuss the issues, although clearly with very strong feelings in some cases, without resorting to personal insults. If that is beyond you well..

wrongtrouser thank you for answering my question.

I respect each sides arguments, feel no need to insult... Just commenting on some of the reactions I've seen/heard (not just on this thread).... But yes, think it best to leave this alone now....

Roughly 50% of people have wanted to leave for decades! This isn't some new feeling stirred up by an NHS bus and BoJo's promises.

On what do you base that opinion? In the 75 election, on which I worked as a poll clerk, the vote to stay in had a very clear majority.

The statement put on the bus wasn't an accident. The Leave campaign knew that the NHS was a cause dear to the public's heart. The official Leave campaign reneged on this 'promise' within 24 hours, and Farage was no better and said that his group never made the claim. So you could just as easily argue that 50% value the NHS and saw this as a way of supporting it. The fact that the EU doesn't interfere in how individual member states run their health services is just a detail which is overlooked. It would have been interesting to see how a Referendum on a question such as 'would you pay xx more Income tax to fund the NHS' would have gone. The way Parliament would have botched that would have been 'Do you want to pay more for the NHS yes/no, and then set to to wrangle whether this meant just a penny more on income tax or a stocking 20%.

In the last 40 years I can hardly ever remember hearing any discussion of the EU, or immigration for that matter, although the local general store, run by a Pakistani family suffered racist abuse. I do think the vote largely came about because Cameron hadn't the guts to face down the extreme right we. He has paid with his political career, even though he is still doing nicely financially.

I also think Parliament showed a dereliction of duty as a whole. What would have happened if one side or the other had won by one vote? Perfectly possible. Would that have been taken as a mandate for a course of action? Did no one have the gumption to ask a question like this?

We were always told that racists were poor and disadvantaged. This brought me comfort as I thought they wouldn't be able to cause much damage.
Seethegood - if enough 'poor and disadvantaged' get angry enough you will see they can cause plenty of damage. Cf. various revolutions over the centuries.

I think it is more than right that we discuss the way in which OP has highlighted a generational divide which is affecting a lot of families. Our experience may well be actually highlighting some of the issues, when we are finding ourselves meeting emotional hostility and a wall of rhetoric that originated in the right wing press, along with a lot of misapprehensions and even absolute untruths when we try to discuss an issue with our own Mothers and Fathers?

stocking = stonking.