Who else sees the parallels between "nasty right wing GC" slurs and "nasty right wing Brexiter" slurs?

[ConsiderTheLobster]

If you're GC, you know that a vocal majority within certain liberal left circles will denounce you as a right wing bigot. You know that you're actually GC because you've looked into this deeply and are trying to protect vulnerable people (women, non-conforming children, and trans people).

If you voted Brexit, you know that a vocal majority within certain liberal left circles will denounce you as a right wing bigot. You know that you're sceptical of the EU because it constitutes a corporate-favouring trading block, poses barriers to nationalisation of services such as railways, has deeply racist immigration policies (permitting free movement of predominantly white Europeans whilst restricting the movement of others), keeps people in many non-EU (e.g., African) countries locked into unfavourable trade deals, and reduces the influence of genuine democracy.

If you're GC and you work at a university, in the NHS or in left-leaning media, you're scared to say so. If you voted Brexit and you work at a university, in the NHS or in left-leaning media, you're scared to say so.

There are of course some genuine bigots who oppose self ID because they're transphobic. And there are genuine bigots who voted Brexit because they are racist. In each case, these are the narratives peddled by certain media about, respectively, all GCs, and all Brexit-supporters.

So - how many of us GCs still berate the nasty fascist Brexiters?

Op, what on earth does this mean;

"What about the people who feel really emotionally attached to their cosmopolitan identities and skiing holidays, all with nice short airport queues."

Do you really think our economy is so strong that the masses of people who voted Remain live that lifestyle . Utter nonsense. Have you been to central Liverpool or Manchester recently?

Totally undermine your point by such ridiculous drivel

@FifteenToes

But Tristram Hunt is neither firebrand nor leftist. (I don't know about your other guy).

The other feller, Gareth Snell, acted as Hunt's right-hand man in the office, and took over the seat when Hunt resigned/decided not to stand. It was all quite cosy.

I'm really doubtful that a firebrand would be less middle-class; in fact 40 years' of experience (or possibly prejudice) leads me to expect them to be more so. Identifying as my own sex, as I do, it seems as though yet one more reason to ignore/dislike me has been added to that British/White/etc. thing. Not so much 'left-behind' as 'shoved-away'.

And to think I was once selling Socialist Worker at the dock-gates. (Not in Stoke!).

Why did people voting for Brexit assume that: 1) the UK government would do what THEY wanted? They were taken in by the idea that they would really count. Actually - no, you don't count. As you may have found out by now. The Tory government rules for the advantage of the very, very few (pretty much their personal friends and family - they've even abandoned business and the City).
2) that the UK government would be ethical, sensible and competent? Yes, it would be possible for the UK government to bring in higher levels of environmental, animal welfare, human rights and employment protection. But in practice it intends to do the opposite and has already started to dismantle the rights that were protected by our EU membership. And they are highly politically motivated and incompetent. Do they want to cooperate with the EU fully over criminal investigations? Probably not. Do they want a successful trading relationship? Probably not. If they do, they're handling it with extreme incompetence and disregard for the interests of its own citizens. It treats politics as a game and a way to personal enrichment. We were protected against people like that when were were in the EU, to some extent.

Those of you who voted for Brexit took an enormous risk. And for what? Because it annoyed you that it wasn't possible to deport a few criminals? Well, you've fucked up our country, long-term, for that. Most of us would rather have a job, a functioning economy, a functioning public-funded health service, be able to buy the things we want at a reasonable price, have environmental, employment and human rights protections, etc etc. But fuck us I suppose.

And now you're trying to use the GC case to justify your Brexit vote. Well guess where you can put that Brexit vote.

The person who 'fucked up our' country was the prime minister who took a punt on a referendum because he couldn't handle his own party.

If you want someone to blame please at least point your finger at the person who deserves it, not at people - whichever side of the argument they're on - who were asked to make a momentous decision on the basis of piss poor information and who, for the most part, did the best they could.

@DuaneAgain

I get why people voted remain but it's ridiculous how closed minded the popular belief that there can be absolutely no benefits of Brexit is.

Really? I admit - with no aggression here, just bewilderment - that I can't honestly see the point of it. Let alone a point strong enough to justify all the trouble it's involved and the hit the economy is going to take. It seems to me there were three main arguments for it: (1) reducing immigration, (2) saving money by not having to pay into the UK, and (3) objecting to the EU administration being unaccountable and undemocratic.

Of these I can understand (1) for the people who think that way, but it holds no value for me personally. The economic argument against immigration as a whole (about the strain on public services etc.) is simply wrong. It's true that the balance between immigration's benefits and demands is not spread equally across the country, and I would have like to see government action to address that, as Corbyn suggested. But as whole, immigration makes us all richer. The reason we're not richer is because we have a Tory government dedicated to maximising the share of the economy's spoils that goes to the ruling class.

(2) has been pretty thoroughly debunked by analyses that take into account what we get from EU membership (both directly, and indirectly in terms of trade etc.). But anyway I'll get back to you on it after we start seeing the extra £350m a week the NHS are going to gain from it, like they said on the bus.

(3) just makes me laugh as there's little in the developed world that I can see more undemocratic and unaccountable than the British electoral system and political culture. I'd love to see politics that reflects local community empowerment more, but I don't see the EU as the stumbling block I have to worry about in that. When the Tories stop decimating council funding every year, maybe I will.

What am I missing?

I guess there's a parallel in that both positions are sometimes described as right wing. But I don't think Brexit voters are fascists, I just think they're idiots.

For me the two positions are the absolute opposite - all the evidence points to the fact that there are two sexes and that gender is an instrument of the patriarchy. And all the evidence points to Brexit being a stupid idea that is damaging the UK and will go on doing so. The vote for Brexit was about feelings, not facts, and as such it has a lot more in common with trans ideology.

@Defaultname

OK, but there's a lot of assumption there. Your story was about Tristram Hunt who is no way representative of the left. I mean, he barely barely slithers in to the far right edge of the right hand column of the Labour right. You're assuming that someone from the left would be even worse, but there's no evidence for that.

Actually I think the sort of thing you're talking about has probably got more to do with the decency and commitment of the individual, rather than their place on the political spectrum.

But I have to say, for a thread that was about defending Brexiters and GC feminists from unfair attacks based on ignorant and bigoted stereotyping, there's been a lot of exactly that same stereotypying about Out-Of-Touch-Liberal-Metropolitan-Elite-Pronoun-Obsessed-Momentum-Do-Gooder-Middle-Class-Remaniac-Identity-Politics-TWAW-Lefties.

I think the main argument for Brexit was sovereignty - the idea that the UK is the highest legal and parliamentary authority.

At the moment government and people in Western Europe are broadly aligned on many issues e.g. environment and foreign policy. However, imagine a situation where this is no longer the case and it's possible to see why it would be more attractive.

The tension between independence and unity with others has always existed and always will, not just in relation to the EU, but also within the UK and in other countries such as the US.

The problem is that in practical terms, there is never a clear choice. The UK's technical 'sovereignty' doesn't mean much if we still have to abide by EU standards and laws, but have no influence.

@slitheringsnakes

That's the greatest mystery of all to me in all this - why anyone would trust the Tories to look after anyone but themselves. It just seems completely blind. The Conservative party exists and has always existed precisely for the interest of the ruling class. The opposed the formation of the NHS. They opposed the national minimum wage. They have always opposed trade unions and done everything they can to reduce their power. They sold off the country's social housing stock (although to be fair, Nu Labour didn't reverse that process), creating the housing crisis that we now apparently need Brexit to "fix".

I don't get it. I can only assume it's because they wear nice suits and went to Eton and tap into some deep seated British cultural conditioning to doff the cap to your betters.

@merrymouse

I think that's part of the point though. The idea was that conflicts between the interests of various European governments and peoples could be resolved (and would have to be resolved) within the structure of the EU, before getting to the point where those countries would go to war with each other.

I realise that process hasn't always worked terribly well.

"Well, you've fucked up our country, long-term, for that."

There are a lot of well thought out, intelligent comments on this thread from sensible adults, and then you have the above.

I realise that process hasn't always worked terribly well.

Actually I think it has worked very well, in comparison to where we were before.

I'm not saying that it's bad that countries have to work together, I'm just saying there isn't an alternative.

I can only assume it's because they wear nice suits and went to Eton and tap into some deep seated British cultural conditioning to doff the cap to your betters.

I think there is definitely an element of that, but the dream that the Tories sell is the idea that people can get ahead, have their own house, put some money aside for their children, go on a nice holiday etc. etc. Many Tory MPs did not go to Eton.

Successful Labour PMs have either represented the unions ('people like us fighting for our rights'), or more socially responsible capitalism.

Like it or not, Corbyn, who has never had a job outside politics and had a privileged upbringing, was not good at representing the Labour Party outside his constituency.

Aspiration. The Conservatives understand that we all want a better life for our children. 'Let our children grow tall' resonated with many working people. And yes of course they capitalise on it and exploit it - the follow up line 'and some taller than others' didn't get nearly as much scrutiny. But it puts Labour on the back foot and I don't think they've ever worked out how to deal with it, although Tony Blair tried.

To my mind people who are GC and anti-Brexit are basically people who are able to think critically - to sift facts from fiction, to separate emotions from reality. I see them as linked in this way. I find GC, pro Brexit people harder to understand. I don't think pro Brexit people are nasty, I just think they're deluded. Same with TWAW types.

Corbyn has the comfortable scruffiness of somebody who doesn't fear the consequences of slipping down the social scale, and that matters to people who know that luxury wouldn't be afforded to them.

@bellinisurge

Op, what on earth does this mean;

"What about the people who feel really emotionally attached to their cosmopolitan identities and skiing holidays, all with nice short airport queues."

Do you really think our economy is so strong that the masses of people who voted Remain live that lifestyle . Utter nonsense. Have you been to central Liverpool or Manchester recently?

Totally undermine your point by such ridiculous drivel

I was giving an example of one way in which emotive/attachment factors impacted some people's Remain votes. As an example of how it wasn't just people who voted Leave who were influenced by their own emotions. We all are. I was disagreeing with the strange notion that Remainers voted with their knowledge and logic while Leavers voted with their emotions. That's all.

@bellinisurge, I was responding, as should be clear in my post, to the statement "A lot of Brexiteers make their arguments based on feelz". I was saying that this is true of both "sides" (and is actually just a feature of human decision-making).

I was disagreeing with the strange notion that Remainers voted with their knowledge and logic while Leavers voted with their emotions. That's all.

I think it's more complicated than that.

Fundamentally until 2015 most people in the UK didn't care about the EU either way and found the topic boring. It wasn't an election issue. I would bet a large amount of money that even the day after the referendum most people in the UK couldn't explain the difference between the Single Market and the Customs Union, regardless of how they voted. However, the nature of the campaign drove people into tribal allegiances.

@merrymouse

Corbyn has the comfortable scruffiness of somebody who doesn't fear the consequences of slipping down the social scale, and that matters to people who know that luxury wouldn't be afforded to them.

And Johnson doesn't, right?

I agree, @merrymouse. It's incredibly complicated. Personally, I think there are huge, ongoing debates to be had, and very good (as well as less good) arguments both in favour of and against the EU (and being a member of it).
Personally, I think our discourse should reflect that.
One obstacle to this is the seemingly widespread notion that it's OK to dismiss Leave votes as stupid/immoral and Leave voters as small-minded bigots.

I've found this thread really interesting, and have learned a lot from many people's thoughtful posts about the EU/Brexit - thank you.
It's also been interesting to see in action exactly the point under discussion.

Johnson absolutely does have that scruffiness, but he was selling a different package - political relevance for the new Tory voters and optimism. Fairly or unfairly, Jeremy Corbyn has always given the impression that his happy place is chained to a railing and waving a banner. He is very good at being MP for Islington North, not very good as a party leader, and that showed.

I should probably point out I'm not actually an arch-Corbynite, in case I've come across as one. I agreed with most (not all) of his policies but don't actually come from the same place politically. But on the comments above...

So the working class complain that Blair sold out traditional Labour values and didn't do enough for them. And then when, through blood sweat and tears and interminable internal warfare, some people rise to a point in the Labour party from which they can actually reinstate those values and produce a program based on government investment in industry, redistribution, universal quality education, empowerment of local communities and all the things we're told people on the left actualy want . . .

"No, sorry. Can't vote for that, the messenger's not right."

"We need to do the logical thing and vote for the Tory who is all the same things but ten times worse instead."

News flash: The messenger will NEVER be right. You may think the problems with Corbyn's image are obvious and not just manufactured by the media, but ANY leader who actually threatens the economic privilege of the establishment will be gone over in forensic detail to find whatever weaknesses of image can be exploited, and then have those weaknesses ruthlessly pushed into public consciousness. The only time that won't happen is with a leader like Blair who the establishment know they're safe with. Oh but hang on: he didn't do enough for the working class...

As pp said above, "feelz".

There is no hope. I'm done with politics.

Parts of this thread remind of (I think) Janice Turner's tweet on 13th December 2019: 'We need a new electorate'.