Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Call me Al

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a long time. And that's sayings something.

When belligerent loyalists act like this they are a laughing stock, and yet...?

It is ridiculous. Absurd!
And yet he's so proud of his line of questioning he places it on his twitter feed.
So he knows those in his constituency want to see this nationalism and thinking from any politician they might vote for.
That's scary, and we should be concerned. They are on our doorstep, and they don't care for us pesky Irish on their doorstep..

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

I can understand the Tory middle classes of the well to do South East and South West of England voting Tory in a tribal sense of loyalty to their kind - well off and well educated for generations.

What I cannot understand is why working class earning below average wages, in poor neighbourhoods like Hartlepool would vote Tory.

There is no way the Tories will benefit them economically, socially, or in anyway. The Tories have cut taxes for the wealthy, cut social welfare for the poor, cut the public services which would not be a benefit for the poor.

The only explanation I can come up with is that these people do not like to consider themselves poor.

There is one obvious one : the Tories are pumping out an anti-immigration, anti-EU and xenophobic message. That would definitely play well with them.

Mr.Wemmick

murphaph wrote: »

I imagine 1930s Germany looked similar in many ways and I don't say that lightly. I think the ignorance and the "we were a great empire" stuff is really dangerous. It doesn't take much to push things too far.

It's a great pity we "have" to engage so much with the UK from the EU, from ancient Belgian fishing agreements to Northern Ireland to Gibratar to Cyprus. We can't just disengage and "let them get on with it". That would be my preferred option if at all possible-just have as little as possible to do with them while they sort themselves out over the next generation. They really have become much more trouble than they are worth.

Yes, have often thought of Germany in 1930s, very similar trend going on here.

I am waiting for the fear and once that establishes itself, I'm out of here.

I've already had rumblings of it last week when a tory voter argued with me on a forum about failure to vote tory will result in punishment: limited funds from central government with local people suffering.. that type of cap-in-hand thinking is alarming and certainly highlights the dangerous power the tories have.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I can understand the Tory middle classes of the well to do South East and South West of England voting Tory in a tribal sense of loyalty to their kind - well off and well educated for generations.

What I cannot understand is why working class earning below average wages, in poor neighbourhoods like Hartlepool would vote Tory.

There is no way the Tories will benefit them economically, socially, or in anyway. The Tories have cut taxes for the wealthy, cut social welfare for the poor, cut the public services which would not be a benefit for the poor.

The only explanation I can come up with is that these people do not like to consider themselves poor.

Nah. Same as Trump. Globalisation left them all behind - the working poor.

Theresa May call them the JAMs - just about managing.

This is a long time coming.. makes the political showman, the loud-mouth populist chancer and liar very attractive. They prefer someone with all their faults on show, ruffled hair, badly dressed, than that of the smoother city-type professional politician who does nothing for them (Blair, Starmer - centrist/ right-leaning idiots)

Interesting the papers have not mentioned how Corbyn did well in H'Pool when he was head of Labour. He was offering them something and Starmer was not. The optics are everything in politics.

schmoo2k

Strazdas wrote: »

There is one obvious one : the Tories are pumping out an anti-immigration, anti-EU and xenophobic message. That would definitely play well with them.

Nah its simpler - now that EU funds are no longer going to the areas that needed (NI, Scotland, N. England) - The Tories have already demonstrated that ALL development funds are going to areas that vote Tory.

Nody

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Interesting the papers have not mentioned how Corbyn did well in H'Pool when he was head of Labour. He was offering them something and Starmer was not. The optics are everything in politics.

Corbyn would have lost the seat during his leadership in 2019 except the Tories & Brexit party split the vote and Labour got the seat instead Even back in 2017 they only won by less than 6%. Go back to 2010 and it's the same story; UKIP & Cons were well beyond Labour in total vote but split it and Labour got the seat. It may have been a Labour strong hold in the past but the writing has been on the wall for quite a while that it was going to swing as soon as UKIP was out of the picture.

Mr.Wemmick

Nody wrote: »

Corbyn would have lost the seat during his leadership in 2019 except the Tories & Brexit party split the vote and Labour got the seat instead Even back in 2017 they only won by less than 6%. Go back to 2010 and it's the same story; UKIP & Cons were well beyond Labour in total vote but split it and Labour got the seat. It may have been a Labour strong hold in the past but the writing has been on the wall for quite a while that it was going to swing as soon as UKIP was out of the picture.

Agree. The terrible optics are still there though, with Starmer coasting along giving the impression he just has to wait his turn to be PM.

I don't have the figures, but I did read about the poor voter turn out in H'pool.

EDIT: 42.6% last Thursday as opposed 67.3% in 2019. Granted the numbers are always higher for a GE.

Enzokk

It's amazing to me, we are at a stage where Labour is being blamed for the past 10 years of Tory government austerity,

https://twitter.com/resophonick/status/1391288617449005058?s=20

Well done to the BBC journalist for not pointing out that these things these people are complaining about are due to the Conservative government and not their MP. Wouldn't want you doing your job and putting the record straight, especially when your employer's funding is at the mercy of those same politicians who gaslighted this misinformation to the public.

The elections weren't great for Labour, yet...

https://twitter.com/PME_Politics/status/1391125110678040576?s=20

Taking into account the bounce from the vaccines and the pandemic hiding the effects of Brexit, I understand where these results came from. I also think people have been overreacting to everything. On Friday we were told how bad this was for Labour and how much they are gonna need to change and quickly. So move Angela Rayner who was in charge of the election strategy and all of a sudden this is seen as a disaster. Cannot win at the moment really if you are Starmer. Good luck to those voters who think having Tory councillors and MP's will save you from the cuts that is coming to pay for the mismanagement of Covid from Johnson.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That MP asking about the flags is ludicrous. And I read there was some guy called Fred from Hartlepool calling LBC explaining that he switched to the Tories and he praised them for giving them nine food banks there when Labour gave them none.

Wonder if Fred was the same guy the bbc interviewed in Hartlepool last week who said he couldn't vote labour because there were no cells to lock people up while the younger guy next to him explained how he and his partner had decided to have their child born elsewhere as the hospital in Hartlepool had no doctors or theatres because of labour.

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Wonder if Fred was the same guy the bbc interviewed in Hartlepool last week who said he couldn't vote labour because there were no cells to lock people up while the younger guy next to him explained how he and his partner had decided to have their child born elsewhere as the hospital in Hartlepool had no doctors or theatres because of labour.

The Daily Mail and The Sun have a lot to answer for - lies believed by the ignorant and gullible. Labour responsible for all the bad things, but Tories for all the good things.

Now, getting onto more important things, they not only have Harry and Megan to worry about, but the Duke of Kent cosying up to the Putin inner circle of crooks.

Pandiculation

I can understand it to a point. They're lashing out at the status quo and voting for Monty Burns, because Burns isn't Joe Quimby and they don't care who's been in power or what the reality of the situation is.

When you look at the blue collar vote going for Trump, the Tories or Brexit it would seem it links to an inadequate response to the 2008 financial crash and a lashing out at the status quo and jumping to all sorts of wrong conclusions about the causes of their financial hardships.

The Tories, the GOP, Le Pen, and all sorts of others fully understand how to play these people and they will continue to do so and deliver something that's only going to make their situations a lot worse, but that's right wing populism - blame someone or something else, and deliver policies that are the complete opposite to what's needed to actually resolve the problem.

You're talking about a cohort within the electorate who frankly aren't that analytical, to be polite about it, and they just seem to find a target to direct their anger at and that's it.

Sam Russell

Pandiculation wrote: »

I can understand it to a point. They're lashing out at the status quo and voting for Monty Burns, because Burns isn't Joe Quimby and they don't care who's been in power or what the reality of the situation is.

When you look at the blue collar vote going for Trump, the Tories or Brexit it would seem it links to an inadequate response to the 2008 financial crash and a lashing out at the status quo and jumping to all sorts of wrong conclusions about the causes of their financial hardships.

The Tories, the GOP, Le Pen, and all sorts of others fully understand how to play these people and they will continue to do so and deliver something that's only going to make their situations a lot worse, but that's right wing populism - blame someone or something else, and deliver policies that are the complete opposite to what's needed to actually resolve the problem.

You're talking about a cohort within the electorate who frankly aren't that analytical, to be polite about it, and they just seem to find a target to direct their anger at and that's it.

I think the target finds them. They read it in the Daily Rag, and so it must be true - so that they then tell all their mates how bad things are all the fault of <.......> who is the current enemy of the Daily Rag.

Pandiculation

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the target finds them. They read it in the Daily Rag, and so it must be true - so that they then tell all their mates how bad things are all the fault of <.......> who is the current enemy of the Daily Rag.

Labour needs to find a Mo Mowlam like leader tbh. They're not going to win with people who come across like posh barristers in the case of Starmer or Corbyn who just comes across as an aloof ideologue.

Unless Labour finds someone who's tough enough to spar with Johnson and has a bigger and more genuine personality than he has, they're going to continue to flounder.

They need pragmatism, personality, authenticity, a heart, warmth and a neck so brassy that Johnson should be cowering, but that's not what they're going for. Instead, it's been leaders who are just the complete opposite to that.

The tabloid media isn't going to go away and the Tories know exactly how to play it and from the English political parties' point of view Scotland's lost, so they will have to make their gains in the North of England.

They're not going to appeal to the electorate they need to win with ideologies or facts. It has to be won on personality, authenticity and heart and they're not really in a space where they're even seeing that.

They need to find a strong leader that people will actually want to get behind and that's just not happening.

Maybe they just don't have the ability to do that anymore. I don't know, but it seems to me that if they don't come up with some better leadership, the country is going to continue to drive further into Tory land until eventually you end up with a trigger point and it ends up in chaos, just as it did in the 80s under the Poll Tax riots and so on that ultimately ended Thatcher's run.

I think when it comes to those 'red wall' constituencies, it's currently an argument about hearts, not minds.

and until you get a change in leadership and politics, I think Brexit is just going to keep walking into the same brick wall over and over.

Professor Moriarty

Pandiculation wrote: »

Labour needs to find a Mo Mowlam like leader tbh. They're not going to win with people who come across like posh barristers in the case of Starmer or Corbyn who just comes across as an aloof ideologue.

Unless Labour finds someone who's tough enough to spar with Johnson and has a bigger and more genuine personality than he has, they're going to continue to flounder.

They need pragmatism, personality, authenticity, a heart, warmth and a neck so brassy that Johnson should be cowering, but that's not what they're going for. Instead, it's been leaders who are just the complete opposite to that.

The tabloid media isn't going to go away and the Tories know exactly how to play it and from the English political parties' point of view Scotland's lost, so they will have to make their gains in the North of England.

They're not going to appeal to the electorate they need to win with ideologies or facts. It has to be won on personality, authenticity and heart and they're not really in a space where they're even seeing that.

They need to find a strong leader that people will actually want to get behind and that's just not happening.

Maybe they just don't have the ability to do that anymore. I don't know, but it seems to me that if they don't come up with some better leadership, the country is going to continue to drive further into Tory land until eventually you end up with a trigger point and it ends up in chaos, just as it did in the 80s under the Poll Tax riots and so on that ultimately ended Thatcher's run.

I think when it comes to those 'red wall' constituencies, it's currently an argument about hearts, not minds.

I would love to see Andy Burnham given the chance. Soft left with charisma.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would love to see Andy Burnham given the chance. Soft left with charisma.

The problems are much bigger than the leader though.

I share the feeling of disappointment in Starmer but I'm not sure what either he or a more effective leader would do. Constantly trying to keep either side of the party from backstabbing him has made him appear bland and anodyne.

Burnham comes across well. We might even have stayed in the EU had he won the leadership contest in 2015.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problems are much bigger than the leader though.

I share the feeling of disappointment in Starmer but I'm not sure what either he or a more effective leader would do. Constantly trying to keep either side of the party from backstabbing him has made him appear bland and anodyne.

Burnham comes across well. We might even have stayed in the EU had he won the leadership contest in 2015.

I agree and that's a very good point about staying in the EU. The Labour party has always been divided between the hard Left and the centre Left. Thus you have the likes of Corbyn becoming leader with the vast majority of Labour MPs opposing him.

The Tories had the same problem for decades between the centre right One Nation Tories and the populist Brexiteers. The difference between the two parties is that Labour's division remains whereas the Tory division has been sorted with the populist Brexiteers winning. So now they are united and Labour is divided. Unfortunately, I can't see this changing anytime soon.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I agree and that's a very good point about staying in the EU. The Labour party has always been divided between the hard Left and the centre Left. Thus you have the likes of Corbyn becoming leader with the vast majority of Labour MPs opposing him.

The Tories had the same problem for decades between the centre right One Nation Tories and the populist Brexiteers. The difference between the two parties is that Labour's division remains whereas the Tory division has been sorted with the populist Brexiteers winning. So now they are united and Labour is divided. Unfortunately, I can't see this changing anytime soon.

I'd disagree slightly.

The Tories are less divided but divided they are. The thing holding them together is that their ideologies are much less disparate than Labour's and that Johnson can win elections based on 2019 and how things look for the next one at present.

Ironically enough, you had the same circumspect carry-on from Corbyn when he rated the EU 7 out of 10 in an interview and tried to pass himself off as a remainer but clearly had no enthusiasm for it given his past as a Eurosceptic.

redcup342

Was down in Gibraltar today as the internal Spanish borders opened last night.

They’ve (Gibraltar) effectively lost control of their own border, the Spanish control who goes in and out at the land border and the airport.

So much for taking back control

Couldn’t bring any sausages back but got some Bisto.

What a total joke of a situation, it’s going to hit hard when the UK can travel again.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd disagree slightly.

The Tories are less divided but divided they are. The thing holding them together is that their ideologies are much less disparate than Labour's and that Johnson can win elections based on 2019 and how things look for the next one at present.

Ironically enough, you had the same circumspect carry-on from Corbyn when he rated the EU 7 out of 10 in an interview and tried to pass himself off as a remainer but clearly had no enthusiasm for it given his past as a Eurosceptic.

Yeah. I blame Corbyn for Brexit. I know the likes of Farage and Johnson were pushing hard for Brexit but Corbyn simply stood aside while pretending he was pro EU. Disingenuous is too kind a word for him.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problems are much bigger than the leader though.

I share the feeling of disappointment in Starmer but I'm not sure what either he or a more effective leader would do. Constantly trying to keep either side of the party from backstabbing him has made him appear bland and anodyne.

Burnham comes across well. We might even have stayed in the EU had he won the leadership contest in 2015.

The problem is that Keir Starmer is not Keir Hardy.

He might have an analytical brain and be good at goading Johnson, but he has no heart, nor has he a belly to drive his rhetoric.

The labour party used to have working class voices driving the leadership, but that is long gone. Aneurin Bevan (Nye Bevan) was such a man. Born into a working-class family in South Wales, he was the son of a coal miner. He left school at 13 and worked as a miner during his teens where he became involved in local union politics. He is credited with bringing in the NHS - free health care at the point of delivery - opposed by the Tories (of course). Now of course the favourite totem of the Tories (soon to be privatised). If only his like was still available today.

Mo Mowlam was another Labour voice that spoke to the leadership. Where are these voices today, and why is the leadership not listening?

Solve that and they might have a chance. What a difference if John Smith had not had that fatal heart attack in April 1994. Blair would not have succeeded him, and the Tory-lite years would never have happened. Oh well.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problems are much bigger than the leader though.

I share the feeling of disappointment in Starmer but I'm not sure what either he or a more effective leader would do. Constantly trying to keep either side of the party from backstabbing him has made him appear bland and anodyne.

Burnham comes across well. We might even have stayed in the EU had he won the leadership contest in 2015.

Has there been backstabbing or even hints of it since Starmer took over? I haven't seen much alluded to in that vein. Starmer seems to have had a fair run of it from what i've seen, regular radio show on lbc, no negative media at all and even the occasional platform given to him by both telegraph and mail. And isn't he pretty much on the centre right wing of the party anyway so why would he be anticipating backstabbing coming from that wing?

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. I blame Corbyn for Brexit. I know the likes of Farage and Johnson were pushing hard for Brexit but Corbyn simply stood aside while pretending he was pro EU. Disingenuous is too kind a word for him.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
― Edmund Burke


Even if Labour wanted to have govt subsidies for loss making industries and block immigration giving the Tories a blank cheque to do the deal was criminally insane. Labour could have had the "what sort of Brexit do you want ?" discussion but didn't.


Tories are gonna Tory. Non-EU immigration hardly slowed down despite the govt having TOTAL control over it. Govt didn't use EU rules to allow subsidies except where it was part of the chumocracy.

And now the EU workers and citizens rights protections can be waved away.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

He is credited with bringing in the NHS - free health care at the point of delivery - opposed by the Tories (of course). Now of course the favourite totem of the Tories (soon to be privatised). If only his like was still available today.

Something like £96 Billion of NHS money went to the private sector over the last 10 years.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

The problem is that Keir Starmer is not Keir Hardy.

He might have an analytical brain and be good at goading Johnson, but he has no heart, nor has he a belly to drive his rhetoric.

The labour party used to have working class voices driving the leadership, but that is long gone. Aneurin Bevan (Nye Bevan) was such a man. Born into a working-class family in South Wales, he was the son of a coal miner. He left school at 13 and worked as a miner during his teens where he became involved in local union politics. He is credited with bringing in the NHS - free health care at the point of delivery - opposed by the Tories (of course). Now of course the favourite totem of the Tories (soon to be privatised). If only his like was still available today.

Mo Mowlam was another Labour voice that spoke to the leadership. Where are these voices today, and why is the leadership not listening?

Solve that and they might have a chance. What a difference if John Smith had not had that fatal heart attack in April 1994. Blair would not have succeeded him, and the Tory-lite years would never have happened. Oh well.

I don't agree with the way you've framed this. To be working class today is wildly different from what it once was. The days of secure, well paid and often hazardous and labour intensive work have yielded to zero-hours contracts, insecure and insidious employment practices such as fire & rehire and wages which have been stagnant for decades.

Being working class now also means having a degree in many cases which was once the preserve of wealthy elites.

The Labour left still think in terms of Thatcherism and undoing its excesses while the rest of the nation has moved on. The Bevan comparison is both completely invalid and achieves nothing. All the NHS act did was draw together the existing, disparate healthcare providers in the country. The incessant harkening back to the past needs to stop and Labour need to come up with both policies and a message that connect with voters. Yammering on about the NHS, the welfare state, etc doesn't help one bit.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Has there been backstabbing or even hints of it since Starmer took over? I haven't seen much alluded to in that vein. Starmer seems to have had a fair run of it from what i've seen, regular radio show on lbc, no negative media at all and even the occasional platform given to him by both telegraph and mail. And isn't he pretty much on the centre right wing of the party anyway so why would he be anticipating backstabbing coming from that wing?

Not really but then there hasn't been much of anything from Starmer which I suppose is the point.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't agree with the way you've framed this. To be working class today is wildly different from what it once was. The days of secure, well paid and often hazardous and labour intensive work have yielded to zero-hours contracts, insecure and insidious employment practices such as fire & rehire and wages which have been stagnant for decades.

Being working class now also means having a degree in many cases which was once the preserve of wealthy elites.

The Labour left still think in terms of Thatcherism and undoing its excesses while the rest of the nation has moved on. The Bevan comparison is both completely invalid and achieves nothing. All the NHS act did was draw together the existing, disparate healthcare providers in the country. The incessant harkening back to the past needs to stop and Labour need to come up with both policies and a message that connect with voters. Yammering on about the NHS, the welfare state, etc doesn't help one bit.

The thrust of my post is not to have ex-miners in the driving seat of the Labour party, but to have the party driven by voices that come from the working people - not the privileged toffs that run the Tories, and to a lesser extent the LibDems.

These voices do exist, (I hope) but there has been a tendency (that is a word I should not use) for the Labour party to favour the Oxford educated rather than the likes of Prescott. Now I know Wilson was an Oxford graduate, but he was also working class.

The term working class is not one I should use because it includes the notion of class - which is not something I agree with at all. Underprivileged is also not right but those who come from the less privileged sections of society might get close. Certainly those who have never been close to a silver spoon might cover it.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

The thrust of my post is not to have ex-miners in the driving seat of the Labour party, but to have the party driven by voices that come from the working people - not the privileged toffs that run the Tories, and to a lesser extent the LibDems.

These voices do exist, (I hope) but there has been a tendency (that is a word I should not use) for the Labour party to favour the Oxford educated rather than the likes of Prescott. Now I know Wilson was an Oxford graduate, but he was also working class.

The term working class is not one I should use because it includes the notion of class - which is not something I agree with at all. Underprivileged is also not right but those who come from the less privileged sections of society might get close. Certainly those who have never been close to a silver spoon might cover it.

People from the professions work as well. The term "working class" is becoming less and less useful as time goes on with so many people identify as such, the label becomes meaningless.

Nowadays, the Labour membership (and that of the Conservative party) vote for the leader. Labour need to create a narrative to appeal to, shall we say people in economically abandoned communities who would be unlikely to have degrees for want of a better metric. In my experience, they're not so consumed by climate change and privilege as the city-dwelling metropolitan students that are overrepresented in the membership.

It shouldn't be about "class", it should be about ability. One person isn't better than another because of their background. I couldn't care less where the next leader went to University or College so long as they look like they can beat Johnson or whoever succeeds him.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

People from the professions work as well. The term "working class" is becoming less and less useful as time goes on with so many people identify as such, the label becomes meaningless.

Nowadays, the Labour membership (and that of the Conservative party) vote for the leader. Labour need to create a narrative to appeal to, shall we say people in economically abandoned communities who would be unlikely to have degrees for want of a better metric. In my experience, they're not so consumed by climate change and privilege as the city-dwelling metropolitan students that are overrepresented in the membership.

It shouldn't be about "class", it should be about ability. One person isn't better than another because of their background. I couldn't care less where the next leader went to University or College so long as they look like they can beat Johnson or whoever succeeds him.

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make but the language of class is alien to me. A professional is not likely to become engaged with the Labour Party if his professional career was achieved by privilege gained from his parents rather than his own efforts.

CrabRevolution

The article is presumably behind a paywall, but this small extract sums up the latest brexit win:

Prime minister Boris Johnson and chancellor Rishi Sunak have declared that eight new English freeports — announced in the Budget — will be a “transformational” benefit from Brexit.

But officials disclosed on Sunday that recent post-Brexit trade agreements with 23 different countries include clauses which specifically prohibit manufacturers in freeport-type zones from benefiting from the deals.

https://www.ft.com/content/625d1913-9242-4d97-9d0b-9cd6925c4e0e

The Raging Bile Duct

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The article is presumably behind a paywall, but this small extract sums up the latest brexit win:



https://www.ft.com/content/625d1913-9242-4d97-9d0b-9cd6925c4e0e

Just google the text in the quote above and you'll be able to read the full article.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make but the language of class is alien to me. A professional is not likely to become engaged with the Labour Party if his professional career was achieved by privilege gained from his parents rather than his own efforts.

False dichotomy. The great bulk of professionals achieve their professional career through a combination of inherited or socioeconomic privilege and their own efforts. The true contrast is not between those who did and those who did not, but between those who realise this and those who do not.

Those who realise this, if they become politically active, are more likely to be involved with the Labour party or another progressive party; those who do not, with the Tory Party or another party of the right.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

False dichotomy. The great bulk of professionals achieve their professional career through a combination of inherited or socioeconomic privilege and their own efforts. The true contrast is not between those who did and those who did not, but between those who realise this and those who do not.

Those who realise this, if they become politically active, are more likely to be involved with the Labour party or another progressive party; those who do not, with the Tory Party or another party of the right.

That is a good point.

Trying to generalise about the reasons as to why politicians make their choices is obviously too fraught with exceptions, and a lot of those assumptions are clearly wrong.

It applies to the general populations as well. Siblings do not allways follow the family tradition - so pointless to pigeon hole people because of their origins.