I think it's deeply ingrained in British culture, through its very much alive social class system. Precisely what Brits (seem to?) like about that qaint system is what makes it possible to maintain such a careless elite class that is not only not punished for creating extractive vehicles such as the City, but even praised and rewarded for it, through British identity politics. "Great" Britain, world power, A-rank capital, and so on.

Brits never saw a social revolution, and it shows.

Why Thatcher and not Blair? His reforms have a more direct influence on the situation we find ourselves in. After all, it was Mandelson who said "We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich."

Because it's all politicians since Thatcher ? But i will admit that the Third way, like it's French equivalent 10 years ago, can do more harm faster than regular liberals.

> entire economy of the city of London

Is pretty much the entire economy of the UK.

Yes Thatcher had her part to play, but election after election after referendum, the will of the people is more of the same Great British exceptionalism.

I think it'd be more accurate to say the will of some people given the effects of the current voting system. That's without going into the effectiveness of tabloid newspapers in inventing public opinion. While people bear at least some responsibility for their actions, I do think they can be put into perspective when you consider the circumstances which led to them.

People get what they vote for. What's the problem?

I am extremely comfortable with people having to suffer the obvious consequences of their choicse, it only bothers me hearing them moan about it.

> I am extremely comfortable with people having to suffer the obvious consequences of their choicse [sic]

Of course, because you probably don't have to live with any serious consequences of your choices, and you're most likely unaffected by these ones either.

Almost half if not more than half of the population in a democracy usually doesn't get to make a realistic choice, they voted for the losers without enough power to enact anything.

Most people don't get to live with the result of their choices but the result of others'. This means the pain is lessened for those responsible, and heightened for others. Are they allowed to moan without triggering your sensibilities? How would you know which is which?

Then realistically you probably didn't get to "suffer" the real consequences from most of your democratic process related choices. If you voted for leadership that went on to wage an illegal war you don't get to bear any of that responsibility. People love to bang their own drum about democracy, and freedoms, and their power, and the contribution they made. Until you bring up what the leaders they chose did. And then it's no longer their responsibility, then it's just a stamp on a paper, not a share of the responsibility. What are the consequences you suffer for something like that?

> Then realistically you probably didn't get to "suffer" the real consequences from most of your democratic process related choices.

An example of this that I have heard many times is that of Blair and Iraq.

However now the situation is more interesting as Brexit was done to themselves, not others (though that does not make any suffering ok).

> Brexit was done to themselves

Part of my point is that unanimity (amongst the people) in democracy is pretty much unheard of. So Brexit was not done by everyone. Realistically it wasn't even done by a majority of the population. All the others are in for the ride despite being against it.

Democracy may be the best system we've got now but it sure sucks sometimes. It's why it's called the dictatorship of the majority, and many countries are democratic and yet have very little protections for the different minorities, particularly the ones who have no chance of becoming a majority anytime soon.

The other part of the point is that most times people don't suffer from some of their decisions despite taking credit for any when it suits them. Similar to sport fans where when their team wins "we won", and when it loses "they lost".

An interesting point about both is that the proponents garnered their support through extensive lies, directly and through the media.

Public support of the Iraq war went hand in hand with the UN both finding WMDs and approving action[0].

The lies about Brexit are pretty infamous: from £350m/week for the NHS to stoking immigration fears and the fabrication of EU powers.

While it's disappointing that people are convinced by these types of lies, I'm not sure they're fully to blame; or that it does much good to do so. The bigger question is how do you combat these lies. The ones that seem to tickle the part of the brain where factual arguments don't seem to have much sway.

[0] https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/iraq-last-pre-war-polls

People moan about it because they and their governments haven't understood the consequences of their votes and actions. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

It doesn't help that elections are also just popularity contests and charades of endless lies and empty promises. Your average voter is far too I'll equipped to make informed judgements on complex issues making them easy to influence through fear mongering by groups with vested interests in seeing the results they want.

Everything is fucked.

> London is based on being the word's money laundering capital, vacation playground and best buddy for Russian Oligarchs, Saudi Royals, CCP big shots and other wealthy dictators and warlords.

Having lived in Zurich for many years, those are fightin' words! /j

As a friend of mine defined Zurich in the mid 90s - Zurich - the Swiss city where one of ten is Swiss ...

The irony - she was mail order bride that just got her Swiss citizenship.

The quasi-Xenophobes are well and truly out of their closet.

I am full blown xenophobe, not quasi, but not in this case since I was from her home country and were visiting her for a week - but we spend probably half an hour in Zurich trying to find someone that knows the place and speak German or French at acceptable level to give us directions. It was during the late evening and out of 15 people we stopped like one was swiss.

I'm sorry to hear you had such an outlier of an experience - I've never been met with anything except understanding when asking for directions in any of the national languages.

> we spend probably half an hour in Zurich trying to find someone that knows the place and speak German or French at acceptable level to give us directions. It was during the late evening and out of 15 people we stopped like one was swiss.

Stopped...successfully? And does Swiss German count as "an acceptable level of German" :)? I don't find it hard to believe that 14 people would pass you by (as people would in a major city), but I find it hard to believe that out of 14 people, none would speak the major national languages.

No one passed us by. Everyone was very polite while we tried to communicate. We didn't speak English, and the ones that we met that spoke German or French were also foreigners. Just all of the people that we met that night were foreigners (I can remember Spaniard, Italian and Brazilian). It was 30 years ago. Zurich for me was even then insanely cosmopolite city.

It was mostly amusing. Not bad in any way.