Only one in 10 feel leaving the EU has helped their finances, while just 9% say it has benefited the NHS, despite £350m a week pledge according to new poll
A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union.
The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has benefited them or the country.
Just one in 10 believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS, against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.
Nothing good in human history has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.
You mean a backwards looking ideology doesn’t address the needs of society today and in the future?
Even calling it “backwards” is falling for conservatives’ euphemistic lie. Conservatism has never really been about “upholding tradition” or any of the bullshit they claim; it’s only ever been about authoritarianism and enforcing hierarchy. If it happens to jive with a “tradition” it is only because said tradition is authoritarian and hierarchical.
It’s never really been conservatism, it’s regressivism. They want Feudalism because they think they can be king.
“Conservatism” has always been a euphemism for regressivism. There is no difference between the two concepts, and never was.
To say that “it’s never really been conservatism,” as if there’s a distinction to be made between the abhorrent ideology of conservatives like Trump and some kind of other non-abhorrent version of conservatism, is to be an apologist for it. It’s understandable that you’d make such an error since conservatives spend a lot of effort trying to gaslight the public and launder the reputation of conservative ideology, but nevertheless, the notion that there exists (or has ever existed) some idealized form of conservatism that isn’t thoroughly regressive garbage remains a fallacy.
Yep. There is value in looking at how things are currently done and have been done in the past. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel, and there may have been good reason for some decisions in the past. We had a safety system at work that had some superfluous quirks, but when we went to remove them, we learned the customer had specifically requested it to be that way. On the other end, we learned that we had some poorly designed equipment because we had specifically requested it in the past.
None of that though is what modern conservatives do.
None of that though is what
modernconservatives do.FTFY. Half the point I was trying to make is that the notion about conservatism being about acting with caution isn’t just a lie now, but has always been one. Conservatives have been falsely claiming this ever since the 16th Century!
Fair, yeah. We need a different term for the ideology to separate it from conservatism.
No we don’t.
I think I still haven’t quite made myself understood: The version of conservatism centered around perpetuating social hierarchy is conservatism. We don’t need another name for it because it’s the only kind of conservatism there ever was. The “good” kind of conservatism that’s about caution or moderation that folks keep trying to contrast it with also doesn’t need a name because it’s not actually a thing that exists as a distinct ideology. (I suppose if you really insist on labeling it, you could call it “not-conservatism.”)
Everybody who claims to be the “good” kind of conservative is either (a) a trash conservative who is lying about their motivations, or (b) a confused non-conservative.
What’s the name of the distinct ideology? I completely agree though.
The “It used to be fine so it still should be” ideology
When in fact it wasn’t fine, it’s just a bigots fever dream
Which is exactly what those peddling the lie want. So it was “fine” by their books, because they got to abuse people.
conservatism
Putin worked hard to promote conservative agendas in UK, U.S. and France, to degrade those countries. It worked in all but France.
Agreed! France really impresses me. The people there are strong-willed and don’t put up with bullshit. I found myself cheering for them all year this year.
I am glad to live in this country but there is still a lot of work to be done. I hope that the centre-right’s unification with the alt right will be a wake up call to all voters
Yet… Far right is on the highway to the next election
Ive been seeing a surge of conservative comments on lemmy. Im glad that comments such as this one still gets highly upvoted
National parks maybe
I think you are confusing conservationism with conservatism. These two topics are completely unrelated. The very first sentence on the wikipedia page for conservationism expresses that.
If you were referring to presidents who most influenced the proliferation of national parks, I think Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would be the two that are most responsible. As you probably know, both were famously progressive (the opposite ideology of conservatism).
I think you didn’t read much of the page you shared. Conservationism ~ ecology is a 20th modern movement, the origin of it is conservatism of natural resources for industrial use, not preservation of nature. So yes, the origin of conservationism is related to conservatism, the notions evolved to be less related today.
You are being really weird right now. Re-defining words is a common behavior for people who are desperate to create a fictional narrative. In this case, I think you are so worried about looking foolish that you will say anything.
The very first line of the wikipedia entry for conservationism says:
Not to be confused with Conservatism.
Just stop.
I’d rather continue because I know the few people who read this thread without being too influenced by the massive downvoting may learn something, and maybe you will too.
Here are the relative quotes you may have missed
The early conservation movement evolved out of necessity to maintain natural resources such as fisheries, wildlife management, water, soil, as well as conservation and sustainable forestry
Some say the conservation movement is part of the broader and more far-reaching environmental movement, while others argue that they differ both in ideology and practice. Conservation is seen as differing from environmentalism and it is generally a conservative school of thought which aims to preserve natural resources expressly for their continued sustainable use by humans.
The early years of the environmental and conservation movements were rooted in the safeguarding of game to support the recreation activities of elite white men, such as hunting.[29] This led to an economy to support and perpetuate these activities as well as the continued wilderness conservation to support the corporate interests supplying the hunters with the equipment needed for their sport.[29] Game parks in England and the United States allowed wealthy hunters and fishermen to deplete wildlife, while hunting by Indigenous groups, laborers and the working class, and poor citizens–especially for the express use of sustenance–was vigorously monitored.[29] Scholars have shown that the establishment of the U.S. national parks, while setting aside land for preservation, was also a continuation of preserving the land for the recreation and enjoyment of elite white hunters and nature enthusiasts.[29]
While Theodore Roosevelt was one of the leading activists for the conservation movement in the United States, he also believed that the threats to the natural world were equally threats to white Americans. Roosevelt and his contemporaries held the belief that the cities, industries and factories that were overtaking the wilderness and threatening the native plants and animals were also consuming and threatening the racial vigor that they believed white Americans held which made them superior.[30] Roosevelt was a big believer that white male virility depended on wildlife for its vigor, and that, consequently, depleting wildlife would result in a racially weaker nation.[30] This lead Roosevelt to support the passing of many immigration restrictions, eugenics legislations and wildlife preservation laws.[30] For instance, Roosevelt established the first national parks through the Antiquities Act of 1906 while also endorsing the removal of Indigenous Americans from their tribal lands within the parks.[31] This move was promoted and endorsed by other leaders of the conservation movement, including Frederick Law Olmstead, a leading landscape architect, conservationist, and supporter of the national park system, and Gifford Pinchot, a leading eugenicist and conservationist.[31] Furthering the economic exploitation of the environment and national parks for wealthy whites was the beginning of ecotourism in the parks, which included allowing some Indigenous Americans to remain so that the tourists could get what was to be considered the full “wilderness experience”.[32]
Etc.
You’ve worked hard to defend your position that something good has come from political conservatism. And still, you’ve provided no evidence that conservatism has ever resulted in anything good.
Racists can find value in progressive policies. In your example, racists found value in the policies of the leader of the progressive party. That does not make those policies conservative policies. They are just progressive policies that some conservatives (or racists) find some value in.
Conservatives neither need nor want your defense of them. They are proud that their policies are designed to harm and deceive people. Harm is their platform. It always has been. Why are you doing such intense gymnastics to defend conservatism? What good can come from your defense of the indefensible?
You are either misunderstanding my intentions or using a straw man argument, I am not defending conservatism. I wanted to point out at that national park may be something that is considered good today, and that, surprisingly, it started with conservative ideas (industry, capital preservation, racism). Most people today probably don’t know about that because they associate national park with environmentalism, which is rather a left progressive idea. That’s why I wrote this initial comment.
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, part of the “progressive era” in US political history. There isn’t a way to spin it such that he can accurately be called a conservative. The conservative position on national parks, at least in the west, would be that they should remain open for resource extraction. We see this at play with the recent bullshit surrounding the Bears Ears National Monument de-designation under Trump and the ongoing effort to allow drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.
You are simply objectively incorrect.
More straw man arguments, I never called him a conservative.
The conservative position on national parks, at least in the west, would be that they should remain open for resource extraction.
Yes, that’s the point, but also consider that this how it started, before progressive politics made it about nature preservation. Read the Wikipedia page or the quote I have taken have of it if you’re feeling lazy.
You are simply objectively incorrect.
You are simply not trying to understand what I mean because you’d rather confirm the bias you have formed about me when you’ve seen the downvotes on my comments.
Horseshit. I’ve spent literally decades reporting on land-use issues in the rural west. That, together with the reintroduction of wolves in the intermountain west, is kind of my life’s work as a journalist thus far.
I actually don’t even know where to start with how wrong you are.
So the wikipedia page about the history of conservationism is completely wrong? I’m not claiming anything more than what’s on it. Maybe it’s important for your job to read this page.
Gosh, if ONLY SOMEONE WOULD HAVE WARNED PEOPLE that brexit was a terrible idea tossed together by fear mongering, self interested dickheads!!! If only someone had mentioned it was a terrible idea ahead of time!
Also if only more than 24% of the voters could have been arsed to vote.
The vote was cursory, it was not supposed to be binding.
Absolutely. Like in the brexit referendum of 2016, which had a 72% turnout. Not like that referendum you are referencing, which is… Which one exactly?
It’s not like remainers ever put up a convincing argument prior to losing the referendum.
Turned voting age on the referendum, visited our predominantly working class school, only ever brought up cheaper phone calls abroad as to why they should vote to remain.
Brexit only had pull out the weakest reasons to leave becuase they were the only ones who took the referendum seriously.
The problem was that nobody in the UK did an effective job of arguing for remain. They were caught napping because they were convinced that people wouldn’t want to leave.
When they realised that we were in danger of voting to leave it was too late.
Obviously, people in the EU said that it was a bad idea but they obviously would say that because we’re “sending them £350 million a week” and they wouldn’t want to lose that.
The UK spent decades convincing everyone that all bad decisions are made by the EU and all good decisions are made by Westminster. That’s the first mistake.
If the UK had properly educated its citizens about what the EU actually was and did, no remain campaign would’ve been necessary whatsoever. But it was politically convenient to have a scapegoat.
And let’s be honest, remain aka “remoaners” had a ton of arguments all the time. But brexiteers just wanted to enter the magical land where the UK still mattered and they’d eat their cake and have it still.
Everyone saw this coming but still decided to walk off the cliff rather than admit they’d made a bad decision
“What we believe shapes who we are. Belief can bring us salvation or destruction. But when you believe a lie for too long, the truth doesn’t set you free. It tears you apart.”
I spent the first twenty years of my life believing that every piece of gum you swallow stays in you forever 🪦
How many pieces of gum would you say you’ve swallowed over that time?
On average 5 per year, but who’s counting
Pootin and the GRU/IRA were behind the effort mostly waged on social media
Yes this analysis was clear as day even before the referendum passed. The only amazing thing here is that 10% still think it has helped. Wow.
10% is actually amazingly low. I’ve said it before, 25% of any population, any country and time period is dumb as a bag of rocks. So no matter what you’ll always have 25% mouthbreathers. Here even 15% of them realized they’ve been had!
Around 35% of the total population actually voted for it, and even then, those people weren’t the ones who decided to push forward despite it clearly being a shit show.
Blame the people responsible, I’m so sick of this lazy “everyone” blanket statements people make about events that have very specific individuals and institutions to blame, all it’s doing is literally letting them get away with it.
Mmmmmm no. This is the justification many trump voters used. It implies voters are completely off the hook for the consequences of their actions and it’s only the ‘scheming criminals’ who fooled them that can be held accountable.
Just as ignorance of the law does not get you out of your speeding ticket, allowing yourself to be fooled as a voter doesn’t absolve you of the poor choice you made with your vote. It’s a collective fuck up. Own it.
The problem with that approach is that just finding a scapegoat doesn’t solve the issue. The Brits and the EU still have to live with the consequences.
The proper way to address this is to analyze what happened and make sure that it will never happen again. If the result of that analysis is that voters are fucking idiots, we somehow have to alleviate that.
You’ll never alleviate that. Most people are dumb as fuck. That’s not inherently a bad thing, but it can be exploited. In the new age of constant misinformation if you want to get people to vote against their own interests you need only start a gas lighting campaign and without too much effort you’ll find success.
Most people aren’t dumb, they are just poorly educated and can easily be swayed into making emotional decisions rather than rational ones.
It’s also why politicians love non-voters, one less moron you have to convince.
No, it’s literally the distraction the likes of Trump use themselves.
It implies that those deliberately using their almost complete power over the legal system, economy, education, and media to manipulate and flat out lie to people, many of who were, also deliberately, made desperate and vulnerable to said manipulation by the very same system in the first place - have nothing to do with the end result. How fucking convenient!
And what exactly am I meant to own? The fact that I voted remain, and did my best to get others to do the same? Are you seriously trying to claim that individuals like myself could ever possibly have more impact than the Murdoch empire? Or David Cameron? Or Boris Johnson? Why the fuck should we own it but not them, when they’re the ones making millions if not billions selling lies and doing “talks” about “what they learned” fucking the country up?
Do I begrudge people (again, the literal minority of the population) who voted leave? Fuck yeah. Do I blame them for brexit? Why should I? They didn’t think it up, they didn’t propose it, they didn’t go ahead with it despite warnings because it would further their career and make them money, they didn’t lie to and manipulate others to get their way. Those in power did. So I fucking blame them, because they are fucking responsible.
The fact that you compare the voters to criminals, rather than those who manipulated them says it all really.
I bet you also blame cancer patients who die from snake oil they fell for, rather than the grifters who sold it to them…
Those in power don’t even need to wash their hands of their actions anymore, people like you literally do it for them. But hey, bootlickers gonna lick boot. Keep blaming powerless individuals for systemic problems, see how that works out for you… ¯\(ツ)/¯
You get what you vote for.
In this particular case people had no idea what exactly they were voting for.
It was a non binding referendum, they had no reason to give a shit. They still voted for the fuckwits that enforced the non-binding resolution and made it law.
That was clear too, but Conservatives still won a majority and expectedly squashed any chance of a second referendum. We can’t absolve ourselves of all blame when democracy is still a functional tool we have at our disposal. Now even democracy itself is under attack all around the world, and I’m afraid that “not my fault” mentality will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
They did not win a majority.
365 out of 650 seats, 56% majority. It was a record win for them.
Eh only 43% of the vote though. It’s just FPTP that cause the majority in the house of commons. It wasn’t exactly a binding win for Brexit considering the parties pushing for either remaining or another referendum won more votes overall. Plus a big part of it was a vote against Corbyn, rather than a vote for Brexit.
General elections are too general to be used as justification for a single policy IMO.
I wouldn’t say everyone, at least. The vote was actually very close, which I think is something most of us forget at this point.
They used the wrong kind of referendum given the seriousness of the question, it should have required a significant majority consensus, instead it was just a “who got more votes even if it just one more”.
The results showed a deeply divided nation, and we still are. Some brexiters do regret their terrible decision, but I don’t forgive them. There was ample information, experts, everything showing what a terrible disastrous idea Brexit was, and they voted for it anyway.
This wasn’t some shades of grey issue, it was surprisingly black and white for once, haha. Which makes it all the more strange that so many people still voted to deeply damage the nation and their own futures.
Oh, and one other point just because I think we often forget, the referendum wasn’t at all binding. The government could have simply said “We’ve taken your thoughts into consideration but decided to do what’s best for the country and stay in the EU, even if this will hurt our political careers. Our duty is to the nation, above even our own careers”.
They…did not say that :-( Instead they got theirs, at all our expenses.
Actually only half of all people saw the obvious downsides. The other half said “nuh uh it’ll be great, way better in fact” with no evidence or facts and folks went with that.
Completely failed? That is just not true. For Johnson’s co-conspirators, who lied and swindled to profit from Brexit, it absolutely caused the desired shifts in wealth - that is from everybody else into their own pockets.
There is no better friend to have than the kind that can provide millionaire consulting gigs and non-executive board memberships in thanks for writting the laws with them in mind when replacing EU legislation and regulation.
Mind you, I’m not saying this is Corruption: the only part of the Judiciary that can investigate and prosecute Corruption in the UK is the Serious Fraud Office who have about as big as budget as the tinniest of British city halls (i.e. Councils) so nobody but the small fry ever gets investigated, much less prosecuted and convicted, so there are no people one can say are corrupt in the UK without falling foul of the local Libel Legislation (which is quite extreme by European standards) as they’re not officially corrupt until convicted.
It’s a special country with a special system, hence the continue deca, and whilst Brexit stands out as a trully primo inter pares of specialness, something like this happenning is no surprise.
The honest and intelligent britons (of which there are many) need to start pondering more on the possibility that when you keep getting the same ailments and treating them only for more appearing, the actual problem might be an underlying disease rather than merelly the ailments themselves.
What a bunch of honourable* honest* innocent* businessmen*.
All of the last decade, and most of the last 2, has been calamitous for Great Britain. Brexit is just one on a list of crippling blows dealt to its population.
- NHS, gone
- Home ownership, gone
- Europe, gone
- Education, gone
- wages, gone
- environment- going
- civil rights - going
With no prospect of any of them coming back .
All sold to neoliberalism.
The NHS, wages and civil rights were all on the chopping block of the Tories for decades, and people still voted for them in droves.
Because across the board big and little “c” conservatives place money/profit above all else.
But at least the immigrants have all disappeared! Right?!
Ironically one of the only ways forward for them is to open up immigration to more people. GDP is going to be permanently lower unless they go heavy automation like Japan (requiring a lot of capital that is going to be a lot more expensive post-Brexit), or let a lot more people in.
And the problem with heavy automation, as Japan is finding, is that machines and robots don’t generate the income tax revenue needed to pay for an aging population. Hence Japan is finding it necessary to allow more immigration.
Has neoliberalism done anything good or just a way for fucking over everyone but the rich?
Mostly the rich thing.
Neoliberalism, also known as conservatism.
Margaret Thatcher is smiling up from hell.
To be fair, a lot of places have these exact problems nowadays.
NHS stands for National Health Service.
Just like most informed people predicted.
Removed by mod
My hot take: the EU is better off without them. Britain has always been a belligerent holier than thou obstacle to progress for the EU, even after they got a sweetheart deal that NO OTHER European nation got offered.
Let them rot on their island while the rest of Europe actually makes progress.
Yup. If the EU takes them back, it should be with HEAVY scrutiny and no sweetheart deals. You wanna fuck around? Time to find out.
Pretty sure it was already said that if they ever want back, they get treated as any other country trying to get in. No special treatment
First up, make them adopt the Euro.
Removed by mod
All the while being pissed off that no, you won’t get all the exceptions you had the last time. And yes, you’ll have to ditch £ for € eventually*.
* there’s a pretty stupid loophole that allows you to postpone adopting Euro indefinitely, though I feel even the fact that officially they’re agreeing to adopt the Euro will be a low blow for the pride of UK people.
That’s like a couple getting married again after a divorce. It HAS happened, but only when both people are lost together in a world of mutual crazy that neither can live outside. I don’t think the EU is participating in the Uk’s fantasy world, so it’ll never happen.
Nah. The honest truth is that the EU doesn’t care that much about the UK.
It’s much more like someone storming out their local pub and refusing to come back. It’s a big deal to the guy that left, but a much smaller deal to everyone still drinking in the pub.
If the UK stops acting like a dick and pays for their share they’d be eventually welcome back, once it looked like they’d actually learnt their lesson and wouldn’t do it again. The real barriers to rejoining are on the UK side. No one wants to reopen that can of worms.
UK had one of the larger militarys in the EU. Only reason I can see them ever considering it.
Aren’t most of the EU also NATO members? I guess I’ve never thought much about the military aspects of the EU.
I think your analogy is not a 1:1 representation of the situation at hand.
Oh? Well, don’t leave us hanging. Why do you think that?
Do you think your analogy is a 1:1 representation of the situation at hand? Lol.
Look. If you’re not prepared to actually discuss and share your ideas, why comment at all? And don’t go putting the burden on me to invalidate the opinion you just dropped, raw, and walked away from.
Do you think everyone on the internet is worth arguing with?
I just asked you a simple yes or no question.
Certainly you’ve proven not to be worth talking to at all.
Gives middle finger to biggest trading partner by far.
Surprised Pikachu face when economy goes to hell.
I cannot fathom the thought process of the Regrexiters.
It makes sense when you frame Brexit in the context of “we don’t like brown people”. They weren’t thinking about the economy. Never were.
Kinda. A lot of them had this very strong opinion that they were basically an economic powerhouse and were actually better off without the trades that were lopsided against them. They’re learning how trade power actually works.
Which is funny because they have a much smaller GDP then Germany, and only slightly bigger than France.
I would wager it comes from a history of being a trade powerhouse. I’m no expert, though.
IF the UK rejoins the EU at any time in the future, we will certainly never have the preferential terms and disproportionate power that we’d originally had. Defacto not as good as a deal. However, STILL much better to be part of the EU than to be circling the drain as we are right now.
I am still furious about Brexit on a personal level. Freedom of movement was amazing. It meant that I could just decide to go live and work in an EU country whenever I wanted. I had previously used this to spend a couple of years in Spain and maybe a year in France. I’d been planning a move to Portugal when Brexit took this away from me. All those opportunities gone because of dumb fuckers who didn’t even realise we had them. Ignorant bigoted wankers. Goes without saying I voted remain. I’d be delighted to rejoin, and if it means we adopt the euro that’s fine with me. It won’t happen for at least a decade though, and at my age that’ll be too late for me.
No, they realised that they had the freedom of movement. The Brexit vote was in part to punish people like you because you still had that freedom.
And getting rid of the unfair preferential terms is good for the EU as a whole, because it will reduce resentment in all other current and potential future member nations.
Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely believe Brexit hurt everyone in Europe and I can’t wait to welcome UK back into the Union, but make it on equal terms. It’s a very small silver lining to the whole fiasco. I just hope it doesn’t take too long for UK to find a leader string enough to say “I think we made a mistake, we should reapply”. Make a new referendum while the populace still realizes the connection between Brexit and the current misery before some populist schmuck finds a new scapegoat.
Agree completely. The old arrangements were compromises to get the original deal dome. That was half a century ago and a lot has changed.
To me, I never understood the desire to leave. Even the people who being talking heads for Brexit actively benefitied financially from UKs position in the EU. The choice to leave was roused up on a bunch half truths and bold face lies to scare the the general public of hatining anything south of the channel… Despite getting so much benefit.
Smartest thing they could do is beg their way back into the EU and claw back what ever benefits they had enjoyed like stated above there is no scenario where UK ends up good as they were back in 2016 let alone in a better bargaining position, but they also don’t have to throw away their future prosperity based on stubborn pride.
It’s hysteria.
but they also don’t have to throw away their future prosperity based on stubborn pride.
Lol, but they will.
I think it’s best for the EU if the UK doesn’t have preferential treatment.
Want it said that if the UK rejoined then they’d have to go on the Euro?
If and when UK is allowed back in, this time they will not be offered all of the opt-outs!
Welcome, Schengen and Euro!
That would be nice for Ireland, we could finally join Schengen which is currently out of the question because of the open border with Northern Ireland.
I’m not an economist, but what I have seen is the decline in the value of Sterling since Brexit as well of the downgrading of the UK credit rating. Even if we adopt the Euro, the value of the same goods will still vary between different countries. However, the same silly arguments will arise again saying that the is EU taking over.
That isn’t really an issue, either Denmark or Czechia don’t want the Euro but said they’ll get it so they skirm around the ascention criteria a bit. Can’t see why the UK couldn’t do the same.
That isn’t an Issue, jet. But it could be in the long run.
The fact that the EU haven’t taken measures in that matter doesn’t mean it will not do it in the future.
Yeah I get it, but still. Britain got its priviliges in the EU by being a part of it for a long time. If it becomes a problem in some 20 years, Britain probably won’t be alone, will have been a member for a longish time and will most definitely be better off than outside the EU. And if it comes to it, they’ll be able to leave again.
At least they’ll have the most experience in leaving which might make the second time at least a bit more painless.
Everyone says this, but I think the EU wants Britain back in enough to make some exceptions again. The way I look at it is that it doesn’t hurt to try.
Eh, willing to bet that Germany wants to set a precedent that they, and no one else, like France, can just leave and rejoin on a political far right whim.
It sounds like cooperation works better than unnecessary contention. Who would have guessed.
The ruling class, which is why they fight cooperation among workers.
Imagine voting against Scottish Independence then getting fucked out of the EU immediately afterwards by Brexit.
Britain is Europe’s America.
Europeans would be wise to distance themselves from them.
Any sane person would have seen this outcome coming. The leavers were still stuck in the Victorian Era with their mentality.
You say that but people still want to vote for Trump. This kind of jingoistic populism is doing pretty well right around the globe right now
Some wanted to be spiteful. Not sure to whom though
No shit, Sherlock.
No fucking shit.
I’m still in disbelief at racist ignorant Tory cunts that voted for this.
Fuck them and their political apathy.
Fuck them and their complete disregard for factual information.
They can now lie in the bed they made, the absolute fools.
Murdoch holds a lot of the blame as well, without that prick taking sides in his newspapers it would never have happened
I hope you can all work to get Tory shit out of your government
And fuck the fucking fucks!! Fuck you, you fuck! You BIG fuck! You massive, whopping, FUCK!
9% say it has benefited the NHS
Are 9% of the UK shareholders of plantir or something? Cunts!
I don’t understand why it’s a fucking opinion poll when there is actual data to examine.
Why not both? A well-designed poll can be a very useful gauge of public opinion.
deleted by creator
Facts don’t always say what you want them too. Options can easily be curated for on the other hand.
I don’t understand why it’s a fucking opinion poll when there is actual data to examine.
I think that people tend to take just one or two reference points to decide things like this because it’s too complicated to consider them all.
The points that might have led people to believe that the NHS was improved by Brexit are that we were told that leaving the EU gave us the ability to approve and buy the COVID vaccine more quickly and that we did seem to get it more quickly than the EU.
