this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
155 points (98.1% liked)

UK Politics

3110 readers
77 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theinspectorst@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm relying on the fact that:

61% of Leave voters saying significant economic damage would be a price worth paying, 39% going further and saying they'd consider it acceptable if Brexit led to them or their family members losing their jobs.

Your point on a 70 year having less access to modern technology does not represent most of the population. It doesn't even represent most 70 year olds - my parents are that age and they've both had email addresses since the 1990s and smart phones for over a decade, and use them very actively.

What does represent the wider population is that a majority of Leavers were pretty clear they wanted Brexit to happen regardless of any economic consequences. They didn't vote based on empirical factors, they voted based on ideology. Brexit wasn't science for them, it was religion.

[–] Syldon -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your point on a 70 year having less access to modern technology does not represent most of the population.

So you are saying that conning most of the population is perfectly acceptable. While ignoring the fact that the con was in the information given.

What does represent the wider population is that a majority of Leavers were pretty clear they wanted Brexit to happen regardless of any economic consequences.

Says who? Which moron broke with the traditional lies and told people there would be economic consequences?

People voted for Brexit because the lies were that things would be cheaper, there would be no change in access to Europe, and we would have more money for services. Didn't you have a bus around your village?

[–] theinspectorst@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Says who?

I literally linked to an example of polling on this matter. If you Google it you'll find the were several more similar ones - e.g. there was one showing that many Leave voters considered the breakup of the UK a price worth paying too. They didn't give a shit.

[–] Syldon 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You made a quote. Where is it from?

[–] theinspectorst@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scroll up buddy. I quoted my previous comment (which you had selectively quoted from) which includes the hyperlink to a news article about one such poll. But as I said, there were several polls along these lines showing analogous results during the Brexit period.

[–] Syldon 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The devil is always in the question when it comes to polls. As you originally stated 61% of Leave voters. The poll covered 2,043 Leave and 2,248 remain voters. Which breaks down to the fact, out of the 4291 polled 1247 were happy to take on economic damage to get a Brexit, 30% of the people who voted were happy to accept economic damage. The poll was in 2017 so before anyone had any real information on what that damage entailed. The public were still being gaslighted at that time that there would be no damage. Any information they did have was tainted. Expecting people to understand the good V's the bad is unrealistic in the extreme.

Now that people have some of that information, remembering there is more hardship to come, you still have the same 30% who wish to stay out of the EU. Given the vote again under the same circumstances only 31% would commit to voting to leave, 55% would vote remain and that leaves 6% up for grabs on either side.

From that it is an easy conclusion that people did not have the relevant information. Now that they have it, the voting would change dramatically. You still have the 30% of voter base who are Eurosceptical. Whereas 55% are not interested in the slightest.

[–] theinspectorst@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

As you originally stated 61% of Leave voters. The poll covered 2,043 Leave and 2,248 remain voters. Which breaks down to the fact, out of the 4291 polled 1247 were happy to take on economic damage to get a Brexit, 30% of the people who voted were happy to accept economic damage.

They asked the question separately to Leave and Remain voters on whether they would be willing to cause significant economic damage to the UK economy to get their way. 61% of the Leave voters (vs 34% of the Remain voters) they polled answered yes.

The poll was in 2017 so before anyone had any real information on what that damage entailed.

The referendum was in 2016. Most of the Remain campaign's information was about the economic impact. The government send a leaflet to every household. The Bank of England published a report into the economic impact. Business leaders and economists spoke out. The economic damage of Brexit was a topic - the topic - discussed extensively before the referendum.

[–] Syldon 0 points 1 year ago

This really is pathetic in the extreme.