Yes, political movements tend to be headed by the wealthy and successful. I was a member a pro remain group where the same charge could be made. The authors point is that Brexit was supported by working class non metropolitan people more than remain was.
[Citation needed]
For which point?
- For the first, Entrepreneurs In (my group) was obviously, well, entrepreneurs.
- For the second, everyone on both sides of the debate agrees that non-London folk won it for Brexit. You're literally the first person I've ever met that would dispute this.
We probably don't share the same values, and would not be able to reach consensus on the "right side." This is an acceptable and unavoidable situation that technocrats need to learn to live with. People will want different outcomes, and will have different moral matrices. People on the left and right will each disagree with the other side's characterization of their politician's sins. Edit: Just want to note that the…
People on both sides pretty much share the same values; social issues are a big exception, but the crux of the disagreement between the right and left very often comes down to a disagreement about facts on the ground (e.g. lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, net-neutrality harms customers and innovation, a minimally regulated market provides better and cheaper healthcare than single-payer, human behavior has no…
>People on both sides pretty much share the same values
Sorry but I think you are significantly mistaken. To give two examples of statements that are common from each side. "Homosexuality is sinful" and "All white people are racist." The two sides are so far apart that when someone makes one of those statements they feel they are making an obvious non-controversial statement but it is offensive to the other side.*
This is because each side is so far apart they cannot even agree on what words mean. Combine this with the ease at which someone can become offended and it makes discussion almost impossible.
People on both sides pretty much share the same values; social issues are a big exception, but the crux of the disagreement between the right and left very often comes down to a disagreement about facts on the ground (e.g. lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, net-neutrality harms customers and innovation, a minimally regulated market provides better and cheaper healthcare than single-payer, human behavior has no…
>People on both sides pretty much share the same values Sorry but I think you are significantly mistaken. To give two examples of statements that are common from each side. "Homosexuality is sinful" and "All white people are racist." The two sides are so far apart that when someone makes one of those statements they feel they are making an obvious non-controversial statement but it is offensive to the other side.* Th…
As I already said: social issues are a big exception, but research shows that social issues are very low on the totem-pole relative to facts based issues. Additionally, I don't think either statement is very common, those examples illustrate extreme individuals that are motivated by hate rather than by a disagreement about particular values. Ironically, your example illustrates my point pretty well since the black community tends to vote for liberal politicians even though they share religious and traditional values with conservatives. The reason for this is a disagreement about which policies are effective not about values, and we saw this play out in the 2016 election when Trump specifically addressed black voters with promises of more jobs, better education, and lower crime rates in black communities.
For which point? - For the first, Entrepreneurs In (my group) was obviously, well, entrepreneurs. - For the second, everyone on both sides of the debate agrees that non-London folk won it for Brexit. You're literally the first person I've ever met that would dispute this.
I agree that non-London folk swung it. But it is a bit of a stretch to think either
a) that makes everyone outside London working class
b) that other cities didn't vote Leave
I see lots of landed gentry and farmers who were big on Leave (back then). Lots of Tory home counties types too. I don't think it is even slightly helpful to consider it a class issue.
> Sure. But did they break the story on the connection between anti-brexit organizations? If you think there is a story here report it to the Electoral commission. I'm sure they could run this in parallel with the Arron Banks investigation > It's funny how the guardian mostly published anti-brexit propaganda. Leaving the pro-Brexit camp with just The Times. Oh and the Mail... and the Express, the Sun, the Telegraph..…
The Times endorsed Remain during the referendum campaign.
I was a subscriber back then. Endorsed, with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
A quick review of UK print media 1) The Times - Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece. Employs MP Michael Gove for £100k a year after he was sacked for being a backstabber. 2) The Mail - "The EU and immigrants want to kill your children and sleep with your sister and may even affect your house price". Billionaire owner too. 3) The Telegraph - "The Torygraph" former paper of the ruling classes, now mouth piece of two weird billio…
You sound like an ideal Private Eye subscriber. Current affairs, investigative journalism, literary criticism, Commentatorballs, [That's enough. Ed] Edited by the great, and clean, Ian Hislop.
A quick review of UK print media 1) The Times - Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece. Employs MP Michael Gove for £100k a year after he was sacked for being a backstabber. 2) The Mail - "The EU and immigrants want to kill your children and sleep with your sister and may even affect your house price". Billionaire owner too. 3) The Telegraph - "The Torygraph" former paper of the ruling classes, now mouth piece of two weird billio…
>So if you didn't want Brexit, think immigration is helping demographics, think Princess Di should be laid to rest now and don't think the world is full of benefit scroungers, there is only the Guardian left. So, we should only read newspapers that agree with our world view?
I only read articles that
1) are not peddaling hate and devision
2) are not celeb gossip
3) interest me
I would be suprised if that made me more idealistic than the majority of HN crowd?