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.
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.
You are using the progressive policies of a progressive leader of his time as an example of something good that came from conservatism. It’s not a good example to support your position that something good has come from conservatism.
Progressive leaders created the national park institutions, but not the concept of conserving natural space, which was initially done to conserve natural resources for human use (sometimes with capitalists reasons or racist reasons), not to preserver nature as we know them today. See the wikipedia page for more details about that.
👍
I mean, thanks for the good faith effort I guess, but you’re still objectively incorrect as a matter of the historical record.
You would have done better to single out the Interstate freeway system as “conservative,” since it was created under Eisenhower. But even that is a weak example since it wasn’t opposed by liberals at all.
Let me know what you think I wrote that was objectively incorrect. I get the feeling most people reading this thread and following the downvotes think I’m claiming the USA national parks were solely created by conservative, which I didn’t. I wanted to point at that conservative ideas was what started what later gave birth to national parks as we know them, and not only in the USA. Maybe some national parks locations we know today wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been protected for conservative reasons initially. Note also, that I used the word maybe, from the beginning, because it’s certainly not the only reason they exist today. I admit guilt to use a short, surprising sentence without further explanation to raise questions, but it seems almost all reactions got negatively oriented from there because of how touchy politics is here, especially if it doesn’t follow the left main stream. This saddens me because with the default ranking system, this interesting thread got buried, and fewer people could read it.
I appreciate your persistence in explanation, your point became more clear.
Right on. Just chiming in to say that everything you say is totally congruent with what I learned about the conservation movement in my environmental studies courses. I get plenty of reminders geographically, too, since I live not too far from the USDA Forest Products Laboratory on Gifford Pinchot Drive, as well a Muir Knoll, named for preservationist John Muir. The conservationists and the preservationists were ideological rivals—a store of resources for judicious human use vs. nature’s value pro se—and the modern environmental movement is much more aligned with the preservationists. The conservationist movement was more c*nservative, relatively.
I guess sometimes on social media, you run across a Two Minutes Hate gathering, where nuance is not welcome, without being able to realize it in advance.
Yeah that’s what is described in the wikipedia article but people here read conservatism, they see red and can’t discuss anymore.