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.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      137
      ·
      11 months ago

      You mean a backwards looking ideology doesn’t address the needs of society today and in the future?

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        78
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            None of that though is what modern conservatives 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!

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

          • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Which is exactly what those peddling the lie want. So it was “fine” by their books, because they got to abuse people.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      11 months ago

      conservatism

      Putin worked hard to promote conservative agendas in UK, U.S. and France, to degrade those countries. It worked in all but France.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • セリャスト@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          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

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        90
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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).

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            42
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                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?

                • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  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.

                  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    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.

                  • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.