Why The Hate For Brexit Voters?

[Debater Slayer]

I don't appear to possess this thought process.

People don't vote for people they think will bring mass carnage. If people had known what Blair would do they wouldn't but he still retains a 50/50 favourable/unfavourable image in the UK. We don't by any means really hate him; he's not tarnished like Thatcher or Cameron.

I do believe that a lot of politicians act differently than they promised once they get into office, which is part of the reason I said that I don't assume that all voters for a specific candidate or policy have the same intentions or reasons.

That said, if Blair really has a more favorable image in the UK than Cameron after all that the former has done, I have to wonder exactly what moral and political calculus underpins such a perception. I would find it an unfortunate situation at best that Thatcher and Cameron, for all of their faults, would be seen more negatively than someone who should stand before a court for war crimes.

I don't believe in blaming the voters for the actions of the one for whom they voted, otherwise no-one should really ever vote. More often than not, all options are bad for multiple reasons.

I don't believe in that for all voters; only ones who could reasonably be said to have been able to foresee the results of the vote and who had less harmful alternatives but didn't choose them—and then there are those who specifically vote for candidates in order to have them enact laws or policies that indeed cause harm to others (e.g., people who voted for Trump because they wanted a crackdown on the "LGBT agenda," elective abortion, etc.).

Of course, there are so many ways to weigh different issues, sometimes conflicting ones, that deciding which vote is more or less harmful can itself be a major judgment call and reliant on which issue or issues one decides to prioritize. Hypothetically, a leader could be good for the economy but awful for civil liberties, and another could be bad for the former but great for the latter. Could one really blame a poor person for choosing food and shelter over civil liberty? Conversely, could one really blame a journalist for choosing civil liberty at the cost of a state's economic well-being? Who gets to decide which vote is more (or less) harmful, and which or whose interests should take precedence?

But moreso, we cannot predict what they will actually do, what will happen 2 years from now. Things like COVID were not predicable, so we couldn't possibly have voted for the Tories based on a pandemic. Random factors are for more meaningful than concentrated votes, imo.

I think some aspects of politicians' actions are usually foreseeable, and some are not. For example, it should now be highly foreseeable that Trump would try to eviscerate the rule of law and democratic checks and balances should he win the 2024 election. It should also have been foreseeable that a vote for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour would have resulted in higher taxes for many people.

On the other hand, I believe that the January 6 attack on the Capitol could not have reasonably been foreseen by the average Trump voter in 2016. It's also often the case that the more favorably people view a candidate or party, the less likely they are to be suspicious of their intentions. A Democrat or especially pessimistic Republican might have expected Trump to try to overturn the 2020 election in case of a loss, and a Republican or pessimistic Democrat might have expected the worst aspects of Biden's presidency, but it makes sense that not all voters will have such a suspicious perspective.

 

[ChristineM]

Just had an interesting conversation with my brother in law. We usually chat 2 or 3 times a day, mostly about his schizophrenia and how he copes. The conversations are predictable, often repeated but just being there for him helps. And occasionally the subject bounces to something of a gem.

I'd just posted my previous reply to this thread and i received a message to phone him. He's just been to see his nurse and for once was in an upbeat mood. We chatted for 25 minutes and then the gem.
I'd not mentioned RF, this thread or brexit but he said... You were so lucky getting out of Britain before brexit, it's got a lot harder to live here now. And there the conversation ended.

I'll try and follow it up tomorrow but chances are he'll have forgotten what he said.

 

[Rival]

Right: it's very easy to be wrong when voting for a politician or a party.

We're still wrong when it happens, though.



It seems like we're conflating two different issues:

Was your prediction incorrect? Yes.
Should you ought to have known that it would be incorrect? Depends.

We seem to be using a different definition of 'wrong'; yours seems far less forgiving of what others may call a mistake and still some might not think of as being anything other than a neutral decision based on best evidence.

How would you be able to know? You seem to be assuming some kind of prior knowledge. Congrats if you have that, but very few people have. I certainly haven't. I only vote based on what is in manifestoes, environment and so on. I know these manifestoes are never totally accurate, but I can't predict what will and won't be done.

I also vote based on social issues such as where someone stands morally, for instance. I'm a pacifist in political terms so I'd be voting for a party that's anti-war.

I don't expect any politician to be a moral bastion, either, I expect the opposite; but if he can do the job, I might vote for him.

There are many factors here, so what you're calling wrong may be so to you, but not to me.

I still don't find it right to stick objective labels on it though.

No-one voted for Bush based on the Twin Towers or the Recession, or for Trump based on Covid.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I just don't find most politicians as predictable as your example.

I think politics is a lot murkier than that.

We once had a party (Lib Dems) that about a decade ago their Wiki page didn't even have a section on their economic policies because they didn't have any. Lol.

I think whether they're predictable is contextual and depends on the specific policy or election in question.

Trump in 2016 didn't have a sufficient record to firmly establish his anti-democratic stances.

Trump in 2024 now has a record that makes it highly predictable and even likely that he will try to compromise democracy if he wins another term.

 

[Secret Chief]

That said, if Blair really has a more favorable image in the UK than Cameron

It's a toss up over which is the worst smelling poo: Blair for his going down on Bush for a war or Cameron for deciding to hold a referendum on the EU to buy off the UKIP vote and then, obviously, win the vote to stay in the EU.

 

[HonestJoe]

Why is there a suggestion that anyone who voted for Brexit was misled?

I wouldn't say anyone but plenty plainly were. Some of them even now recognise it themselves.

As if we had sense we'd vote for the 'right' thing.

Well no, if you weren't misled, you might have voted differently. Since we now know a lot of what was misleading, played down or ignored during the Brexit campaign, Brexit voters can say whether they'd still vote the same way knowing what they do now (and again, many say they wouldn't).

As if there's a side that votes dumbly and tends to be rural, conservative and traditional and there's a side that votes sensibly and they are urban, liberal and progressive. It's bull****.

That certainly wasn't the case with Brexit. Age and income were the primary drivers (which correlate somewhat with politics but not entirely).

Incidentally, none of this is about hate as your title put it. As James O'Brien says; "Contempt for the conmen, compassion for the conned".

 

[Altfish]

Why is there a suggestion that anyone who voted for Brexit was misled?

Those who voted for Trump are misled?

As if we had sense we'd vote for the 'right' thing.

As if there's a side that votes dumbly and tends to be rural, conservative and traditional and there's a side that votes sensibly and they are urban, liberal and progressive. It's bull****.

@Augustus

How is Brexit working out?
Was everything you were promised occurring?
Have fuel prices dropped, food prices dropped, numbers of illegal immigrants dropped?
Is the NHS better off to the tune of £350m per week?
I could go on, but there were a lot of lies about Brexit and many of the electorate fell for them

 

[Rival]

How is Brexit working out?
Was everything you were promised occurring?
Have fuel prices dropped, food prices dropped, numbers of illegal immigrants dropped?
Is the NHS better off to the tune of £350m per week?
I could go on, but there were a lot of lies about Brexit and many of the electorate fell for them

People can't seem to get over that many who voted for it did not vote based on these things.

There's also a very short term memory going on here as our country was hardly a bastion of economic power in the decade prior to Brexit.

Everything we were promised was not delivered prior to Brexit.

Blaming the whole of the UK's problems on Brexit is a reductionist, short-sighted argument. We won't know the true value of Brexit until at least the next few decades, especially with the added downturn spurred by lockdowns and other trade restrictions, 2008 austerity which seems to be ongoing, a war in Europe, a war in the Middle East and a general economic downturn throughout the whole of Europe. Brexit is not the sole problem here.

I didn't expect a wonderful Brexit; I expected a hash job, as usual. Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for it. It's where my conscience was.

How was being in the EU working out for the small majority who voted against it? Obviously they didn't think it was.

The country was a mess before Brexit, it's a mess after Brexit.

Imagine my shock.

 

[Secret Chief]

How is Brexit working out?
Was everything you were promised occurring?
Have fuel prices dropped, food prices dropped, numbers of illegal immigrants dropped?
Is the NHS better off to the tune of £350m per week?
I could go on, but there were a lot of lies about Brexit and many of the electorate fell for them

I'm still waiting to see a list from a brexiteer showing all the real benefits that have come from leaving the EU. I imagine it'll be a long wait, Rees-Mogg said decades - but then his company was busily advising its clients to move their base from the UK to Dublin before the sunlit uplands hit. And Lawson was proclaiming how great a free UK would be whilst he was applying for permanent French residency.

 

[Altfish]

People can't seem to get over that many who voted for it did not vote based on these things.

There's also a very short term memory going on here as our country was hardly a bastion of economic power in the decade prior to Brexit.

Everything you were promised was not delivered prior to Brexit.

Blaming the whole of the UK's problems on Brexit is a reductionist, short-sighted argument. We won't know the true value of Brexit until at least the next few decades, especially with the added downturn spurred by lockdowns and other trade restrictions, 2008 austerity which seems to be ongoing, a war in Europe, a war in the Middle East and a general economic downturn throughout the whole of Europe. Brexit is not the sole problem here.

I didn't expect a wonderful Brexit; I expected a hash job, as usual. Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for it. It's where my conscience was.

How was being in the EU working out for the small majority who voted against it? Obviously they didn't think it was.

The country was a mess before Brexit, it's a mess after Brexit.

Imagine my shock.

Yes, of course many voted for Brexit for things other than those I've mentioned. BUT many were swayed by the lies, it only took a change of 2% to swing the vote the other way.
I am not blaming the whole of the UK's problems on Brexit but Brexit is a significant factor.
Before we joined the EU we were the poor man of Europe; having left we are heading back for that accolade.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is hard to even conceive of a believable yet significant benefit from even a hypothetical Brexit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We seem to be using a different definition of 'wrong'; yours seems far less forgiving of what others may call a mistake and still some might not think of as being anything other than a neutral decision based on best evidence.

Yes, I think you keep misinterpreting me despite my attempts to be as clear as possible about what I mean.

There seem to be three senses of "wrong" floating around in this thread:

- factually incorrect
- immoral
- a poor decision

I've been specifying which one I use, but you seem to be ignoring what I say and assume that I'm only talking about the last one.

How would you be able to know? You seem to be assuming some kind of prior knowledge. Congrats if you have that, but very few people have. I certainly haven't. I only vote based on what is in manifestoes, environment and so on. I know these manifestoes are never totally accurate, but I can't predict what will and won't be done.

On Brexit specifically, it seems like the predictions of the Remain side ended up being generally right and the predictions of the Leave side ended up being generally wrong, so it seems that someone knew.

I also vote based on social issues such as where someone stands morally, for instance. I'm a pacifist in political terms so I'd be voting for a party that's anti-war.

I don't expect any politician to be a moral bastion, either, I expect the opposite; but if he can do the job, I might vote for him.

There are many factors here, so what you're calling wrong may be so to you, but not to me.

I still don't find it right to stick objective labels on it though.

But again: some political things are objectively true and false, though. GDP is what it is. Unemployment is what it is. A country is either in a war or not. The number of housing starts for an area is a specific number. If you intend for your vote to lead to some outcome, the outcome either happened or it didn't.

No-one voted for Bush based on the Twin Towers or the Recession, or for Trump based on Covid.

I'm not sure what this means.

 

[Secret Chief]

People can't seem to get over that many who voted for it did not vote based on these things.

So why specifically did you vote for brexit?

Did you get what you want? Or do I need to ask this in several decades and you'll be able to say "See, this has happened because of brexit!" (Although to be fair, I'll be long dead before the benefits become manifest).

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it possible that many people vote for Brexit not out of the likely consequences, but due to some sort of prior love for the idea in the abstract?

I want to doubt that, because the implication is that those voters don't care about facts and are too much in love with a myth of some sort of Britannia Unleashed.

That is a very dangerous stance to have.

I guess I am a globalist with little ability to or interest in understanding the appeal of nationalism.

That is fine.

 

[Secret Chief]

Is it possible that many people vote for Brexit not out of the likely consequences, but due to some sort of prior love for the idea in the abstract?

I want to doubt that, because the implication is that those voters don't care about facts and are too much in love with a myth of some sort of Britannia Unleashed.

That is a very dangerous stance to have.

I guess I am a globalist with little ability to or interest in understanding the appeal of nationalism.

That is fine.

Same. Unfortunately in this case I have to live with the consequences.

I wasn't surprised at the (narrow admittedly) result. There's a lot of Little Englanders here, our own version of magas.

- Little Englander - Wikipedia

 

[LuisDantas]

Same. Unfortunately in this case I have to live with the consequences.

I wasn't surprised at the (narrow admittedly) result. There's a lot of Little Englanders here, our own version of magas.

I'm sorry for you folks.

 

[Secret Chief]

I'm sorry for you folks.

Could be worse. I could be in Wyoming.

 

[Rival]

Is it possible that many people vote for Brexit not out of the likely consequences, but due to some sort of prior love for the idea in the abstract?

I want to doubt that, because the implication is that those voters don't care about facts and are too much in love with a myth of some sort of Britannia Unleashed.

That is a very dangerous stance to have.

I guess I am a globalist with little ability to or interest in understanding the appeal of nationalism.

That is fine.

My general impression of Brexit voters is that they are:

- Strong supporters of the nation-state.
- Culturally Protestant (Catholics tend to be pro-EU).
- Support an Old Labour style mixed economic system (prefer the NHS and nationalised rail while still supporting a broader capitalist fiscal base of economic freedoms).
- 'Traditional' as opposed to 'Woke' while broadly supporting ideas like same-sex marriage.
- Strong patriotism.
- Northern English, often rural with a strong sense of local tradition, local businesses etc.
- Feel let down by Labour; 'I voted Tory for the first time in my life' people.

 

[LuisDantas]

- Feel let down by Labour; 'I voted Tory for the first time in my life' people.

This last item is the only true surprise. Do you associate that feeling with any specific time or event?

 

[Secret Chief]

This last item is the only true surprise. Do you associate that feeling with any specific time or event?

This was dubbed the Red Wall. It's predicted to collapse at the coming General Election. (Even gammons have had enough of tory lies).

- Red wall (British politics) - Wikipedia