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.

  • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year 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
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.

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

            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.

        • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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.

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

              I appreciate your persistence in explanation, your point became more clear.

        • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah that’s what is described in the wikipedia article but people here read conservatism, they see red and can’t discuss anymore.