2 ms·
> It happened because politicians didn't listen to voters or do anything about their concerns and money was always the deciding factor in everything they do. Y
by misnome 10y ago
> It happened because politicians didn't listen to voters or do anything about their concerns and money was always the deciding factor in everything they do.
Yes, and this disenfranchisement led to disingenuous politicians and media scaring people into thinking they were under attack from "The others". Almost every single argument betrays this underlying way of thinking. If immigration is so bad, then why did the places with the most immigration vote the least to leave? I have yet to hear a good example of a 'Bad' EU law, or one without good reasons. The commission is clearly chosen by elected politicians; and is demonstrably no less democratic than the choice of prime or government ministers. The new leader of this country will not have been elected so - which is our system, which is fine - but don't pretend it is any other. (interestingly, since WW2 there have now been as many mid-term changes as there have been elected prime ministers).
We in theory elect politicians effectively as 'Experts' who can take the time to make the right decisions with the knowledge that we don't have time or the interest to accumulate. But we've reached the place where emotional appeals are so easy and effective to spread quickly that as soon as someone starts acting in the long term interest (which is often not so good short term, and short term is much easier to defend) they are swept aside.
- lmz 10y agoRemember this from 2009: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers-london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers-l... > I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far. > Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote. > This shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants. The politicians knew what easing immigration restrictions would be unpopular, but they did it anyway.
- formula1 10y agoIm not sure what you mean by people with long term interest are swept aside by emotional appeal. If you implying that the person who markets themself better is more powerful, then yes that is true. Solid marketing in a career ment to sell a person to the masses will usually win. As for long term interest, that truly is up for debate. Some people envision a post scarcity world and want to live it out today. Some believe all groups can live harmoniously togethor. Some people think about progress at any cost. Others relate good behaviour and bad behaviour to demographics. All of these have extremes, upsides and downsides. All have the future and present in mind. Which one is right? Nobody has come up with a discrete plan or vision. We are all so early in evolution, monkeys with really really fancy toys
- whamlastxmas 10y ago> why did the places with the most immigration vote the least to leave? Because they have immigrants voting against it? I have no idea if that's true, but your argument doesn't really hold water.