Just watched the Panorama programme on why people voted leave

[ssd]

and am livid

so many people who had zero fucking clue what will now happen to this country, so many wanting to have England back to how it was years ago, well guess what it wont fucking happen, time doesnt go backwards and the immigration wont get any better, it wont stop and it wont go away, all thats happened is this country will now be less competitive and the economy will tank, and when the economy tanks they have to get the money from somewhere and it'll come from the poor as the services they rely on will be cut, massively

and this was meant to be a protest vote!!

why dont so many leave voters actually realise what the are protesting about, lack of schools, housing, the nhs queues, has happened because the tory government have followed an austerity agenda we didnt even need and thats why there is a chronic shortage of housing/school places, as none of these services are being built and if you think voting leave and having a more right wing tory government in place will help these services out by christ you've got another thing coming

its fucking maddening

I haven't commented on the people in this program last girl.

I do think it interesting that immigration is flagged as taking jobs and causing lower wages in areas with low immigration though.

Sadly, the program did confirm the attitudes of the people in the communities I am still in contact with in the North East.

Actually I think you can twist and turn it all you like, but as a brexiteer you have to get used to the fact that although not all people voted leave on immigration, a majority of your voters did do just that.

Its why the mantra of "take back control" was key, but also notice the political rhetoric, "take back control of immigration" is not "lower immigration".

Actually I think you can twist and turn it all you like, but as a brexiteer you have to get used to the fact that although not all people voted leave on immigration, a majority of your voters did do just that.

There's no point to your (impressive) efforts to homogenise the 'leave vote' small.

There were at least two key issues and at least three distinct groups within the "leave vote".

If you ponder for a moment on the fact that the type of voter chosen for Panorama is different from the type of leave voter debating on MN, the whole issue might become clearer to you.

I left London a year ago, after having lived here sine 1993 (with the exception of 3 years between 2008 and 2011), but I am still really concerned with Britain, and where it is headed.

First of all, I would be the first to say that I would not have a clue what to vote (if I could vote), as I dont feel that I would have the knowledge and foresight to judge what is best. And is that not why we have an indirect democracy where our leaders get the right info and vote on our behalf?

I have a mate in the army, and he posted something like this on Facebook, following Brexit:

"Hey, lets put it to the people to vote on whether to spend a billion on the top notch new fighter aircrafts, or whether to spend a billion on national health".

I feel this is a little what has happened with the Brexit issue.
We know what the public would vote for. Health of course, as that affects all of us. (Not saying that we should vote for war machines, but anything juxtaposed against HEALTH would lose to health services, whether it is eu membership or high speed invisible planes that drop bombs). This is also why referendums are a bad idea. Yes, people get their say, but people dont usually have the ability to see the wood for the trees.

Sometimes it is better to take the Socratic approach and admit you know nothing.

But I think it boils down to a serious distrust in politicians that have proven again and again that they DONT care what is best for the country as long as they are ok themselves. This last week of tantruming elite school boys have showed us why they cant be trusted.

If I were a Brit, I would vote for a no-confidence to the entire government and throw them all. I would also ban from politics anybody with a background from elitist boarding schools, based on a recent article in The Guardian explaining WHY they are unfit to rule.

But that is just me. An ex-immigrant with a deep love for the UK.

(I haven't regained my full use of 'g' since Remain's inspirational 'in' campaign).

Nothing to do with the topic but a brilliant aside, brag

Dacre, I'm not sure though that voting 'out' in this referendum will prove to be meaningful though, in that it may do little to ameliorate their situation. I don't expect them to make representations to employers - I agree that might be futile. But when a reporter sticks a camera in someone's face, they have an opportunity to get angry at companies, in the same way they get angry at the immigrant workforce; I have yet to see that in the course of the referendum coverage.

If you aren't getting housed in Council housing, why not blame government policy for selling the houses off and not building more? Or blame the people a generation above you, who bought those houses and removed their availability? (we gone from 42% living in Council homes 40 years ago to just 8%). But no, it's easiest to blame homeless people who are assigned these homes because their situation in life deems them to have the highest need.

Personally, living in a small town with umpteen relations and everyone I went to school with plus everyone I ever kissed is my idea of hell. But a lot of people love living that. Non graduates are less likely to leave their home towns (lacking the impetus of uni ) anyway. Sneering at that and assuming that it is in itself a euphemistic sentiment is a bit off.

There is nothing inherent to living in a small town with umpteen relations and everyone one went to school with, which can be threatened by an influx of foreigners. The community is still there. They just don't like the incomers, afaics. It's not "loss of community", it's "We'll keep to our own, thanks". And yes, I think that's small-minded and warrants plenty of sneering.

I think the people interviewed have swallowed the "bloody foreigners" rhetoric wholesale, basically.

I'd warrant that the programme makers set out to find the near-stereotype of the dim, racist, working class, "I've been here 12 generations, me" Brexiter, and they succeeded.

Ah I didn't do that though did I Dacre, I said that there was a large group within the leave camp that voted leave because of immigration.

There are others agreed, but a lot of people voted out on this issue.

Far more than the 4% majority you got, so lets just say without immigration as the key issue, leave wouldn't have won.

I knew what this programme would be looking to find. Surprise surprise they found it. I think uk tv had given up on investigative journalism. Adrian Chiles should stick to the footie.

to employers - I agree that might be futile. But when a reporter sticks a camera in someone's face, they have an opportunity to get angry at companies, in the same way they get angry at the immigrant workforce; I have yet to see that in the course of the referendum coverage.

Well referendum coverage is referendum coverage. It's starting to look as though the grassroots people who did vote partly on immigration had lost hope before then.

If you aren't getting housed in Council housing, why not blame government policy for selling the houses off and not building more? Or blame the people a generation above you, who bought those houses and removed their availability? (we gone from 42% living in Council homes 40 years ago to just 8%). But no, it's easiest to blame homeless people who are assigned these homes because their situation in life deems them to have the highest need.

RTB, annoyingly enough in some ways, has very high popular support because it's viewed as a ladder up across a widening inequality gap.

Residualisation of council housing stock has been an issue for 30 years now and resulted not just in fewer available units but a worsening quality of council housing stock and worsening social problems on estates. If capital receipts had been reinvested, there would have been few problems, so it's not as simple as 'RTB is to blame' and there has been time to fix it.

You must remember that those who stuck around in WCs towns when others left, who still live in the cheap housing have a ringside seat to massive and rapid change.

They're not going to simply believe us Londoners patting them on the head and saying "there there you've got it all wrong".

If, as a society, we have a collective concern that immigration scepticism had tipped into xenophobia in some quarters, then we need to stop patronising people, stop critiquing their levels if erudition, stop insisting that all immigration is entirely unproblematic and start having more grown up national conversations that include the whole electorate.

What I hear all the time about housing is that immigrants come over here an and get given a house.

By all means listen to the complaints and the issues, but when people in areas of low immigration blame immigration for their collective woes, its hard to take them seriously.

Sorry.

There is nothing inherent to living in a small town with umpteen relations and everyone one went to school with, which can be threatened by an influx of foreigners.

I would guess it depends on the size of the 'influx' as you call it. I think most towns don't get immigration big enough to cause major problems, but you didn't say that anyway hummus. You said;

I'm an EU national living in London, so you can guess my opinion about their loss of community, Johnny's aunt's hairdresser's daughter not getting a school place etc.)

Which sounded plain hostile to small town life and valuing community, period.

You didn't say 'many ' small. You said 'a majority'.

are you talking about the programme I tuned into last night, showing a load of people at some kind of garden party thing, wearing funny boaters and blazers? I switched channels in horror!

What I hear all the time about housing is that immigrants come over here an and get given a house.

By all means listen to the complaints and the issues, but when people in areas of low immigration blame immigration for their collective woes, its hard to take them seriously.

Where do you hear that all the time small?

No nigella

Then I'll stand by that, the majority of leave voters voted leave because of immigration.

Without that as a factor, there would have been no win.

The far more opaque points on sovreignty and democracy etc would have been secondary factors but immigration was the main point.

Lets be honest about this Dacre, it was constantly referred to by the leave group. Other points were secondary.

Where do I hear it Dacre?

In Enfield when we go to the pub, in the North East when at home to visit my mum, on here, from people who you wouldn't expect it from. In surveys where they list immigration and pressure on public services from immigration as their no 1 concern etc etc.

Lets be honest about this Dacre, it was constantly referred to by the leave group. Other points were secondary.

I have to be honest, unless I go in pursuit of something specific online, I confine myself to R4 and the channel four evening news, so I don't have the best overview of what is in the broader media.

In Enfield when we go to the pub, in the North East when at home to visit my mum, on here, from people who you wouldn't expect it from. In surveys where they list immigration and pressure on public services from immigration as their no 1 concern etc etc.

I hear plenty of concern about immigration in similar places -and most especially work and wages - but only three times in about ten years have I heard crazy 'people come over, get given houses and cars' opinions (if you can call them that).

Go look up the Mail headlines page, go look at what the Sun did, what the Telegraph and Express did.

Their combined total readership (both primary and secondary readers) is going to be a good chunk of your vote.

The "take control" mantra was repeated over and over and it was mainly followed by "of our borders", then "and our laws".

Just5 means to say that people's concerns with immigration were valid even when people had no direct experience of anything wrong with it.
People's general 'concerns with immigration' were never mostly prejudices because someone somewhere had a legitimate reason for concern.

You might be the exception to this rule small, but I tend to think that most of the people who believe that the lumpen proletariat just blankly repeat what the daily mail says, do not actually know anyone working class.

So what are the concerns with immigration?

EU immigration doesn't cause native unemployment, it causes very small changes in wages for those in the bottom 5 % but pushes wages up in the middle and the top.

EU immigration in the vast majority is not pushing up rental or housing costs.

EU immigration doesn't cause excessive pressure on the Health system

People had concerns because the media told them so.

I found it a bit muddled. Like the factory owner who was complaining about immigration but employed 20 Polish workers and praised them to the heights.

Then the last lady complained that her problem with immigrants is that when they earn money they send it home and it doesn't stay in the country. She didn't have a problem with immigrants being hired mind you - but they shouldn't be allowed send any money outside the country???

I was honestly confused.

And the last guy saying that if things haven't substantially improved in 3 years he'll feel utterly betrayed. Seriously??? He expects money to pour into the region overnight?

I was half wondering if Adrian Chiles was stitching them up!

Just5 means to say that people's concerns with immigration were valid even when people had no direct experience of anything wrong with it.

No, I mean the opposite.

Most urbanite, MC, leavers had no reason to vote on the issue of immigration.