Hacker News Reader

The UK's premier scientists can always get jobs elsewhere - and probably will. After a while, if research funding dries up, there won't be any more premier scientists being produced.

Two, if you vote for people who are going to deny you prosperity, you don't get prosperity.

If the working classes don't understand that, it's not the fault of the professional classes who - mostly - do.

The reality is that some of those hoity toity Islington socialists care a lot more about the rest of the country than anyone else does.

The upper classes are happy to con the people they think of as plebs with flag waving, a bit of bunting, and wall to wall lies.

You can't blame the middle classes if they get shouted down with name calling for pointing this out.

I still don't hear the voice of the working class in your response. Never the less, both the Tories and Labour fleeced the working class with the promise that they too could enjoy the prosperity the professional class would get to enjoy.

The problem with socialists with respect to the working class, is that they treat the working classes all as one. The native working class are subverted for the non native working class. They didn't work hard enough for their own working class. The English and Welsh working class want the UK government to work and care for them, then, when they meet that, they can work on their pan- European workin class... However, the UK working class were given the short shrift, and now they are demanding what was promised them. And, lead to what it may, there is satisfaction in having your hand on your destiny, because frankly, leaving it in the hands of others have left them holding the empty bag of promises.

[s/subterfuged/subverted]

Was it actually "socialists" promising any of this in the UK? Corbyn seems like the first leader of the Labour Party in decades who you could call socialist, and he hasn't been in long enough to contest a single election yet (and might not be allowed to stay in the party leadership long enough to ever do so). I don't think you could say Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Ed Miliband were really even attempting to sell a socialist agenda to the working class, which might be part of why they didn't succeed at it. They were trying to sell something like U.S.-Democratic-Party-style centre-left progressivism, which didn't really inspire the traditional Labour base, especially in the poorer, post-industrial parts of the UK. Although Blair did win a few elections, and inspired a different group of people, the cosmopolitan, socially progressive middle class.

> The native working class are subterfuged for the non native working class

Subterfuged isn't the right word there but I'm not sure what is -- "passed over"?

There has been so much snobbery about Leave voters. I find it almost as disturbing as the (media magnified) hate speech from the other side.

All of this was laid out in the Brexit arguments. We all watched it on TV and read about it. Leave said they would continue to fund science, farms, Wales and Cornwall and match the EU funding.

Weather this actually happens will be interesting. I think the Tories will neg on that. I think Labour would keep funding.

But in Cornwall, all those millions of EU funding were spent on total crap and none of the local people saw much (if any) of the investment. Most of it went to big business or to stupid stuff.

> Leave said they would continue to fund science, farms, Wales and Cornwall and match the EU funding.

How can they fund all that stuff when they said they would spend all that money on the NHS?

http://imgur.com/indvx6a

"Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week" - that's not "some of" or "part of", that's "all of".

The leave campaign was made up of a lot of random people who all had different ideas. You pick one who has an idea that you agree with and vote for that person.

Not everyone in the leave campaign agreed with "Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week" .... the people who DID don't want to fund science with that money. I assume that have another idea for where that money will come from.

Ah, so a lot of random people all make different promises and every voter believes in their favourite pick. For every broken promise you just have to point at the "random people" and say 'Booya, that promise doesn't count" even if all promises get broken. Neat trick.

The stay argument was 'more of the same' and millions of us can't live with more of the same.

I need money for food. For shelter. For clothes. There are a lot of us really far down on the maslow's hierarchy of needs. We need change, even if that change is chaotic.

Seriously? That is your reasoning here?" Let's change something and I keep reading these scathing headlines about foreign bureaucrats and foreigners having jobs here, so let's get rid of them." One giant ill prepared and not really thought out knee jerk. That's one of the most stupid decisions I've ever seen.

says the rich man sigh

That promise is from the "official" leave campaign, and was promoted heavily by that campaign.

It wasn't a general election and I didn't vote for either of the sides. If "Leave" (as if that were one organisation) said "it" was going to do something, how could that be guaranteed, unless they were able to form a government? If you believed them then it must be disappointing but welcome to UK politics.

I gave my answer to the question on the ballot slip, something I had a settled view on before the campaign began and I don't think I'm that unusual. I think that claims about the £350m etc made as much difference as claims that brexit would bring on the apocalypse by lunchtime.

A lot of the UK government's money is spent on stupid stuff, too. And big businesses. Badum tzzz...

Except there's no evidence for that, it's been thrown around by the media as it's a good story but the data doesn't support that hypothesis.

Pensioners voted heavily for leave and they've benefited hugely over the last few decades. In the 1980s around 50% of pensioners lived in absolute poverty, it's now around 15%.

The vote is far more complex than can be explained in a simple sound-bite, and pretending it's just one thing be that xenophobia or worsening conditions it vastly over-simplifying a hugely complex issue where many different groups voted for different reasons.

Is this anti-Pole position purely something that has arisen, or is it a product of years of anti-immigrant campaigning by newspapers?