New research on Brexit voters overturns previously broadcast fake news

There is some new research out about the voter demographic divide in the EU referendum on June 23rd that casts a new light on what we’ve been told, so far, about who voted to leave the European Union and why.

While similar demographics apply geographically – with the divide being between the metropolitian elites in the major cities and the rest of the country – there is a different story when it comes to voting intentions by age and class.

We were originally told that there was a big divide between younger and older voters, with younger voters being more inclined to vote to remain in the EU, and older ones inclined to leave.  The BBC even put out a narrative that ran along the lines of out-of-touch and past-their-sell-by-dates older voters who were “ruining it for the rest of us”.

But when you look at this new research based on Lord Ashcroft’s data from the London School of Economics, it shows that it was really only among 18-24 year-olds that there was a definite majority in favour of staying in the EU. Once you got into the aged 25-plus group, the vote began to swing much more heavily behind leaving the EU. In other words, those that had left school, college and university and  were trying to find their way in the real world had a different – and I would say more pragmatic view – than the youngsters whose more idealistic in vitro views had yet to be tested in vivo to any great degree.

Added to which, there’s another twist. We heard almost immediately after the referendum that only 36 per cent of 18-24 year-olds managed to get themselves down to a polling station to mark their cross in the box, in contrast to the 81 per cent of 55-64 year-olds and 83 per cent of 65 year-olds and over that did turn out.

But now this new study also finds that the 36 per cent of those 18-24 year-olds who voted in the referendum were disproportionately from the wealthier classes – in other words, the minority who had been lucky enough to find employment or who had other means of income. The report posits the view that the rest of that age group – those that didn’t vote – could have been suffering from being priced out of the jobs and housing market because of increased immigration and, not having made the connection between immigration and our membership of the European Union, were simply too despondent and/or ignorant to see the referendum as a way out of that dilemma.

The report’s authors state:

“First, it has been assumed that a despondent working-class vote drove Britain from EU membership. Secondly, it has also been taken for granted that the young were overwhelmingly Europhile. [But] given the Ashcroft data, it could be suggested that the poorest in British society simply did not turn out to vote, whilst the loudest voices in favour of EU membership amongst the young were those more affluent…

“With this generational divide in political participation established, what are the possible differences in generational world-views? Lord Ashcroft’s polling data appears to confirm the suggestion that the vote to leave the EU represented a strong impasse in world-views between two divergent age groups. As the age variable increases, so does the tendency for the individual to hold more socially conservative attitudes, and vice-versa.

“Those aged 18-24 years old, as Figure 2 highlights, were the most likely to perceive immigration to be a benign entity. When the age variable increased, support for immigration declined, with those aged 25-34 years old demonstrating considerably less support for immigration.

“This suggests that attitudes towards immigration do not differ simply between the young and old, but between those aged 24 years old and younger and those aged 25 years old and older. This strengthens the argument that, in an atmosphere of austerity and increased labour-market precarity following the financial crisis of 2008, immigration, and the perceived pressure that it places on housing, wages and public services, has become a mainstream concern.” (my bolding)


Unfortunately, although to be expected from a report coming out of a university, the authors make the same false qualitative assumption about those who voted to remain in the EU being more likely to have an university degree and thus to be ‘better educated’. They don’t appear to build into their thinking that over the past three decades, there has been a massive increase in left-wing, cultural Marxist indoctrination of students in all forms of educational establishments with the universities in both the UK and the US becoming virtual command-and-control centres for the globalist doctrine. Added to which, the standard of actual academic education has dropped considerably since most Babyboomers were at school and even the authors admit, at one point:

“But as we say above, average levels of educational attainment are so strongly confounded with age that it is very hard to compare qualifications over time. A master’s degree in 2016 may be the equivalent of gaining good A levels in 1946!”

There’s a lot more to this research, particularly on the impact of inequality of wealth and opportunity, and you can read the full paper here. But I’ve creamed off these few striking findings because they provide useful ammunition when the likes of Tim Farron and Nick Clegg insist falsely that we are country divided down the middle and that the other side, the young people, are entitled to their say too.

My answer to them is: “No, the young that you refer to are not entitled to a say because most of them didn’t cast their ballot, and the majority of those that did lost the vote. In addition, I think we can all agree that the decision about which direction this country goes in should not be swayed by a minority of affluent kids under the age of 24 who’ve been indoctrinated by the globalist Left when the rest of that age group are finding it difficult to find jobs and housing because of high immigration, which is a direct result of our membership of the EU.”

I’m actually finding this report quite encouraging because for the past six months, I’ve been receiving the impression from the media that the post-democratic, one-world-government globalists are just waiting for us Babyboomers to die before bending the will of the rest of the country in their direction. But I think that this new research shows that they have a much higher mountain to climb than that, and especially in an era in which the White House is occupied by a Donald Trump presidency.

Reclaiming Sovereignty

Shamanic Earth Magic


Get it here

When the people of Britain voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, the word on everyone’s lips was Sovereignty.

But what is Sovereignty?

There were some who tried to convince the British people that Sovereignty didn’t really exist, or that if it did, it was over-rated. A few self-styled experts claimed that Sovereignty could be extended or pooled; others insisted that Sovereignty was merely “the ability to get things done.”

All of those pundits were wrong – although they were hardly to blame for their errors. Sovereignty actually starts off life as a spiritual transmission from the spirits of the land, but this is no longer taught to the general populace.

However, a few mystic types did know about Sovereignty, and so they weren’t at all surprised when its spirit rose up from the land on the Summer Solstice of 2016, and infused the hearts and minds of the ordinary people of Britain.

In this book, Reclaiming Sovereignty, you will learn all about the spiritual source of Sovereignty – and how to find it and reclaim it in your own life and on your own land.

Get Reclaiming Sovereignty: Shamanic Earth Magic here

This article is based on the paper: Brexit, inequality and the demographic divide by Danny Dorling, Ben Stuart and Joshua Stubbs.