Yes and no. 3 mains groups really. Some of the right, xenophobes and rule Britania types. All very carefully targetted in various ways, Hence outfits like Cambridge Analytica saying they did it when the vote came in. Then comes more in what could be referred to as protest voters. More understandable really. The others are based on tendencies people are inclined to have and they were lead by the nose. Entire thing funded by some extremely rich people. Free market people heavily involved as well.
If the right wants to be less newsworthy the answer is simple. Spend less time in power or get it right when they are in power. Their beliefs don't help. Eg Cameron spouting. Charities used to help. The answer to poverty. Not our problem so rather rapidly foodbanks appear. More people finish up below the poverty line, so called make work pay policy. The numbers get reported. That is seen as a left wing bias. In terms of vote counts there aren't enough of them to matter
yet. Sleaze and the old school tie, Nothing unusual really for them. Xenophobic aspects - well they are pushing some of those themselves. The reasons become newsworthy - seen as left wing again. The party still pushes rule britania. Nothing wrong with that but a battery gigafactory may turn out to be another Delorian fiasco. 6,000 jobs. Unlikely to be in it so an estimation of spin off jobs.Left wing bias by the media. Go back to reporting on Corbyn. Nothing more than the same stupid question over and over again. No attempt to pass on his ideas in detail or the reasons for them. I can recollect one interview where he was given the chance. Starmer is also being led by the press. They keep saying he should be doing such and such. A problem all politicians have when the press makes loud enough noises.
LOL Corbyn - what are the Tories doing - giving a few companies a lot of money - your money to get them to do something. Taxation and privatisation, If some one did the sums they would find that it's just being paid indirectly in other ways compared with pre-privatisation - more now in fact. State run has it's problems mostly political interference to avoid loosing votes due to price increases. They were topped up by the state from the general tax take. Now the companies pay tax. They are also building debt. This mostly relates to utilities.
More people in rented accommodation. Well go back to Mrs T who freely admitted that the sell off of council house would do that. What was the problem with council houses. People pay a rent and many aspects of looking after them were included. What to do if rent is always increased to account for a number of factors - would it be good for votes? Selling them even at discounted prices also bought in a lot of cash. Privatisation generally does.
The left wing orientated media often report on the state of privately owned rented accommodation. They are facts not left wing associated at all. Property has shown a better return for people who have cash to spend compared with say industry for rather a long time. In fact with buy to let mortgages people don't actually need cash just assets. What do you think this does to prices? As I knew a fair few a common feeling from people who went for council houses was that people who went to similar size property via a mortgage were mad as they were a cheaper option. Why do that for a semi when terraced is fine.
