With regard to people questioning less, that's not just the purview of the younger segment. I hold the media greatly responsible on that score too.
In both the most recent elections/referenda (here and US) things would've been very different if the media had actually asked questions.
A prime example of that was the whole Leave campaign - if media presenters (I'm sorry, I can't call them journalists or reporters) had been scripted to say "OK, Leave, imagine we've had the referendum, and you've won. What's your plan? Give us a timescale, explain how it'll work if you win."
They'd have had to admit they hadn't got a sodding clue, and it would've swung things massively.
But no-one asked the question. No-one.
Sorry, that one's a bit of a sore point, as you can probably tell. :-)
Lyle - it worked both ways though.
I wish there was another referendum - because I think that the percentages who vote 'leave' the second time would be a lot higher than they were the first time...
I have to disagree.
We knew there was no plan, partly because the remain campaign refused access to the civil service to work on the info to help produce one.
It was just one example of the arrogance of the remain campaign I am afraid.
Both sides offered various degrees of truth, selective use of facts and straight rubbish ( for rubbish read £350m on the part of leave and an immediate emergency budget and immediate recession on the part of the remain tribe).
Neither side was impressive, which left us to make up our own minds, in spite of the state of both campaigns.
Of course since the vote we have had a run of companies investing in the UK rather than leaving, and increases in growth forecasts (some from bad borrowing).
Even Mark Carney has gone from 'immediate recession' to 'quietly optimistic', admitting that the BofE got it wrong.
All emphasises that the 'ignore the experts' argument had some basis in sense.
As BW says, I have a feeling that a second referendum would swing further to leave.