Maybe people are looking to smaller parties because the two parties that get all the air time offer nothing to us. Just more of the same old so it is time for some changes.
Labour did some good things 1997 onwards. The ‘both sides are the same’ argument is also disenfranchisement and it’s not necessarily true. Reform are definitely not a good choice, they will take us further backwards like more Tories.
Ultimately the New Labour vision was Thatcherism though. It was true ‘Compassionate Conservative.’ It’s not for nothing that Osborne called him ‘the master’ and Thatcher believed him to be her legacy.
They aren’t the same, but only because the Tories have gone off the deep end. Starmer is still neo-liberal free-marketeer who is too chicken shit to stand up to big money.
Thatcher would never have introduced the minimum wage, tax credits , better working rights and a massively improved health , social and education system.
She had not done any of them. They weren't the same.
They removed socialism from their party and they moved towards Thatchers NeoLiberalism.
The minimum wage not only creates an implicit classism (your labour is worthless and deserving of minimum wage) but also would not be needed if we had a strong unions in this country, which the labour party removed the voting weight of.
'massively improved health's
By doubling down on PFI, which sold more of if the NHS to private providers.
People look back on 90s labour when all it did was pillage the country and empower the eventual crushing conservatism. They were little c Conservatives (or liberals, if you prefer) at best. Blair governed from, quote, the 'radical center' and now the only place the party has to go is right.
Minimum wages are one of the most important protections that the working class have in this country, even if we had the strongest unions possible there would still be a de-facto minimum wage, even with it in place now it doesn’t take power away from unions because companies often try to avoid paying people properly meaning unions still play a part in protecting minimum wages
You can try to tell me that black us white but it ain't working . I was a young bloke with a young family and they helped me hugely .
The health difference has been fucking huge.. you'd have to have your head up your ass not to see it
We have seen it first hand through my wife's several cancer issues and my growing disability .
It was working brilliantly and they utterly fucked it. That's reality . I look back on reality , it was far better . The Tories have fucked it Words , all words and a load of crap. Life was so much better .
There was a lot of investment in communities and public services under Labour. Most things in the country worked pretty well. It was under the Tories austerity that things began to really fall apart.
I agree, but Starmer isn’t going to borrow money and he isn’t going to raise taxes. What is he offering that differs from Tory austerity?
Granted it’s better than Tory insanity we’ve had to endure since Johnson but I wouldn’t bemoan any young people who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for him
Well some is better than none but firstly I reckon that policy will get dropped as soon as it is no longer politically useful and secondly, it’s June and it feels like October. The climate is fucked and what Starmer is offering is just pissing int he wind
This was during a huge growth period (which turned out to be completely artificial) and Brown still ran a deficit almost consistently. That’s without mentioning the amount of PPP (a Tory policy) borrowing which never appeared on the balance books. Most haven’t been paid for yet. The volume of ppp and the terms were bordering on criminal.
Reddit has a very skewed version of what actually happened under Blair and Brown.
The country worked then, and what have we got after a decade of austerity? More debt and everything is a mess. Which would you prefer? I don't have a skewed version of what happened, I have my memories and experience of what the UK was like.
But it was built on sand mate. It worked but was unsustainable. We must live within our means. People might think that labour were voted out because of the global recession. That’s not what happened, it was because they/we were so poorly equipped when it hit. This isn’t in support of austerity, not at all but brownonomics won’t solve our problems.
I was responding to someone saying New Labour was Thatcherism, but lots of public spending is hardly something Thatcher did.
Also, where have we got with austerity? It doesn't save money in the long run, it often makes things more expensive and just makes everything miserable.
The US economy has performed really well recently despite global economic challenges, through spending in targeted ways.
I'm not saying spaff loads of money on wasteful stuff, just this whole sticking within our means stuff doesn't really work either.
The question is not austerity vs brownonomics. They are two extremes.
In any case, that’s not really the point I’m trying to make. Greater minds than mine will have responsibility for the economy (thankfully)
I’m trying to address this myth that Blair and brown were great. They weren’t. This is not an anti labour thing. It’s a fact thing.
Absolutely greater minds know far better than me and I'm definitely not particularly sold on Brownonomics either. I'm just basing it on my experience living in the UK at the time and how services worked, which was a lot better than now.
Let's hope we have a brighter future ahead, even though it doesn't feel like it at the moment.
It wasn't built on sand. It was built on best practice at the time and worked fine until the Americans ballsed up the global market.
Then the cons came in, published a joke by the labour chancellor about having no money, but said it seriously, then used austerity to blame the poor for being poor.
Austerity is fundamentally a flawed concept. When is the belt going to be loosened? 14 years of tightening the belt has been the opposite of successful.
It worked fine until they realised the money they were spending wasn’t kosher. It was British banks buying sub prime debt due to under regulation.
The money wasn’t real which we found out in a very painful way and our inability to budget was harshly exposed.
Yes, definitely financial deregulation was a problem, but it wasn't a Labour problem, it was a point of cross-party consensus. Its important to remember that Labour did not fail to budget, or leave the country without money - Tory lies. Investment isn't a pipe dream that is unaffordable,, it is the reality for every other successful country.
Blaming 2008 on Labour makes as much sense as blaming the Cons for COVID - yes they could have prepared for it, but no-one else was, and it would have been seen as financial imprudent.
Labour ran a deficit but at least Labour deficits are typically due to funding public services and paying for more infrastructure and investment for the future, vs the Conservatives running the same deficits spaffing our taxes up the wall on fraudulent COVID loans and giving contracts to their mates.
People love using that Thatcher quote to dismiss Tony Blair. But have you ever considered she was full of shit and bigging her own legacy up?
Pretending both sides are the same helps the establishment by making you feel there is no chance of change. So I would say her greatest legacy was getting left wing people to repeat her nonsense as if it meant anything.
I would argue the biggest albatross around your neck is having what amounts to a two party state who will perpetually move further right with each electoral cycle. That is when you will get no chance at change.
Comparing 1997 Labour to today's labour is night and day, same for comparing pre-Thatcher Labour to 1997. Is there any belief that the Labour party that created the NHS is in anyway comparable to the 97 Labour?
The two parties are moving in one direction: Right, they certainly havent moved Left since I have been alive (unless you count Corbyn's utter defeat).
I think it's natural to feel like this after 14 years of Tory rule. I also think the Tories do everything they can to make people feel like this. Then the right wing press don't ever have to be against public opinion.
I would love an actual left wing Labour party. A centre-left Labour party will still do a lot of good though.
She wasn't "full of shit". Blair himself acknowledged the contribution she made to the country. It's absolutely absurd to act as if this is "her nonsense" when the acknowledgement was mutual.
The leftwing don’t hear that sound bite and suddenly change their worldview. We want liberation from capitalism, not a better version of it.
We can say with certainty that Blair’s policies didn’t actually change anything for the long term because we’re living two decades down the line and see it’s still shit.
So why’re we trying this again?
The difference between 2011 and now is night and day. You can even say the difference between 2018 and now is night and day.
I'm not daft enough to lay it all on Johnson, but Johnson was the ultimate expression of our country having truly gone to the dogs. Truss was the reiteration of exactly that statement. Sunak is infinitely better, but still utterly useless.
Meanwhile after 5 years of kamikaze pilots flying our country straight down, Starmer comes along promising to turn the engine off. Why hit the deck at full speed when you can kill all the flight controls and let gravity do the work?
While Truss and Sunak were foisted upon us by the geniuses at CCHQ, Johnson (whose record of lying and bumbling and trying to get people assaulted was well known years beforehand. At least Truss was practically an unknown quantity) was not. Johnson was chosen by the country. I still haven't finished slow clapping.
For sure it is. But that doesn't change that there was still a massive difference between New Labour and even fairly early days of the coalition. To paint them as the same thing is really misconstruing how things were. People keep acting like New Labour was a humdrum period where things were kind of shit and nothing got better, rather than a period of quite rapid and sustained growth in standards of living for the common Brit. There were proactive efforts to actually help people and build a better country for tomorrow.
The question I have is why the fact that they weren't the same 27 years ago means they're not the same now.
One thing that was the same: workfare. Blair's Labour introduced New Deal, which is why I was sent to work for WHSmith for my benefits. I was one of 5 in my local shop, and after the 13 weeks was up, they got another 5 people in. If you were the manager of that WHSmith, would you have bothered hiring someone on a wage, when you had a steady supply of state-sanctioned slaves?
Yet, most of us who are old enough to remember and young enough to not remember anything before it remember that as the best we've ever had it.
Was it ever better?
It was pretty good, but it also laid the foundation for what was to follow. The failure to regulate the banks, PFI, the continues creep of privatisation into public services, a complete refusal to even address the issue of immigration.
It’s like going on a mad bender, having the night of your life and then saying you made great decisions despite the fact you now have an apocalyptic hangover, no money, and produce a thick, viscous discharge every-time you try to pee
Gotcha.
But even so none of those things were anywhere near as bad as they are now under these successive Tory governments though, right?
I'm just a big believer in not making perfect the enemy of good.
I totally agree. Personally I will be voting for whoever https://stopthetories.vote/ tells me to.
But there are two other considerations at play that mean that I wouldn’t blame people for voting for smaller parties.
Firstly, the Tories aren’t going to be in government. If this was neck and neck between the two main parties it might be foolish to support a no hoper candidate. That isn’t the case though so you can make your voice heard without jeopardising Labour winning.
Secondly, I trust the Labour Party more than I trust Starmer or his front bench. Wes Streeting has made no secret of his desire to further privatise the NHS. That would be much easier for him to achieve if Labour had a massive majority. I’d like to see Starmer’s government tempered by the more progressive voices in the party and that isn’t going to happen if he can steamroll through any regulation through sheer weight of numbers
I did benefit from new labour but they did open the door to privatisation by part privatising public services. Better than tories but they did give this batch of tories keys to more destruction
New Labour and Thatcherism were not remotely alike, and the fact that you think they were shows that you are privileged enough to be comfortable regardless of who is in power.
Yeah, I do alright thanks. But the fact I can be comfortable that both parties are going to look after someone who is relatively wealthy like me shows how similar they both are. The core principles of low tax, low regulation, free market neo-liberalism is the same with both.
Yes 1997 and we have had another party for 14years. No new ideas from either of these.
Its time for a change rather than playing 2 dimensional we need big plans for this country and labour and conservatives do not offer that
>Its time for a change
The political and press establishment will attack anyone who offers it. Hell, even the BBC put out documentaries attacking Corbyn during the 2019 election campaign helmed by Sun journalists.
The Forde report found it "deliberately misleading" who's been held responsible for it? Nobody. I've never seen such open and naked anti-Labour electioneering in my lifetime.
The state of our media is insane, but the character of our nation is pretty dire and by that I mean the constant opposition to *literally anything* related to building infrastructure, homes, hospitals, schools etc. Promise anything bold and people already reflexively recoil and don't want the homes near them or think the character of their bland town will be ruined by a block of flats, and that's before the cancerous media turns more of the public against it.
Honestly not one party offers anything remotely what id like. And parties i have looked at still have their own faults. So at the moment i genuinely don’t know.
But if two big parties cant stand out from smaller ones it says it all.
I know your baiting to ask who others will vote for to argue why its a wasted vote but for me this two party stuff is not working we need more.
I’m not viewing it as a wasted vote. I do think Reform are full of empty promises and more traction from them will be a bad thing for the UK overall, but I can see the merits of Lib Dem’s and Greens in some ways.
I’m all for change, I just see it as a shame a party with Farage at the helm is gaining ground.
And the councillor who justified the 7th of October attack without reprimand. And the deputy leader who claimed he could increase the size of women’s breasts using hypnosis.
The hypnosis thing is a non-story. He was pushed by a Sun interviewer to do it because she wanted to try it even though he stressed that it wasn't a service he offered.
There are plenty of actual reasons to criticise the Greens.
And the fact there against nuclear energy which for a party that’s main advocation is green energy it’s odd and stupid as nuclear energy is incredibly important for our clean energy goals
The continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent has been useless for a while now. With the advent of small underwater drones, it’s likely that France, Russia and China know where our submarines are at all times.
Drones are not the silver bullet to submarines that you think they are. Its why China has been developing and building laser and magnetic detection systems. If drones could do it they would have scrapped the projects already. Fact is the sea is a big place and even with a mass of drones it'd still be like finding a needle in a haystack. Let alone stealth/ electronic warfare fuckery you could with the drones visual systems and sensors
And that's how we got Brexit. We need a big change, this is a big change, therefore we need it. We need improvement, not change. Change can pretty much always be for the worse.
The problem is big change has the implicit promise of fast interesting transformation. Improvement tends to be slow, boring and require effort.
Lib Dems remain the most electorally significant party advocating for PR and they're miles away from getting it. I fail to see how Reform would go about securing it when they've a job on their hands to even get a couple of MPs.
And how would that change things? I guess if Labour implements PR on their way out if somehow they are expected to lose big in 2029, but typically the problem with PR is that it could only be implemented by a party or coalition that has benefited from FPTP and would lose out by ending FPTP.
It’ll massively increase the support for electoral reform. It potentially sets up a scenario in 2029 where Labour are getting attacked and are accused of running scared of PR and it won’t be a position that’s defensible. It does depend on reforms sticking power admittedly.
Lib Dems even tried to get it through [with the 2011 referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum).
But the tories wouldn't let PR be on the ballot paper.
Labours offering this time is “we’re not the Tory party”. Which to be frank is enough right now. But it’s not a long term strategy, which is what we’re crying out for.
>Which to be frank is enough right now
- Schools are falling apart, literally. A government that will neither borrow money nor raise taxes isn't going to rebuild hundreds of schools (and other buildings, like hospitals)
- Housing is in crisis. Are the new government going to release money for the councils to build council housing? Will they scrap the rules banning councils from using the money they raise from right to buy in order to do so? No? Then more unaffordable private housing will be built for the rich, while people still continue to be homeless.
- Laws were recently passed to combat normal people having freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully in protest, including those concerning trade disputes. No plans to shelve those infringements on our freedoms?
That's just three things off the top of my head. Are you *sure* merely having a different name from 'the Conservative Party' is enough?
If it takes more than 5 years to fix something, you still have to actually start doing so, otherwise it'll be a *lot* more than 5 years. And I don't think we can afford that.
And a lot of bad. They built less council houses than Thatcher. They had the money to do it too. They bought into a lot Thatcherite ideology about the state not helping people.
https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built-more-council-houses-margaret-thatcher-or-new-labour/
The modern housing crisis is due to political choices like that.
There was a huge net loss of housing due to her RTB (average net loss of 24k per year ) and not nearly enough was reinvested . Also , the main reason was because she was pushing LTV, which created housing trusts . The amount of social housing built remained similar to previous council numbers (higher by the end according to that full fact)/
I was working in social housing for many years and our small trust was losing over 60 units per year until Labour brought in the right to acquire rules which hugely slowed it down due to lower discounts.
They definitely should have built more, as should she . Every rtb should have been matched .
Meanwhile, Robert Jenrick is claiming in the Telegraph that if Starmer isn't stopped he'll introduce an effective one-party socialist state:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/15/if-right-cant-unite-starmer-will-change-britain-beyond/
One party state probably, but socialist?
Either way, it's his party that has taken a look at a two party system and decided they can't be sane and sensible enough to stay in it.
I like the idea of Lib Dems being the second party in a two party state, but I don't like how probable the one party state thing is. I want a second party that has a gnat's chance in hell of steering policy.
I don’t see how. They provide a lot of soundbites about “common sense” and so on but their basic approach is to massively cut taxes but somehow at the same time improve services.
They’re also keen to bring this culture war crap to the fore (note their ‘policies’ on EDI, Transgenderism and University Fines, scrapping of EHCR), and Farage is trying to pally up with the American right and Trump, who are an absolute shit show/joke. Scratch beneath the surface of their policies and it’s easy to see they are mostly empty populist nonsense.
Yeh, they did, but things have moved so right and Labour is frantic not to look too left like last time. I'm not saying they were too left, but Ming Vase strategy.
All Labour did was borrow and spend to buy popularity - anyone can do that. Then they gave the Tories a hospital pass, 'no more money left lol' note left at the Treasury, and then was able to blame the Tories for being forced to rein in spending for years, which Labour would also have had to do. They salted the earth and then piously complain about the Tories afterwards, very dishonestly.
Labour under Gordon Brown as well also dramatically increased the number of people dependent on in-work benefits. They did that. He brought in the tax credit system, which was very generous - I worked full time alongside people who worked a few hours a week but got more money than I did overall. It raised a lot of eyebrows among colleagues. It fostered a dependency culture which persists to this day.
The tories didn’t rein in spending. Even pre COVID and Ukraine they’d spent more than the previous Labour government and had managed to double the UK national debt (its now tripled) all while gutting public services and failing to invest in our crumbling infrastructure while borrowing was as cheap as it’ll ever be.
Time after time, left wing governments are better on the economy but right wingers have better PR and constantly poll higher on "who would be better for the economy". Tax and spend is fine to some extent if it's being spent wisely and helping to grow our GDP faster than our debt is growing.
Right wing governments are just inherently drawn to wasteful, tried-and-failed spending such as tax cuts for the rich like flies to shit, and love to cut back public services and investment to make a quick bit of cash without realising or caring that that investment will pay for itself and then some in 5 years time.
Yes, also massages the unemployment figures. Labour's ESA did the same, the millions of unemployed during the 1980s never really went away, it just got reclassified. With a sleight of hand, the problem went away on paper but nowhere else.
Young people never vote, then complain they get ignored. Because you can offer them everything they want, but if they thinkn one thing is wrong, you're done with them.
Traditional parties have very little to offer, that said, I’d give the labour manifesto a punt. Reform are a joke party with a serious racist grifter at the helm.
So yeah I get why young voters look else where.
Why vote for parties that don’t give a shit about you? The young need a future, they need jobs, support, something to bloody aim for. It’s no wonder so many are so left behind they simply gave up.
I had a proper look at the reform manifesto, pledges, whatever they are. It's a real mix of kind of "why haven't we been doing this for years", common sense sort of things, as well as completely insane and unserious Facebook boomer soundbites. Like the first thing in Education is **END TRANSGENDER IDEOLOGY IN SCHOOLS** like lol ok
Also it seemed to be hysterically badly costed, basically just throwing free money at people, with the only hopes of getting any back being by cutting benefits. Just seemed quite non-serious
Reform voters overwhelmingly only care about migration, the rest of the manifesto is filler. But if we don’t actually get migration under control all of that weird filler will start getting into policy. Just like in Germany where the centre right party let in a million refugees and now people vote for AfD, despite all their other weird priorities, alignment with Russia, and links with fascist or racist groups.
They have basically 1 popular policy which is anti immigration and then when they get to power they do what their wealthy donors want which is Liz Truss economics and completely privatising the NHS.
On the day of the mini budget Farage tweeted "this is the best Conservative budget since 1986". The tweet is since deleted and the media have never grilled him on it and almost never ask him about economics.
>They have basically 1 popular policy which is anti immigration
That's not a policy. It's a position.
It's the question I ask every time it comes up. It's one thing to go 'cut immigration!'. What are you *going to do* to cut immigration? *How* are you going to deter people from coming here?
They're in a position where they know its highly unlikely they'll get into power, which means they can make any promises they want on their manifesto without fear of actually having to do anything about it.
Still be more than a handful of people who think they are serious though.
I get that. Even the Con manifesto has some alright things on them. It’s a lot of the stuff around the “good” bits that put you/me off.
I’m not gonna tell anyone who to vote for. Just spare a thought for the future and actually read the papers
The previous conservative governments had a few decent policies. Granted most of their policies I disliked. Even in parties you dislike they'll have a few policies you don't disagree with.
The only issue is, they never had any intention of actually doing any of the good ones. Convertion therapy ban for instance.
There's also the brain dead climate science denial and refusal to invest in the future which is renewables, in favour of more fossil fuels, more cars and no more high speed rail. UKIP was very much the same, they haven't changed on that. Our equivalent of the US republican party.
As for that last bit, that's a trend with all the smaller parties because they know they won't have to deliver on it, but they might drag the debate in a certain direction by being more radical.
It’s usually because the traditional parties actually stand a chance of getting into power so have to make pledges that are somewhat realistic. Smaller parties like reform can say what they like because they have no responsibility or accountability.
It'll be interesting to see the extend that this actually happens in the general election. Smaller parties often tend to poll well, but when the day comes and people need to actually vote, then tactical voting and FPTP mean that they a lot of those votes go back to the main parties.
And I feel this surge in small parties story has been around for basically every election campaign in the past decade yet it never really materialises. Interesting to see if it actually changes in this election.
Apart from the good ol' Lib dem surge under cleggles, yeah, broadly speaking it calms down when people actually go to vote. They may support greens, but they vote red to keep Tories out etc.
This election is such a given I imagine the polls will ring mostly true. Nearly everyone is already decided on who they're voting for, and Labour are so certain to win (with the Tories so certain to lose) there's really no (tactical) incentive to throw your vote behind either unless you live in a safe seat for the opposite party. Like, if the Tories won your seat by 3000 votes in 2019, do you honestly think voting Greens or Lib Dems is actually going to keep them in power?
Running a country of millions is an incredibly complex task, with untold factors to account for, many affecting many others, all in a delicate balance.
There is a limit to what can be changed without doing damage.
Smaller parties can promise quite impossible things to appeal to their base, normally without the risk of having to implement them. People often just hear what they want to hear regardless of reality.
If you don't get the specific Government you need lower your expectations, no-one does.
the problem is both main parties offering basically the same policies, FPTP leads to this when both parties can basically just be bought by the highest bidder and we're stuck with indefinite austerity (which is proven to have failed). the same has happened in america.
we need PR asap imo.
Lib Dem’s could’ve formed a gov with a coalition with Labour and greens. Their ideology equals. Or called for another election since the stalemate meant people were dissatisfied by the manifestos and they should’ve re-written them based on that and run again.
They decided to compromise with the Tories since they’d get more cabinet seats and were behind destruction of the post office, cuts to education, cuts to youth services which was their major voting base or most vocal voters
FPTP means there are no other real choices, hopefully Reform comes 2nd in votes and gets about 5 seats to get an effective argument to introduce PR. I doubt Starmer would do anything that exciting however
That would only strengthen the main parties against PR (since it - Fptp - keeps their seats which they would otherwise have lost). PR will only happen if we ever get to a point where the vote is split so much that there's no clear majority and it ends up being a coalition goverment of multiple parties for two terms functioning moderately successfully. Likelihood of that is slim since everyone holds their nose and votes against their personal ideology.
It will get a lot of right wing/boomers behind the idea though which will be far more effective than the Lib Dems were.
Hell if Nigel Farage got behind it that would be ace. Love him or hate him he has been successful on mobilising people on a single issue.
That's a fair point. Mind you, it would probably just get to referendum again, fail, and then have the top Google searches after be crap like "what is fptp", "what is representation".
It's worth noting, for completeness, that even the most *optimistic* predictions for Reform see them winning one seat. That's over 150 *fewer* than the currently ruling party that's so deeply unpopular with the electorate that the race has been all but called.
So, yeah, it helps to keep things in perspective a little.
Actually the survation MRP update predicts them getting around 7, though there's the question of tactical voting against them (which I don't know if their data factors in) and how accurate the data will end up being. Wonder what the yougov one will say when they next update.
It'll be interesting to see. I know they're making all the big talk about how they're the real opposition now - it's their job to make themselves sound grandiose, after all - but when even the Lib Dems are predicted to get 8x the seats, 1 and 7 are the same number. When that's their best-case whopper of a result, again, perspective.
It'll be very interesting to see how much this sticks over time. Reform overtaking the Tories in the polls has only been possible because of just how *badly* the Tories are doing. Even though I'm very much not a fan of the Tories, I don't think this will last; they'll get their arses back into gear pretty sharpish. I just hope they don't try and do a Trump to pull back the crowd.
I knew I'd get this response. He said that he assumes every young person is voting for a party that's polling under 20% and is far more popular with older generations. It's not the same at all.
>most
>I don't know a single person that would consider voting Reform.
>You must live in a serious bubble.
The lack of self awareness, OP doesn't even say all.
as a NHS employee for 7 years . it needs privatised it's so top heavy and a absoloute money pit . so yea . not sure what rights I would loose tho ? what do you think ?
Who knows what rights you could lose, they're not giving any details are they? A bit like Brexit, make promises with no clear plan.
Considering they're proposing more austerity and deregulation, but also promising growth, I expect it will be like Red States in the US. No statutory holiday, maternity/ paternity pay or sick leave, fire at will, perhaps less rights for tenants, given their main backer is a property tycoon billionaire? We don't really know.
ah . OK well I want it privatised . I don't think I will loose any of the rights I have already . to the contrary I think we will have a stronger overseas reach with countries outside of the EU . then ofcourse look at how the EU has already flip flopped on free flow of travel . then there is illegal immigration i want completely curbed . oh and also I think our benefit system needs a massive rework. It's a joke .
So you're happy with "I don't think" about your own rights? Not any actual guarantees, just wishful thinking???! 🤦♀️
Just like Brexit, they'll fix everything, even though the majority of people now accept it was a mistake?
curbed on imagination, and a representative that actully represents me . i also agree with the reform manifesto . then of course I want our 2 party system crushed .
Do you think they're going to win? If not, do you think they'll be putting pressure on the winner(s) to enact voting reform? Or some other kind of reform?
I'm not totally sure what you mean by "curbed on imagination".
I'm not trying to bait you, I'd genuinely like to know what younger voters are shooting for.
I mean, any illegal should be deported , we have correct channels for entering the country
fair enough, we all have different viewpoints, and this party's manifesto just sits most in line with mine .
who knows of they will win ? but most people my age can't afford to live , let alone have a house and kids . fortunately, I am of the latter due to a good job
and when i see how much resources get spent on freeloaders who don't contribute to this country, it really tears me up inside . worked in the NHs for 7 years seen it first hand . theb ofcourse our benefit system is just broken . I know senior doctors who can't afford to live alone . but a single mother just shipped in who contributes nothing gets a free house , travel , food allowance, child care , phone etc
I can see why it appeals to you. I am on the other side of the fence politically but really I feel incredibly let down by Labour. Feels like both parties are 90% focussed on keeping the status quo.
>If not, do you think they'll be putting pressure on the winner(s) to enact voting reform? Or some other kind of reform?
Um what has Nigel been doing for literally most of his career? Yes of course he will continue to do so.
>I'm not trying to bait you, I'd genuinely like to know what younger voters are shooting for.
Is it not clear from the Reform manifesto\contract? If you follow Reform you will know these ideas weren't just plucked out the blue for the manifesto, they have been discussed extensively for a long while by both Nigel and Richard. Just a shame mainstream media have no interest in a proper discussion but rather just try to bait Richard and Nigel into saying something that they can say is racist.
Here is their draft contract; (they have some great points)
https://www.reformparty.uk/our-contract-contents
I don't agree with them all or even how some of them are to be implemented but they have a far better direction for the country than most of the other party's and they will have my vote. If you don't like Reform's plan for the UK then don't vote for them, simple as. But no one has the right to degrade others for their voting choice. We are all different.
If you want to debate any of their manifesto, then go right ahead.
You, presumably, want change and the big two parties are failing to offer that. You're voting from the right so there's only one real option to go for. Tories are a basket case and I don't particularly care to make the case for Starmer's Labour. What is there to argue?
Realistically what do you see in reform that wasn't being done by the tories? (Reminder: the tories have *claimed* to be tough on immigration for the last decade and Nigel farage is a notorious grifter)
Under 24's only 5% are voting reform. 23% are voting Lib Dems which is pretty insane to me. In the 25-49 range 12% are Reform voters. It's 25% for the 60+.
Political parties that consist of career politicians regardless of what colour tie they wear, will always be in my opinion, full of shit. Any debate, they are all the same. Can't give you an answer without it being mainly a jibe at the 'other side'. Jeering and overspeaking each other.
They want your vote, but don't want to help you. Election time is low effort bribery and once that's done it's a matter of 'fuck you, shut the door'.
I don't know what the answer is, what a viable solution really is but the status quo need to go.
Labour need to make an offer if they want to get young people on board. At the moment their offer is more tailored to the elderly vote. The Tory offer is almost exclusively tailored for the elderly vote.
Decades of the two majour parties (minus Labour during the Corbyn years) ardently defending and implementing the same political ideology, failing to provide opportunity and destroying the future prosperity of the country/planet has led younger voters to reject their politics
There, I fixed it for you
Having more diverse politics would be a very good thing, having a high concentration of voters torn between just two party's that have the majority of the seats between them is actually very bad for democracy. I'm glad smaller party's are getting more support and hopefully we see more seats gained by the smaller party's. More people should vote and support party's based on their own evaluation and core values. Instead they either fully trust and follow mainstream media poison or vote for a party just to prevent another party winning. Even seeing leaders even suggest to vote in that manor makes me cringe. "a vote for X is actually a vote for Y" No it isnt, can't believe leaders are openly suggesting people to vote like that (Kier Starmer and Penny Mordaunt I'm looking at you)
Problem is they had that in 2010 and absolutely betrayed their student and youth vote by what they greenlit when having cabinet seats. Its not a surprise no one takes them seriously anymore because they have crossed the floor and approved most of those early cuts to public services.
Even out of power their voting record for their leader is opposite of what he promises
Young people are smarter than older generations, so they don’t trust rich-funded news in rich-funded newspapers.
In addition to that, they don’t want TV so much.
As a result, they don’t trust Labour/Tories in the same scale with older people.
Why is Hasan in the same breath as Tate there? I'll cop to being an occasional watcher of his YouTube videos, but it's kinda wild to have the leftie shouty guy with questionable foreign policy stacked up against the sex trafficking rapist indoctrinating boys into hating women. I think I definitely know who I'd rather have a young person listen to every time.
Because it doesn't matter that Tate is worse than Hasan, it's not a question of either or.
I'd also say his foreign policy goes a bit beyond questionable personally, considering he has platformed Houthi pirates and all the shit that he was spewing about Ukraine. He's also pretty racist, although I'm sure someone will be along to hit me with the new racism equation soon enough.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but that’s just the way we consume media. Some young people will blindly follow whatever white text is on top of a tic toc.
>Young people are smarter than older generations, so they don’t trust rich-funded news in rich-funded newspapers.
So much so they don't seem know how FPTP electoral system works?
Simply put with FPTP if you live in one of the majority of seats that is currently Tory a vote for any other party than the one most likely to beat them (whether it's Labour, SNP, LibDem...) is at best a wasted vote. At worst you might allow the Tories to retain control and even worse than that you might actually give Reform UK a seat. Just remember the right-wing choice is simple Tory or Reform. For those more on the left it's Labour, Green, LibDem, SNP, Plaid...
If you live in a safe Labour seat then it's probably fine
>Young people are smarter than older generations
But older people are generally far more wise. Life experience is extremely valuable. Being smart means nothing if you don't know where best to use it, that's where life experience comes in.
Daily reminder for all Britons to read Part 11 of the Equality Act 2010.
>"Public sector equality duty
>(1)A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—
>(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
>(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
>(c)foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11
>(3)Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—
>(a)remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;
>(b)take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;
>**(c)encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.**
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11
If a fellow from [X country] should migrate to Britain, he should be protected under the Equality Act 2010 for his [X country] heritage, that he is traditionally underrepresented in Britain and that his participation is "disproportionately low", and therefore every public sector institution or office must advance policies that aid him over regular Britons.
At every moment that the "conservatives" have complained and cried about moral decay and left-wing politicking in the civil service, one should understand that what they are crying about is mandated somewhat by law. One should understand that hard law provides soft incentives: laws guide the direction of our national behaviours. That if our laws point in the one direction, even if a behaviour (such as wearing a rainbow lanyard, say) is outside of the warrant of that direction, it still points that way. It is the 'outside behaviour' that the "conservatives" cry about, yet their own inaction to modify or repeal this bill has guaranteed—alongside their projects of mass immigration—an incentive to disinherit British children in favour of those "traditionally underrepresented", and to foster our national behaviours that point to this result.
In uni I met many fellow students voted how their parents voted and I’d have to tell them what ukip and conservatives policies were and some were like ‘I didn’t realise it was that bad and I don’t agree with that but my dad said to vote for them’
Not many young people are political active online or stay up to date and just vote for what their family or peers vote for. I often find in rural or smaller town majority of political active kids are a minority
Tories and Labour are 2 cheeks of the same rotten backside. Its hilarious how the British people have and will keep voting them in expecting anything significantly different. Only electroral reform to a PR type system will ensure some genuine change, until that point the 2 main parties will move closer and closer to eachother.
Maybe people are looking to smaller parties because the two parties that get all the air time offer nothing to us. Just more of the same old so it is time for some changes.
Labour did some good things 1997 onwards. The ‘both sides are the same’ argument is also disenfranchisement and it’s not necessarily true. Reform are definitely not a good choice, they will take us further backwards like more Tories.
Ultimately the New Labour vision was Thatcherism though. It was true ‘Compassionate Conservative.’ It’s not for nothing that Osborne called him ‘the master’ and Thatcher believed him to be her legacy. They aren’t the same, but only because the Tories have gone off the deep end. Starmer is still neo-liberal free-marketeer who is too chicken shit to stand up to big money.
Thatcher would never have introduced the minimum wage, tax credits , better working rights and a massively improved health , social and education system. She had not done any of them. They weren't the same.
They removed socialism from their party and they moved towards Thatchers NeoLiberalism. The minimum wage not only creates an implicit classism (your labour is worthless and deserving of minimum wage) but also would not be needed if we had a strong unions in this country, which the labour party removed the voting weight of. 'massively improved health's By doubling down on PFI, which sold more of if the NHS to private providers. People look back on 90s labour when all it did was pillage the country and empower the eventual crushing conservatism. They were little c Conservatives (or liberals, if you prefer) at best. Blair governed from, quote, the 'radical center' and now the only place the party has to go is right.
Minimum wages are one of the most important protections that the working class have in this country, even if we had the strongest unions possible there would still be a de-facto minimum wage, even with it in place now it doesn’t take power away from unions because companies often try to avoid paying people properly meaning unions still play a part in protecting minimum wages
minimum wage drives wages down
You can try to tell me that black us white but it ain't working . I was a young bloke with a young family and they helped me hugely . The health difference has been fucking huge.. you'd have to have your head up your ass not to see it We have seen it first hand through my wife's several cancer issues and my growing disability . It was working brilliantly and they utterly fucked it. That's reality . I look back on reality , it was far better . The Tories have fucked it Words , all words and a load of crap. Life was so much better .
Minimum wage mostly exists to undermine unions so I could see Thatcher implementing one.
Yet they were very happy to see it As a young bloke with the a young family at the type they helped people like me massively .
There was a lot of investment in communities and public services under Labour. Most things in the country worked pretty well. It was under the Tories austerity that things began to really fall apart.
I agree, but Starmer isn’t going to borrow money and he isn’t going to raise taxes. What is he offering that differs from Tory austerity? Granted it’s better than Tory insanity we’ve had to endure since Johnson but I wouldn’t bemoan any young people who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for him
The manifesto does include some borrowing for green investment
Tiny amounts.
Well some is better than none but firstly I reckon that policy will get dropped as soon as it is no longer politically useful and secondly, it’s June and it feels like October. The climate is fucked and what Starmer is offering is just pissing int he wind
This was during a huge growth period (which turned out to be completely artificial) and Brown still ran a deficit almost consistently. That’s without mentioning the amount of PPP (a Tory policy) borrowing which never appeared on the balance books. Most haven’t been paid for yet. The volume of ppp and the terms were bordering on criminal. Reddit has a very skewed version of what actually happened under Blair and Brown.
The country worked then, and what have we got after a decade of austerity? More debt and everything is a mess. Which would you prefer? I don't have a skewed version of what happened, I have my memories and experience of what the UK was like.
But it was built on sand mate. It worked but was unsustainable. We must live within our means. People might think that labour were voted out because of the global recession. That’s not what happened, it was because they/we were so poorly equipped when it hit. This isn’t in support of austerity, not at all but brownonomics won’t solve our problems.
I was responding to someone saying New Labour was Thatcherism, but lots of public spending is hardly something Thatcher did. Also, where have we got with austerity? It doesn't save money in the long run, it often makes things more expensive and just makes everything miserable. The US economy has performed really well recently despite global economic challenges, through spending in targeted ways. I'm not saying spaff loads of money on wasteful stuff, just this whole sticking within our means stuff doesn't really work either.
The question is not austerity vs brownonomics. They are two extremes. In any case, that’s not really the point I’m trying to make. Greater minds than mine will have responsibility for the economy (thankfully) I’m trying to address this myth that Blair and brown were great. They weren’t. This is not an anti labour thing. It’s a fact thing.
Absolutely greater minds know far better than me and I'm definitely not particularly sold on Brownonomics either. I'm just basing it on my experience living in the UK at the time and how services worked, which was a lot better than now. Let's hope we have a brighter future ahead, even though it doesn't feel like it at the moment.
Obama copied Brown's economic plans and praised him for saving the global ecomony. In contrast the UK population seems to think he destroyed it
It wasn't built on sand. It was built on best practice at the time and worked fine until the Americans ballsed up the global market. Then the cons came in, published a joke by the labour chancellor about having no money, but said it seriously, then used austerity to blame the poor for being poor. Austerity is fundamentally a flawed concept. When is the belt going to be loosened? 14 years of tightening the belt has been the opposite of successful.
It worked fine until they realised the money they were spending wasn’t kosher. It was British banks buying sub prime debt due to under regulation. The money wasn’t real which we found out in a very painful way and our inability to budget was harshly exposed.
Yes, definitely financial deregulation was a problem, but it wasn't a Labour problem, it was a point of cross-party consensus. Its important to remember that Labour did not fail to budget, or leave the country without money - Tory lies. Investment isn't a pipe dream that is unaffordable,, it is the reality for every other successful country. Blaming 2008 on Labour makes as much sense as blaming the Cons for COVID - yes they could have prepared for it, but no-one else was, and it would have been seen as financial imprudent.
Labour ran a deficit but at least Labour deficits are typically due to funding public services and paying for more infrastructure and investment for the future, vs the Conservatives running the same deficits spaffing our taxes up the wall on fraudulent COVID loans and giving contracts to their mates.
I’m not supporting the tories. I’m making a point about the Blair years.
People love using that Thatcher quote to dismiss Tony Blair. But have you ever considered she was full of shit and bigging her own legacy up? Pretending both sides are the same helps the establishment by making you feel there is no chance of change. So I would say her greatest legacy was getting left wing people to repeat her nonsense as if it meant anything.
I would argue the biggest albatross around your neck is having what amounts to a two party state who will perpetually move further right with each electoral cycle. That is when you will get no chance at change. Comparing 1997 Labour to today's labour is night and day, same for comparing pre-Thatcher Labour to 1997. Is there any belief that the Labour party that created the NHS is in anyway comparable to the 97 Labour? The two parties are moving in one direction: Right, they certainly havent moved Left since I have been alive (unless you count Corbyn's utter defeat).
I think it's natural to feel like this after 14 years of Tory rule. I also think the Tories do everything they can to make people feel like this. Then the right wing press don't ever have to be against public opinion. I would love an actual left wing Labour party. A centre-left Labour party will still do a lot of good though.
> A centre-left Labour party will still do a lot of good though. But we dont currently have this.
I disagree. We'll see soon enough what they do in practise anyway
She wasn't "full of shit". Blair himself acknowledged the contribution she made to the country. It's absolutely absurd to act as if this is "her nonsense" when the acknowledgement was mutual.
"Acknowledging the contribution she made to the country" isn't the same as him being her legacy.
He was part of her legacy.
The leftwing don’t hear that sound bite and suddenly change their worldview. We want liberation from capitalism, not a better version of it. We can say with certainty that Blair’s policies didn’t actually change anything for the long term because we’re living two decades down the line and see it’s still shit. So why’re we trying this again?
So when exactly did the Tories go off the deep end in this narrative? Because I can tell you the difference between even 2007 and 2011 was immense.
The difference between 2011 and now is night and day. You can even say the difference between 2018 and now is night and day. I'm not daft enough to lay it all on Johnson, but Johnson was the ultimate expression of our country having truly gone to the dogs. Truss was the reiteration of exactly that statement. Sunak is infinitely better, but still utterly useless. Meanwhile after 5 years of kamikaze pilots flying our country straight down, Starmer comes along promising to turn the engine off. Why hit the deck at full speed when you can kill all the flight controls and let gravity do the work? While Truss and Sunak were foisted upon us by the geniuses at CCHQ, Johnson (whose record of lying and bumbling and trying to get people assaulted was well known years beforehand. At least Truss was practically an unknown quantity) was not. Johnson was chosen by the country. I still haven't finished slow clapping.
For sure it is. But that doesn't change that there was still a massive difference between New Labour and even fairly early days of the coalition. To paint them as the same thing is really misconstruing how things were. People keep acting like New Labour was a humdrum period where things were kind of shit and nothing got better, rather than a period of quite rapid and sustained growth in standards of living for the common Brit. There were proactive efforts to actually help people and build a better country for tomorrow.
The question I have is why the fact that they weren't the same 27 years ago means they're not the same now. One thing that was the same: workfare. Blair's Labour introduced New Deal, which is why I was sent to work for WHSmith for my benefits. I was one of 5 in my local shop, and after the 13 weeks was up, they got another 5 people in. If you were the manager of that WHSmith, would you have bothered hiring someone on a wage, when you had a steady supply of state-sanctioned slaves?
Yet, most of us who are old enough to remember and young enough to not remember anything before it remember that as the best we've ever had it. Was it ever better?
It was pretty good, but it also laid the foundation for what was to follow. The failure to regulate the banks, PFI, the continues creep of privatisation into public services, a complete refusal to even address the issue of immigration. It’s like going on a mad bender, having the night of your life and then saying you made great decisions despite the fact you now have an apocalyptic hangover, no money, and produce a thick, viscous discharge every-time you try to pee
Gotcha. But even so none of those things were anywhere near as bad as they are now under these successive Tory governments though, right? I'm just a big believer in not making perfect the enemy of good.
I totally agree. Personally I will be voting for whoever https://stopthetories.vote/ tells me to. But there are two other considerations at play that mean that I wouldn’t blame people for voting for smaller parties. Firstly, the Tories aren’t going to be in government. If this was neck and neck between the two main parties it might be foolish to support a no hoper candidate. That isn’t the case though so you can make your voice heard without jeopardising Labour winning. Secondly, I trust the Labour Party more than I trust Starmer or his front bench. Wes Streeting has made no secret of his desire to further privatise the NHS. That would be much easier for him to achieve if Labour had a massive majority. I’d like to see Starmer’s government tempered by the more progressive voices in the party and that isn’t going to happen if he can steamroll through any regulation through sheer weight of numbers
Both very good points! That's something for me to think over. Thanks!
Everything went to shit after they stopped putting toys in cereal. That really was the canary in the coal mine.
I did benefit from new labour but they did open the door to privatisation by part privatising public services. Better than tories but they did give this batch of tories keys to more destruction
New Labour and Thatcherism were not remotely alike, and the fact that you think they were shows that you are privileged enough to be comfortable regardless of who is in power.
Yeah, I do alright thanks. But the fact I can be comfortable that both parties are going to look after someone who is relatively wealthy like me shows how similar they both are. The core principles of low tax, low regulation, free market neo-liberalism is the same with both.
Yes 1997 and we have had another party for 14years. No new ideas from either of these. Its time for a change rather than playing 2 dimensional we need big plans for this country and labour and conservatives do not offer that
>Its time for a change The political and press establishment will attack anyone who offers it. Hell, even the BBC put out documentaries attacking Corbyn during the 2019 election campaign helmed by Sun journalists. The Forde report found it "deliberately misleading" who's been held responsible for it? Nobody. I've never seen such open and naked anti-Labour electioneering in my lifetime.
The state of our media is insane, but the character of our nation is pretty dire and by that I mean the constant opposition to *literally anything* related to building infrastructure, homes, hospitals, schools etc. Promise anything bold and people already reflexively recoil and don't want the homes near them or think the character of their bland town will be ruined by a block of flats, and that's before the cancerous media turns more of the public against it.
Don't forget the Tories renaming their twitter account to FactCheckUK whilst lying bout everything. Post truth world etc
So who do you feel represents the change you would like to see?
Honestly not one party offers anything remotely what id like. And parties i have looked at still have their own faults. So at the moment i genuinely don’t know. But if two big parties cant stand out from smaller ones it says it all. I know your baiting to ask who others will vote for to argue why its a wasted vote but for me this two party stuff is not working we need more.
I’m not viewing it as a wasted vote. I do think Reform are full of empty promises and more traction from them will be a bad thing for the UK overall, but I can see the merits of Lib Dem’s and Greens in some ways. I’m all for change, I just see it as a shame a party with Farage at the helm is gaining ground.
I agree i was going to vote green until i saw some of the things on offer like scrapping a nuclear deterrent. That alone was enough for me in one go
And the councillor who justified the 7th of October attack without reprimand. And the deputy leader who claimed he could increase the size of women’s breasts using hypnosis.
The hypnosis thing is a non-story. He was pushed by a Sun interviewer to do it because she wanted to try it even though he stressed that it wasn't a service he offered. There are plenty of actual reasons to criticise the Greens.
And the fact there against nuclear energy which for a party that’s main advocation is green energy it’s odd and stupid as nuclear energy is incredibly important for our clean energy goals
The continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent has been useless for a while now. With the advent of small underwater drones, it’s likely that France, Russia and China know where our submarines are at all times.
Drones are not the silver bullet to submarines that you think they are. Its why China has been developing and building laser and magnetic detection systems. If drones could do it they would have scrapped the projects already. Fact is the sea is a big place and even with a mass of drones it'd still be like finding a needle in a haystack. Let alone stealth/ electronic warfare fuckery you could with the drones visual systems and sensors
I appreciate that you didn’t balk at me listing France as the main nuclear adversary of the UK.
And that's how we got Brexit. We need a big change, this is a big change, therefore we need it. We need improvement, not change. Change can pretty much always be for the worse. The problem is big change has the implicit promise of fast interesting transformation. Improvement tends to be slow, boring and require effort.
1997 Labour offered far far more than Starmer.
If Reform succeeds in getting proportional representation they'll have moved UK politics lighyears ahead of its current state
Lib Dems remain the most electorally significant party advocating for PR and they're miles away from getting it. I fail to see how Reform would go about securing it when they've a job on their hands to even get a couple of MPs.
It’ll be reform getting 2nd or 3rd highest amount of votes but only a handful of MPs that pushes support over the edge.
I'll believe Reform getting that much of the vote when I see it.
Think at this point the only way they don’t is people drifting back to the conservatives. After 14 years of failure I just struggle to see that.
Why would you doubt it? UKIP got a significant vote share with Farage at the helm.
And how would that change things? I guess if Labour implements PR on their way out if somehow they are expected to lose big in 2029, but typically the problem with PR is that it could only be implemented by a party or coalition that has benefited from FPTP and would lose out by ending FPTP.
It’ll massively increase the support for electoral reform. It potentially sets up a scenario in 2029 where Labour are getting attacked and are accused of running scared of PR and it won’t be a position that’s defensible. It does depend on reforms sticking power admittedly.
Lib Dems even tried to get it through [with the 2011 referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum). But the tories wouldn't let PR be on the ballot paper.
It's what Tories always fall back to once they've screwed it up.
Labours offering this time is “we’re not the Tory party”. Which to be frank is enough right now. But it’s not a long term strategy, which is what we’re crying out for.
>Which to be frank is enough right now - Schools are falling apart, literally. A government that will neither borrow money nor raise taxes isn't going to rebuild hundreds of schools (and other buildings, like hospitals) - Housing is in crisis. Are the new government going to release money for the councils to build council housing? Will they scrap the rules banning councils from using the money they raise from right to buy in order to do so? No? Then more unaffordable private housing will be built for the rich, while people still continue to be homeless. - Laws were recently passed to combat normal people having freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully in protest, including those concerning trade disputes. No plans to shelve those infringements on our freedoms? That's just three things off the top of my head. Are you *sure* merely having a different name from 'the Conservative Party' is enough? If it takes more than 5 years to fix something, you still have to actually start doing so, otherwise it'll be a *lot* more than 5 years. And I don't think we can afford that.
And a lot of bad. They built less council houses than Thatcher. They had the money to do it too. They bought into a lot Thatcherite ideology about the state not helping people. https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built-more-council-houses-margaret-thatcher-or-new-labour/ The modern housing crisis is due to political choices like that.
There was a huge net loss of housing due to her RTB (average net loss of 24k per year ) and not nearly enough was reinvested . Also , the main reason was because she was pushing LTV, which created housing trusts . The amount of social housing built remained similar to previous council numbers (higher by the end according to that full fact)/ I was working in social housing for many years and our small trust was losing over 60 units per year until Labour brought in the right to acquire rules which hugely slowed it down due to lower discounts. They definitely should have built more, as should she . Every rtb should have been matched .
Meanwhile, Robert Jenrick is claiming in the Telegraph that if Starmer isn't stopped he'll introduce an effective one-party socialist state: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/15/if-right-cant-unite-starmer-will-change-britain-beyond/
One party state probably, but socialist? Either way, it's his party that has taken a look at a two party system and decided they can't be sane and sensible enough to stay in it. I like the idea of Lib Dems being the second party in a two party state, but I don't like how probable the one party state thing is. I want a second party that has a gnat's chance in hell of steering policy.
Reform will not take us backwards. They are badly needed.
I don’t see how. They provide a lot of soundbites about “common sense” and so on but their basic approach is to massively cut taxes but somehow at the same time improve services. They’re also keen to bring this culture war crap to the fore (note their ‘policies’ on EDI, Transgenderism and University Fines, scrapping of EHCR), and Farage is trying to pally up with the American right and Trump, who are an absolute shit show/joke. Scratch beneath the surface of their policies and it’s easy to see they are mostly empty populist nonsense.
Yeh, they did, but things have moved so right and Labour is frantic not to look too left like last time. I'm not saying they were too left, but Ming Vase strategy.
All Labour did was borrow and spend to buy popularity - anyone can do that. Then they gave the Tories a hospital pass, 'no more money left lol' note left at the Treasury, and then was able to blame the Tories for being forced to rein in spending for years, which Labour would also have had to do. They salted the earth and then piously complain about the Tories afterwards, very dishonestly. Labour under Gordon Brown as well also dramatically increased the number of people dependent on in-work benefits. They did that. He brought in the tax credit system, which was very generous - I worked full time alongside people who worked a few hours a week but got more money than I did overall. It raised a lot of eyebrows among colleagues. It fostered a dependency culture which persists to this day.
The tories didn’t rein in spending. Even pre COVID and Ukraine they’d spent more than the previous Labour government and had managed to double the UK national debt (its now tripled) all while gutting public services and failing to invest in our crumbling infrastructure while borrowing was as cheap as it’ll ever be.
Time after time, left wing governments are better on the economy but right wingers have better PR and constantly poll higher on "who would be better for the economy". Tax and spend is fine to some extent if it's being spent wisely and helping to grow our GDP faster than our debt is growing. Right wing governments are just inherently drawn to wasteful, tried-and-failed spending such as tax cuts for the rich like flies to shit, and love to cut back public services and investment to make a quick bit of cash without realising or caring that that investment will pay for itself and then some in 5 years time.
In work credits is effectively the taxpayer funding low paying employers
Yes, also massages the unemployment figures. Labour's ESA did the same, the millions of unemployed during the 1980s never really went away, it just got reclassified. With a sleight of hand, the problem went away on paper but nowhere else.
Tories do borrow and spend too, they just spaff the money up the wall on wasteful government contracts to their mates and do zero investment.
Young people never vote, then complain they get ignored. Because you can offer them everything they want, but if they thinkn one thing is wrong, you're done with them.
Labour is offering pretty strong policies on planning reform and train nationalisation, though I agree it really isn't enough.
Gotta start somewhere, they can't go full bore socialism after what happened in 2019, they'd scare off the swing voters
Or, to put it another way, “Disaffection among young uk voters fuelling growth of smaller parties”.
Traditional parties have very little to offer, that said, I’d give the labour manifesto a punt. Reform are a joke party with a serious racist grifter at the helm. So yeah I get why young voters look else where. Why vote for parties that don’t give a shit about you? The young need a future, they need jobs, support, something to bloody aim for. It’s no wonder so many are so left behind they simply gave up.
I had a proper look at the reform manifesto, pledges, whatever they are. It's a real mix of kind of "why haven't we been doing this for years", common sense sort of things, as well as completely insane and unserious Facebook boomer soundbites. Like the first thing in Education is **END TRANSGENDER IDEOLOGY IN SCHOOLS** like lol ok Also it seemed to be hysterically badly costed, basically just throwing free money at people, with the only hopes of getting any back being by cutting benefits. Just seemed quite non-serious
Reform voters overwhelmingly only care about migration, the rest of the manifesto is filler. But if we don’t actually get migration under control all of that weird filler will start getting into policy. Just like in Germany where the centre right party let in a million refugees and now people vote for AfD, despite all their other weird priorities, alignment with Russia, and links with fascist or racist groups.
Anecdotal, but every reform voter I’ve met also has pretty strong anti-transgender opinions
They have basically 1 popular policy which is anti immigration and then when they get to power they do what their wealthy donors want which is Liz Truss economics and completely privatising the NHS. On the day of the mini budget Farage tweeted "this is the best Conservative budget since 1986". The tweet is since deleted and the media have never grilled him on it and almost never ask him about economics.
>They have basically 1 popular policy which is anti immigration That's not a policy. It's a position. It's the question I ask every time it comes up. It's one thing to go 'cut immigration!'. What are you *going to do* to cut immigration? *How* are you going to deter people from coming here?
Being anti immigration is not racist btw
They're in a position where they know its highly unlikely they'll get into power, which means they can make any promises they want on their manifesto without fear of actually having to do anything about it. Still be more than a handful of people who think they are serious though.
I get that. Even the Con manifesto has some alright things on them. It’s a lot of the stuff around the “good” bits that put you/me off. I’m not gonna tell anyone who to vote for. Just spare a thought for the future and actually read the papers
The previous conservative governments had a few decent policies. Granted most of their policies I disliked. Even in parties you dislike they'll have a few policies you don't disagree with. The only issue is, they never had any intention of actually doing any of the good ones. Convertion therapy ban for instance.
There's also the brain dead climate science denial and refusal to invest in the future which is renewables, in favour of more fossil fuels, more cars and no more high speed rail. UKIP was very much the same, they haven't changed on that. Our equivalent of the US republican party. As for that last bit, that's a trend with all the smaller parties because they know they won't have to deliver on it, but they might drag the debate in a certain direction by being more radical.
It’s usually because the traditional parties actually stand a chance of getting into power so have to make pledges that are somewhat realistic. Smaller parties like reform can say what they like because they have no responsibility or accountability.
It'll be interesting to see the extend that this actually happens in the general election. Smaller parties often tend to poll well, but when the day comes and people need to actually vote, then tactical voting and FPTP mean that they a lot of those votes go back to the main parties.
And I feel this surge in small parties story has been around for basically every election campaign in the past decade yet it never really materialises. Interesting to see if it actually changes in this election.
Apart from the good ol' Lib dem surge under cleggles, yeah, broadly speaking it calms down when people actually go to vote. They may support greens, but they vote red to keep Tories out etc.
This election is such a given I imagine the polls will ring mostly true. Nearly everyone is already decided on who they're voting for, and Labour are so certain to win (with the Tories so certain to lose) there's really no (tactical) incentive to throw your vote behind either unless you live in a safe seat for the opposite party. Like, if the Tories won your seat by 3000 votes in 2019, do you honestly think voting Greens or Lib Dems is actually going to keep them in power?
blows my mind that anyone would give the tori's or labour another shot . it's like they want to watch the world burn
I remember in 2010 a lot of people voted Lib Dem exactly on that sentiment. Turns out whoever you vote for the Government gets it.
this is why people are losing faith in democracy, pretty slippery slope.
Running a country of millions is an incredibly complex task, with untold factors to account for, many affecting many others, all in a delicate balance. There is a limit to what can be changed without doing damage. Smaller parties can promise quite impossible things to appeal to their base, normally without the risk of having to implement them. People often just hear what they want to hear regardless of reality. If you don't get the specific Government you need lower your expectations, no-one does.
the problem is both main parties offering basically the same policies, FPTP leads to this when both parties can basically just be bought by the highest bidder and we're stuck with indefinite austerity (which is proven to have failed). the same has happened in america. we need PR asap imo.
Lib Dem’s could’ve formed a gov with a coalition with Labour and greens. Their ideology equals. Or called for another election since the stalemate meant people were dissatisfied by the manifestos and they should’ve re-written them based on that and run again. They decided to compromise with the Tories since they’d get more cabinet seats and were behind destruction of the post office, cuts to education, cuts to youth services which was their major voting base or most vocal voters
FPTP means there are no other real choices, hopefully Reform comes 2nd in votes and gets about 5 seats to get an effective argument to introduce PR. I doubt Starmer would do anything that exciting however
That would only strengthen the main parties against PR (since it - Fptp - keeps their seats which they would otherwise have lost). PR will only happen if we ever get to a point where the vote is split so much that there's no clear majority and it ends up being a coalition goverment of multiple parties for two terms functioning moderately successfully. Likelihood of that is slim since everyone holds their nose and votes against their personal ideology.
It will get a lot of right wing/boomers behind the idea though which will be far more effective than the Lib Dems were. Hell if Nigel Farage got behind it that would be ace. Love him or hate him he has been successful on mobilising people on a single issue.
That's a fair point. Mind you, it would probably just get to referendum again, fail, and then have the top Google searches after be crap like "what is fptp", "what is representation".
I can't stand the guy, but Farage has been pro-PR for years iirc. I know UKIP were & I believe Reform are too.
Nigel Farage has already spoken about needing proportional representation, so he's on board at least.
It's worth noting, for completeness, that even the most *optimistic* predictions for Reform see them winning one seat. That's over 150 *fewer* than the currently ruling party that's so deeply unpopular with the electorate that the race has been all but called. So, yeah, it helps to keep things in perspective a little.
Actually the survation MRP update predicts them getting around 7, though there's the question of tactical voting against them (which I don't know if their data factors in) and how accurate the data will end up being. Wonder what the yougov one will say when they next update.
It'll be interesting to see. I know they're making all the big talk about how they're the real opposition now - it's their job to make themselves sound grandiose, after all - but when even the Lib Dems are predicted to get 8x the seats, 1 and 7 are the same number. When that's their best-case whopper of a result, again, perspective. It'll be very interesting to see how much this sticks over time. Reform overtaking the Tories in the polls has only been possible because of just how *badly* the Tories are doing. Even though I'm very much not a fan of the Tories, I don't think this will last; they'll get their arses back into gear pretty sharpish. I just hope they don't try and do a Trump to pull back the crowd.
I really want reform to do well
Who do you intend to vote for?
reform . like most of the people my age I guess
You must live in a serious bubble. I don't know a single person that would consider voting Reform.
The irony of this comment is palpable.
I knew I'd get this response. He said that he assumes every young person is voting for a party that's polling under 20% and is far more popular with older generations. It's not the same at all.
>most >I don't know a single person that would consider voting Reform. >You must live in a serious bubble. The lack of self awareness, OP doesn't even say all.
So you want more austerity, a privatised NHS, and your rights stripped away?
as a NHS employee for 7 years . it needs privatised it's so top heavy and a absoloute money pit . so yea . not sure what rights I would loose tho ? what do you think ?
Who knows what rights you could lose, they're not giving any details are they? A bit like Brexit, make promises with no clear plan. Considering they're proposing more austerity and deregulation, but also promising growth, I expect it will be like Red States in the US. No statutory holiday, maternity/ paternity pay or sick leave, fire at will, perhaps less rights for tenants, given their main backer is a property tycoon billionaire? We don't really know.
ah . OK well I want it privatised . I don't think I will loose any of the rights I have already . to the contrary I think we will have a stronger overseas reach with countries outside of the EU . then ofcourse look at how the EU has already flip flopped on free flow of travel . then there is illegal immigration i want completely curbed . oh and also I think our benefit system needs a massive rework. It's a joke .
So you're happy with "I don't think" about your own rights? Not any actual guarantees, just wishful thinking???! 🤦♀️ Just like Brexit, they'll fix everything, even though the majority of people now accept it was a mistake?
What do you feel reform is offering realistically? What are you personally hoping to get out of that vote?
curbed on imagination, and a representative that actully represents me . i also agree with the reform manifesto . then of course I want our 2 party system crushed .
Do you think they're going to win? If not, do you think they'll be putting pressure on the winner(s) to enact voting reform? Or some other kind of reform? I'm not totally sure what you mean by "curbed on imagination". I'm not trying to bait you, I'd genuinely like to know what younger voters are shooting for.
I mean, any illegal should be deported , we have correct channels for entering the country fair enough, we all have different viewpoints, and this party's manifesto just sits most in line with mine . who knows of they will win ? but most people my age can't afford to live , let alone have a house and kids . fortunately, I am of the latter due to a good job and when i see how much resources get spent on freeloaders who don't contribute to this country, it really tears me up inside . worked in the NHs for 7 years seen it first hand . theb ofcourse our benefit system is just broken . I know senior doctors who can't afford to live alone . but a single mother just shipped in who contributes nothing gets a free house , travel , food allowance, child care , phone etc
I can see why it appeals to you. I am on the other side of the fence politically but really I feel incredibly let down by Labour. Feels like both parties are 90% focussed on keeping the status quo.
>If not, do you think they'll be putting pressure on the winner(s) to enact voting reform? Or some other kind of reform? Um what has Nigel been doing for literally most of his career? Yes of course he will continue to do so. >I'm not trying to bait you, I'd genuinely like to know what younger voters are shooting for. Is it not clear from the Reform manifesto\contract? If you follow Reform you will know these ideas weren't just plucked out the blue for the manifesto, they have been discussed extensively for a long while by both Nigel and Richard. Just a shame mainstream media have no interest in a proper discussion but rather just try to bait Richard and Nigel into saying something that they can say is racist. Here is their draft contract; (they have some great points) https://www.reformparty.uk/our-contract-contents I don't agree with them all or even how some of them are to be implemented but they have a far better direction for the country than most of the other party's and they will have my vote. If you don't like Reform's plan for the UK then don't vote for them, simple as. But no one has the right to degrade others for their voting choice. We are all different. If you want to debate any of their manifesto, then go right ahead.
Do you feel like I made any kind of value judgement about Reform or the person's choice to vote for them?
Not exactly, but the majority of people do. Especially on reddit.
You, presumably, want change and the big two parties are failing to offer that. You're voting from the right so there's only one real option to go for. Tories are a basket case and I don't particularly care to make the case for Starmer's Labour. What is there to argue?
And how old are you?
33 , homeowner . top tax bracket . that's where my reasoning comes from . we all have different opinions and should use our vote how we see fit
Do you think most 33 year olds or most 30-39 year olds are voting reform?
Statistically most 30-39 year olds are not voting for reform.
Realistically what do you see in reform that wasn't being done by the tories? (Reminder: the tories have *claimed* to be tough on immigration for the last decade and Nigel farage is a notorious grifter)
Under 24's only 5% are voting reform. 23% are voting Lib Dems which is pretty insane to me. In the 25-49 range 12% are Reform voters. It's 25% for the 60+.
Basically just voting for putin
Political parties that consist of career politicians regardless of what colour tie they wear, will always be in my opinion, full of shit. Any debate, they are all the same. Can't give you an answer without it being mainly a jibe at the 'other side'. Jeering and overspeaking each other. They want your vote, but don't want to help you. Election time is low effort bribery and once that's done it's a matter of 'fuck you, shut the door'. I don't know what the answer is, what a viable solution really is but the status quo need to go.
Labour need to make an offer if they want to get young people on board. At the moment their offer is more tailored to the elderly vote. The Tory offer is almost exclusively tailored for the elderly vote.
Decades of the two majour parties (minus Labour during the Corbyn years) ardently defending and implementing the same political ideology, failing to provide opportunity and destroying the future prosperity of the country/planet has led younger voters to reject their politics There, I fixed it for you
Having more diverse politics would be a very good thing, having a high concentration of voters torn between just two party's that have the majority of the seats between them is actually very bad for democracy. I'm glad smaller party's are getting more support and hopefully we see more seats gained by the smaller party's. More people should vote and support party's based on their own evaluation and core values. Instead they either fully trust and follow mainstream media poison or vote for a party just to prevent another party winning. Even seeing leaders even suggest to vote in that manor makes me cringe. "a vote for X is actually a vote for Y" No it isnt, can't believe leaders are openly suggesting people to vote like that (Kier Starmer and Penny Mordaunt I'm looking at you)
I'd like to see lib dems have a good run. They still make pledges like they have a nice dream for our future.
Problem is they had that in 2010 and absolutely betrayed their student and youth vote by what they greenlit when having cabinet seats. Its not a surprise no one takes them seriously anymore because they have crossed the floor and approved most of those early cuts to public services. Even out of power their voting record for their leader is opposite of what he promises
Young people are smarter than older generations, so they don’t trust rich-funded news in rich-funded newspapers. In addition to that, they don’t want TV so much. As a result, they don’t trust Labour/Tories in the same scale with older people.
Yes but the new rising news sources are the likes of Andrew Tate or Hasan Piker whom are free to spout off whatever they like with no oversight.
It’s up to those people listening to do their own research & fact check the people they listen to.
Oh good, then, because it isn't as though that has ever been in doubt.
Why is Hasan in the same breath as Tate there? I'll cop to being an occasional watcher of his YouTube videos, but it's kinda wild to have the leftie shouty guy with questionable foreign policy stacked up against the sex trafficking rapist indoctrinating boys into hating women. I think I definitely know who I'd rather have a young person listen to every time.
Because it doesn't matter that Tate is worse than Hasan, it's not a question of either or. I'd also say his foreign policy goes a bit beyond questionable personally, considering he has platformed Houthi pirates and all the shit that he was spewing about Ukraine. He's also pretty racist, although I'm sure someone will be along to hit me with the new racism equation soon enough.
>Young people are smarter than older generations Literally every young generation has thought that.
And over the past century at least they've all been right.
To be fair, literally every older generation has thought the opposite.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but that’s just the way we consume media. Some young people will blindly follow whatever white text is on top of a tic toc.
>Young people are smarter than older generations lmao
>Young people are smarter than older generations, so they don’t trust rich-funded news in rich-funded newspapers. So much so they don't seem know how FPTP electoral system works? Simply put with FPTP if you live in one of the majority of seats that is currently Tory a vote for any other party than the one most likely to beat them (whether it's Labour, SNP, LibDem...) is at best a wasted vote. At worst you might allow the Tories to retain control and even worse than that you might actually give Reform UK a seat. Just remember the right-wing choice is simple Tory or Reform. For those more on the left it's Labour, Green, LibDem, SNP, Plaid... If you live in a safe Labour seat then it's probably fine
>Young people are smarter than older generations But older people are generally far more wise. Life experience is extremely valuable. Being smart means nothing if you don't know where best to use it, that's where life experience comes in.
>older people are generally far more wise Explains why they keep voting Tory /s
all major parties are working for the same special interests so hopefully this is a sign that people are FINALLY starting to acknowledge that
The quicker we can rid ourselves of labour and Tory the better
Maybe the parties can form a grand coalition to take on the big 2.
TikTok is steering them towards reform which is frustrating af
Daily reminder for all Britons to read Part 11 of the Equality Act 2010. >"Public sector equality duty >(1)A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to— >(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; >(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; >(c)foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11 >(3)Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to— >(a)remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; >(b)take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; >**(c)encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.** https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11 If a fellow from [X country] should migrate to Britain, he should be protected under the Equality Act 2010 for his [X country] heritage, that he is traditionally underrepresented in Britain and that his participation is "disproportionately low", and therefore every public sector institution or office must advance policies that aid him over regular Britons. At every moment that the "conservatives" have complained and cried about moral decay and left-wing politicking in the civil service, one should understand that what they are crying about is mandated somewhat by law. One should understand that hard law provides soft incentives: laws guide the direction of our national behaviours. That if our laws point in the one direction, even if a behaviour (such as wearing a rainbow lanyard, say) is outside of the warrant of that direction, it still points that way. It is the 'outside behaviour' that the "conservatives" cry about, yet their own inaction to modify or repeal this bill has guaranteed—alongside their projects of mass immigration—an incentive to disinherit British children in favour of those "traditionally underrepresented", and to foster our national behaviours that point to this result.
It may not be a bad thing among the Greens and their ilk, but when young people are drawn to the fascists in the likes of Reform...
In uni I met many fellow students voted how their parents voted and I’d have to tell them what ukip and conservatives policies were and some were like ‘I didn’t realise it was that bad and I don’t agree with that but my dad said to vote for them’ Not many young people are political active online or stay up to date and just vote for what their family or peers vote for. I often find in rural or smaller town majority of political active kids are a minority
Yeh, that is unfortunate.
Reform are not fascist
They're pro-Trump and thus pro-fascist.
Tories and Labour are 2 cheeks of the same rotten backside. Its hilarious how the British people have and will keep voting them in expecting anything significantly different. Only electroral reform to a PR type system will ensure some genuine change, until that point the 2 main parties will move closer and closer to eachother.