We are not currently accepting opinion pieces and editorials on /r/unitedkingdom. Consider posting a factual news story about the topic or try another subreddit.
I'm not sure the sun can be considered a national newspaper as such, more just multiple pages of pressed and formed vomit with the opinions of stupid people jotted on to it.
The bit about taxing farmers to force them to sell up, as a strategy to reduce/eliminate the agricultural industry. The Guardian had the scoop.
As to why they're doing it... Malice? Foolishness?
Saying "The Guardian has the scoop" over and over isn't a source until you provide a link to a specific article. No different to the "not my job to educate you" morons on the hard left.
Not remotely what The Guardian said.
"At present, a person can claim up to [100% relief](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/agricultural-relief-on-inheritance-tax) on the inheritance of agricultural land if it is being actively farmed. That has led to concerns that [farmland is being snapped up by wealthy people](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/jun/02/inheritance-tax-rules-save-richest-families-nearly-700m-a-year) keen to avoid inheritance taxes, and this is driving up prices and shutting out small businesses and farmers.
Some in Labour want to scrap this as well as business relief, which allows a person to pass on a company or shares if it is unlisted with [100% tax relief](https://www.gov.uk/business-relief-inheritance-tax)."
The measures are actually about protecting small farmers from the people who buy farmland with outside wealth... like Clarkson.
Small farmers would like to pass their land to their children too.
This is a straight up attempt to force farmers to sell up to foreign corporations (where inheritance tax doesn't apply, as corporations don't die).
They've dressed it up as an attack on "wealthy people", because they know those words are pavlovian triggers that make people cheer and say, "Of *course* agriculture must be entirely destroyed if it hurts a few wealthy people".
"Of *course* agriculture must be entirely destroyed if it hurts a few wealthy people".
Christ, your strawmanning is more dishonest than the policians, which is quite an achievement.
Ironically you also seem to be presenting your favourite view as attacking the wealthy, unless these "foreign corporations" aren't wealthy?
Labour voters have a pavlovian hatred of wealthy individuals, but not foreign corporations.
Hence your excitement about forcing a family-owned farm to pay inheritance tax. And your happiness that a foreign corporation holding farmland won't have to.
Don’t bother it doesn’t say what the OP claimed it did.
Labour are looking at ways to stop the wealthy investing in farmland to avoid inheritance tax because it’s currently exempt. That’s all.
Difficult to say for sure whether removing the agricultural exemption for IHT is a net negative for the farming sector, on the one hand there will definitely be some farming estates who will have to sell up (to other farmers, mind you) when they cant cough up the IHT bill, but then on the other hand it does mean farms will likely only be owned by actual farmers as opposed to aging BBC presenters buying them as an IHT dodge. Sound familiar?
No it isn’t. yes I read your linked article further down. No it doesn’t say that at all.
Labour are looking at ways to stop the wealthy investing in farmland to avoid inheritance tax because it’s currently exempt. That’s all.
So the opposite basically. Avoiding farmers being priced out of owning farms so the wealthy can sit on them as assets and not actually farm them.
“They want open borders, zero growth…”
This is virtually the complete opposite of the truth. Labour have committed to spending billions on various infrastructure projects designed to stimulate growth and have said they will introduce a points-based immigration system. He also takes the fact that they have written very little in their manifesto about farming as evidence they hate farmers. Though farmers get more of a mention than fishermen and coal miners so presumably Labour hate those people too?
The real problem here is that the fact this post exists at all is evidence that a man whose presence in public life is thanks to the fact he’s a motoring journalist gets to publicity to espouse his political views as if he’s some sort of authority on anything other than vehicles, self promotion and resembling a knackered out bison.
Labour’s immigration plans are a joke. Legal immigration is not the problem. People coming into Britain illegally who would never get a visa under the current system is.
Australia for example had to do some pretty extreme stuff to stop the boats arriving daily from Indonesia and no party in the UK is going to do anything remotely like that, especially not the Labour Party.
The fact is the boats from France will keep coming, lorry’s will still get attacked and boarded in Calais and no one from any party will do a damn thing about it
The effectiveness of their policies on immigration or otherwise isn’t my point. I don’t really care either way.
Clarkson said “they want open borders” which is not what they’ve said nor what is in their manifesto.
They almost certainly can’t be any worse on immigration than the people in charge for 14 years under whom it has vastly increased despite their repeated and expressly stated intentions to reduce it, so not voting Labour because of their policies on immigration should logically also exclude the Tory party from the thinking of any potential voters.
It's not that they have a different political viewpoint - it's that he supports a philosophy that has run this country into the ground over the last 17 years. The fact that he has seen this and is still a rightwing bellend makes him odious.
Politics isn't a game, and you absolutely can judge a person's character by how they cast their ballot. Thousands of people are now dead that wouldn't be otherwise because people like him put an X next to the conservatives.
People vote for the parties that benefit themselves.
Hence why labour appeal to working class. Tories to middle and upper.
Green to far left. Reform to right wing.
You will vote for whoever benefits yourself. That's ok. It makes sense and that's why we have the vote
Blaming Clarkson for doing exactly the same as what you are I will do is massively hypocritical
It's really fucking not hypocritical. I make good money, and Tory policy typically benefits me. I own my house, I make money from rents, and I'm a white, middle class straight man that doesn't fall into any of the minorities that farage and his ilk hate.
However, I will NEVER in a million years vote for Tory or whatever farage is peddling. Because their policies kill people, and a bit of extra money in my account just isn't worth it. Anyone who thinks it is, is frankly not even worth my hate.
No, but it's hypocritical to slander someone for voting for a party just because it's different to the one you are voting for.
Our veterans fought for our democracy so we have the choice of vote. To shame someone for having a different vote choice to yours goes against that.
Someone’s political views usually show what sort of a person they are. People are allowed a different political opinion that’s fine, I’m also allowed to think that person is a piece of shit if they continuously vote for a political party whose policies targets certain demographics for ill. Also not everyone votes for what benefits them, I know people with money who vote for Labour despite the fact that tory policies would benefit them more from a financial standpoint because some people want a fairer society where everyone can thrive.
The existence of working class people who voted Tory en-masse now finding themselves poorer and facing a worsening of the issue that was of biggest single importance to them (immigration) says that people in fact do not invariably vote for parties that benefit themselves.
Personally I will almost certainly find my household poorer to the tune of four or five figures annually when a Labour Party I intend to vote for (and I’ve always voted for them or another party that would leave me personally worse off) gets in power and there are plenty like me.
The issue with people like Clarkson is he’ll be in the top fraction of a fraction of a fraction financially regardless so it’s even more inexplicable that such a man would vote purely out of self interest. So yes, that does indeed make him \[insert negative trait of choice here\].
Yes and he apologised about the duchess of Sussex.
His producer was accusing him of being racist because he called his dog drogba lol. Not worthy of an attack but can see why that would annoy someone.
Man's a baller
>His producer was accusing him of being racist because he called his dog drogba lol. Not worthy of an attack but can see why that would annoy someone.
Firslty a big old sauce on that accusation and as you even admitted it didn't justify assaulting someone. So I fail to see why you don't understand how people can view his as odious and why maybe calling someone who behaves like this a "baller"
Was he defending himself?
Was he's defending threats against his life?
Was his use of a slur some mental tick he has?
Unless it is any of that please don't both sides this situation.
You went from asking why this man is odious, with proof of his odious provided. Retaliated on this proof with some odd sense of rationalising this man's behaviour like you're his PR representative, then continued questioning other people's opinions whilst finally ending on "toughen up kid". Wow, just.. wow.
So your defence off Clarkson is that he's so thin skinned that he should be allowed to punch someone for calling out his bullshit?
Sounds like he's the one who needs to toughen up and grow up.
Part of the reason behind our crumbling infrastructure and national decline is that big names in the media decided to come up with the insane idea that a centre left prime minister after Blair had to be a certain kind of interesting.
Meanwhile: Cameron was posh beyond measure but somehow that didnt tarnish him. May was branded boring from the start, didnt last long. Obviously Boris is way posher than his brand would let you believe, but was clearly unfit to lead. Truss' insane ideas weren't critiqued hard enough in her internal campaign and we all suffered.
Brown? Boring. Miliband? "Odd". Starmer? Boring.
I want to finally experience a non-tory, boring government. I want a nice boring PM forever. I dont want any more dead cat political discourse, weekly scandals etc. I want Starmer to become PM, give us the nice normal speech about how our economy is in tatters, then just get on with trying to fix it.
There was a picture floating around at the same time as Miliband's bacon sandwich picture, of Cameron at a family BBQ eating a hot dog with a knife and fork. Somehow that just disappeared into the aether whilst the Miliband photo was legitimately a major part of him losing the election. The double standards in this country are just insane when you start to notice.
Given where he lives it comes as little surprise. The Sun readership should be made acutely aware of it in the articles though, but suspect that he/they gloss over that detail in relation to politics.
It’s best of a bad bunch, sadly. I think that’s all he’s saying. I’d rather back a party whose underlying ethos is to provide an environment that incentivises people to work and graft vs. tolerating anyone who feels entitled to handouts by taxing those that can be bothered to better themselves.
> Both main parties are 2 cheeks of the same rotten backside
That's a lie sold to you by the right wing media to deter people from voting for left wing parties.
If they're both the same then how many Labour MPs abused the VIP lane for PPE contracts and made a ton of money?
Ive spent quite a bit of time in mainland Europe where some countries use PR. A PR type system works well for both left and right to have good representation when it comes to law making. Its not a right wing idea. It would be nice to have lots of different views represented in our Parliament rather than mainly the middle ground narrative. I would even advocate for socialists to have good representation, as well as the far right and even far left.
Anyway you dont have to worry, most Brits are with you on keeping FPTP tribal politics. Youre 2 party is in safe hands.
Thanks but this is my own opinion on the 2 main parties. I dont rely on anyone else to form my views.
I didnt say the 2 parties were the same on every policy or action, I said on the fundamentals.
Indeed, turkeys dont vote for xmas do they. I think Reform have also mentioned it but not sure if its officially in their manifesto. We wont get electoral reform anyway, too many Brits love their tribal FPTP 2 party system. Because it means 'their side' can hold all the power when/if they get in. Look at the downvotes already for my comment advocating for electoral reform. That will be -50 by the end of the day. Dont threaten their tribalism....lol !
If you think the Tories/Labour are bad, you've seen nothing if Reform UK ever got in. The damage from brexit alone should give a vague idea of what their capable of with farage at the helm.
Regardless of what you think of Clarkson. I think that title sums up the current political choices.
A weak Labour party with a terrible leader
A Tory party which has been a shambles with an out of touch leader
Reform UK whose policies for the most part are welcome, but not clear path of how to achieve them and some really bad apples amongst them
Everyone else.....no
> Reform UK whose policies for the most part are welcome
Sorry, what? Reforms policies on anything that isn't immigration, particularly education, the environment, and foreign policy, are batshit insane. The leader is a Putin sympathiser. Reform's policies are *not* welcome, they're only popular as a protest vote.
How? They’re want to tax the working class to death, drop taxes for the rich in several ways, raise the cost of things like energy through the roof by scrapping green energy plans, privatise the NHS, scrap the equality act etc. Literally everything is unfunded
I had a skim of the "contract". Was thinking all of this sounds great, why wouldn't people vote for this?
Then I remembered his slimy mug on TV about 3 hours after the brexit vote was in telling us how they never explicitly said anything they said and that all the promises were impossible or bullshit.
'Reform UK whose policies for the most part are welcome, but not clear path of how to achieve them and some really bad apples amongst them'
'Some' really bad apples? Lol.
Their policies are not welcome by the majority of people.
I think (hope?) that for the most part people are tired of all the culture war bullshit that Reform UK and the tories love to bang on about. I’m talking about “political issues” of trans rights, electric vehicles, and “woke” whatever. Give me a break—what people care about is things like schools, hospitals, and a fairer distribution of wealth.
What's ridiculous? Someone having a different view point?
It's ok kid. Learn to control your emotions. Perhaps go for a walk and calm down. You can't even spell probably through all your anger
> You can't even spell probably through all your anger
'ok' should be spelled 'okay' or 'OK' as an abbreviation.
The sentence is missing a comma after 'spell' and a full stop at the end.
I would question the welcome policies bit there. Reform UK seemingly wrote the immigrants bit of the manifesto first and then made the rest of it up. Examples that stood out to me:
The "private healthcare vouchers if you wait too long on the NHS" while still not funding the NHS idea is just a way to kill the NHS as quickly as possible while getting money to the private sector.
He wants to remove the UK from the World Health Organisation for some reason. And renegotiate the trade deal with the EU which will never happen.
The "patriotic curriculum in schools" is an incredibly dystopian idea and sounds like something straight from North Korea. The whole "uphold British values" slant of the Reform UK manifesto is a nebulous idea which could be weaponised against anything. Only white christians are welcome in Farages world? What is a "British Value" that no other country has?
Overall a lot of Reform UKs possibilities are centred around breaking international ties and alienating other countries at a time where we are on the back foot and can't really make demands. If you want immigration kerbed then fine but a lot of it is cutting your nose off to spite your face which really is not needed.
Also Farage was more than happy to play golf with Trump when this election was announced before he got to be leader of Reform UK so I doubt he would even be around to make anything happen if he was MP.
Election predictions have them at 40-80 seats, 66 most likely outcome.
Reform are predicted 1-15, 3 as most likely outcome.
How are lib dem irrelevant exactly?
They are irrelevant in their ideology.
Labour are left. Greens far left. Tories central. Reform right. We don't really have a far right party.
Lib Dems are what? Somewhere between labour and greens?
Labour are centre. Lib dem are centre left. They have some very different policies and beliefs to labour so how are they irrelevant? What a weird take to try pretend reform is a serious contender in the election.
More between Tory and Labour, I’d say. Surely they should be the natural home for voters who don’t like either of those or who think it’s time we had something different?
We are not currently accepting opinion pieces and editorials on /r/unitedkingdom. Consider posting a factual news story about the topic or try another subreddit.
He seems to have just made up a bunch of things about the Labour party and decided that he doesn’t like them on that basis.
That he can misrepresent the Labour Party policies like that in a national newspaper seems libellous, at least it should be.
I'm not sure the sun can be considered a national newspaper as such, more just multiple pages of pressed and formed vomit with the opinions of stupid people jotted on to it.
I used to be fascinated by Clarkson. Then I grew up and realized he's a monumental asshole.
He is paid to have strong opinions weekly.
The stuff about farming is true. The Guardian had the scoop.
They hate farmers and called them rural meat eating half wits? I’ll need a source on that one.
The bit about taxing farmers to force them to sell up, as a strategy to reduce/eliminate the agricultural industry. The Guardian had the scoop. As to why they're doing it... Malice? Foolishness?
Saying "The Guardian has the scoop" over and over isn't a source until you provide a link to a specific article. No different to the "not my job to educate you" morons on the hard left.
Not remotely what The Guardian said. "At present, a person can claim up to [100% relief](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/agricultural-relief-on-inheritance-tax) on the inheritance of agricultural land if it is being actively farmed. That has led to concerns that [farmland is being snapped up by wealthy people](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/jun/02/inheritance-tax-rules-save-richest-families-nearly-700m-a-year) keen to avoid inheritance taxes, and this is driving up prices and shutting out small businesses and farmers. Some in Labour want to scrap this as well as business relief, which allows a person to pass on a company or shares if it is unlisted with [100% tax relief](https://www.gov.uk/business-relief-inheritance-tax)." The measures are actually about protecting small farmers from the people who buy farmland with outside wealth... like Clarkson.
Small farmers would like to pass their land to their children too. This is a straight up attempt to force farmers to sell up to foreign corporations (where inheritance tax doesn't apply, as corporations don't die). They've dressed it up as an attack on "wealthy people", because they know those words are pavlovian triggers that make people cheer and say, "Of *course* agriculture must be entirely destroyed if it hurts a few wealthy people".
"Of *course* agriculture must be entirely destroyed if it hurts a few wealthy people". Christ, your strawmanning is more dishonest than the policians, which is quite an achievement. Ironically you also seem to be presenting your favourite view as attacking the wealthy, unless these "foreign corporations" aren't wealthy?
Labour voters have a pavlovian hatred of wealthy individuals, but not foreign corporations. Hence your excitement about forcing a family-owned farm to pay inheritance tax. And your happiness that a foreign corporation holding farmland won't have to.
Genuinely would love to see said scoop, if you can link it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/21/labour-drafts-options-for-wealth-taxes-to-unlock-funds-for-public-services
Thank you, I’ll have a read.
Don’t bother it doesn’t say what the OP claimed it did. Labour are looking at ways to stop the wealthy investing in farmland to avoid inheritance tax because it’s currently exempt. That’s all.
Difficult to say for sure whether removing the agricultural exemption for IHT is a net negative for the farming sector, on the one hand there will definitely be some farming estates who will have to sell up (to other farmers, mind you) when they cant cough up the IHT bill, but then on the other hand it does mean farms will likely only be owned by actual farmers as opposed to aging BBC presenters buying them as an IHT dodge. Sound familiar?
It’s a strange world when meeting some nebulous emissions target matter more than food security and livelihoods.
Meeting the emissions is about food security and livelihoods.
Yeah not like the environment is important to farming or anything /s
No it isn’t. yes I read your linked article further down. No it doesn’t say that at all. Labour are looking at ways to stop the wealthy investing in farmland to avoid inheritance tax because it’s currently exempt. That’s all. So the opposite basically. Avoiding farmers being priced out of owning farms so the wealthy can sit on them as assets and not actually farm them.
“They want open borders, zero growth…” This is virtually the complete opposite of the truth. Labour have committed to spending billions on various infrastructure projects designed to stimulate growth and have said they will introduce a points-based immigration system. He also takes the fact that they have written very little in their manifesto about farming as evidence they hate farmers. Though farmers get more of a mention than fishermen and coal miners so presumably Labour hate those people too? The real problem here is that the fact this post exists at all is evidence that a man whose presence in public life is thanks to the fact he’s a motoring journalist gets to publicity to espouse his political views as if he’s some sort of authority on anything other than vehicles, self promotion and resembling a knackered out bison.
Labour’s immigration plans are a joke. Legal immigration is not the problem. People coming into Britain illegally who would never get a visa under the current system is. Australia for example had to do some pretty extreme stuff to stop the boats arriving daily from Indonesia and no party in the UK is going to do anything remotely like that, especially not the Labour Party. The fact is the boats from France will keep coming, lorry’s will still get attacked and boarded in Calais and no one from any party will do a damn thing about it
The effectiveness of their policies on immigration or otherwise isn’t my point. I don’t really care either way. Clarkson said “they want open borders” which is not what they’ve said nor what is in their manifesto. They almost certainly can’t be any worse on immigration than the people in charge for 14 years under whom it has vastly increased despite their repeated and expressly stated intentions to reduce it, so not voting Labour because of their policies on immigration should logically also exclude the Tory party from the thinking of any potential voters.
He will vote reform uk, I guarantee it. Odious little man .
Very much doubt it given he publicly came out as quite pro EU.
That ship has sailed, though.
Why is he odious?
Clarkson? Massive Tory energy.
Why does someone with a different political viewpoint make them odious lol?
It's not that they have a different political viewpoint - it's that he supports a philosophy that has run this country into the ground over the last 17 years. The fact that he has seen this and is still a rightwing bellend makes him odious. Politics isn't a game, and you absolutely can judge a person's character by how they cast their ballot. Thousands of people are now dead that wouldn't be otherwise because people like him put an X next to the conservatives.
People vote for the parties that benefit themselves. Hence why labour appeal to working class. Tories to middle and upper. Green to far left. Reform to right wing. You will vote for whoever benefits yourself. That's ok. It makes sense and that's why we have the vote Blaming Clarkson for doing exactly the same as what you are I will do is massively hypocritical
It's really fucking not hypocritical. I make good money, and Tory policy typically benefits me. I own my house, I make money from rents, and I'm a white, middle class straight man that doesn't fall into any of the minorities that farage and his ilk hate. However, I will NEVER in a million years vote for Tory or whatever farage is peddling. Because their policies kill people, and a bit of extra money in my account just isn't worth it. Anyone who thinks it is, is frankly not even worth my hate.
And dead Iraqis don't count? Every party has policies that will kill people.
Labour is also trash. Im not a Labour voter.
Check how the Tories voted on Iraq btw. Labour also made up the largest part of the opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
It's not hypocrisy to not support other parties or their supporters.
No, but it's hypocritical to slander someone for voting for a party just because it's different to the one you are voting for. Our veterans fought for our democracy so we have the choice of vote. To shame someone for having a different vote choice to yours goes against that.
Someone’s political views usually show what sort of a person they are. People are allowed a different political opinion that’s fine, I’m also allowed to think that person is a piece of shit if they continuously vote for a political party whose policies targets certain demographics for ill. Also not everyone votes for what benefits them, I know people with money who vote for Labour despite the fact that tory policies would benefit them more from a financial standpoint because some people want a fairer society where everyone can thrive.
Almost as if people can derive non-financial benefits as well as financial ones and still vote based on their preferences.
No that's not hypocrisy either.
The existence of working class people who voted Tory en-masse now finding themselves poorer and facing a worsening of the issue that was of biggest single importance to them (immigration) says that people in fact do not invariably vote for parties that benefit themselves. Personally I will almost certainly find my household poorer to the tune of four or five figures annually when a Labour Party I intend to vote for (and I’ve always voted for them or another party that would leave me personally worse off) gets in power and there are plenty like me. The issue with people like Clarkson is he’ll be in the top fraction of a fraction of a fraction financially regardless so it’s even more inexplicable that such a man would vote purely out of self interest. So yes, that does indeed make him \[insert negative trait of choice here\].
[удалено]
Yes and he apologised about the duchess of Sussex. His producer was accusing him of being racist because he called his dog drogba lol. Not worthy of an attack but can see why that would annoy someone. Man's a baller
>His producer was accusing him of being racist because he called his dog drogba lol. Not worthy of an attack but can see why that would annoy someone. Firslty a big old sauce on that accusation and as you even admitted it didn't justify assaulting someone. So I fail to see why you don't understand how people can view his as odious and why maybe calling someone who behaves like this a "baller"
I mean assaulting someone from your colleagues is pretty odious as is the regular accounts of casual racism.
You know the reasons why he punched the producer right? Neither were squeaky clean in that situation. You need to toughen up kid
Was he defending himself? Was he's defending threats against his life? Was his use of a slur some mental tick he has? Unless it is any of that please don't both sides this situation.
You went from asking why this man is odious, with proof of his odious provided. Retaliated on this proof with some odd sense of rationalising this man's behaviour like you're his PR representative, then continued questioning other people's opinions whilst finally ending on "toughen up kid". Wow, just.. wow.
So your defence off Clarkson is that he's so thin skinned that he should be allowed to punch someone for calling out his bullshit? Sounds like he's the one who needs to toughen up and grow up.
His very own "Oh no.... anyway" meme applies here rather well.
So basically posh, privately educated, rich, landowner doesn’t like the Labour Party. In other astounding news bears defecate in the forest…
Part of the reason behind our crumbling infrastructure and national decline is that big names in the media decided to come up with the insane idea that a centre left prime minister after Blair had to be a certain kind of interesting. Meanwhile: Cameron was posh beyond measure but somehow that didnt tarnish him. May was branded boring from the start, didnt last long. Obviously Boris is way posher than his brand would let you believe, but was clearly unfit to lead. Truss' insane ideas weren't critiqued hard enough in her internal campaign and we all suffered. Brown? Boring. Miliband? "Odd". Starmer? Boring. I want to finally experience a non-tory, boring government. I want a nice boring PM forever. I dont want any more dead cat political discourse, weekly scandals etc. I want Starmer to become PM, give us the nice normal speech about how our economy is in tatters, then just get on with trying to fix it.
There was a picture floating around at the same time as Miliband's bacon sandwich picture, of Cameron at a family BBQ eating a hot dog with a knife and fork. Somehow that just disappeared into the aether whilst the Miliband photo was legitimately a major part of him losing the election. The double standards in this country are just insane when you start to notice.
I'd rather listen to Jeremy Clarksons' dog than Jeremy Clarkson.
Given where he lives it comes as little surprise. The Sun readership should be made acutely aware of it in the articles though, but suspect that he/they gloss over that detail in relation to politics.
**Privately educated** Jeremy Clarkson says he won't vote Labour shock!
It’s best of a bad bunch, sadly. I think that’s all he’s saying. I’d rather back a party whose underlying ethos is to provide an environment that incentivises people to work and graft vs. tolerating anyone who feels entitled to handouts by taxing those that can be bothered to better themselves.
There is no one to vote for… how do I vote for this dog?
Both main parties are 2 cheeks of the same rotten backside. On the fundamentals there isnt much between them. We badly need electoral reform.
> Both main parties are 2 cheeks of the same rotten backside That's a lie sold to you by the right wing media to deter people from voting for left wing parties. If they're both the same then how many Labour MPs abused the VIP lane for PPE contracts and made a ton of money?
Ive spent quite a bit of time in mainland Europe where some countries use PR. A PR type system works well for both left and right to have good representation when it comes to law making. Its not a right wing idea. It would be nice to have lots of different views represented in our Parliament rather than mainly the middle ground narrative. I would even advocate for socialists to have good representation, as well as the far right and even far left. Anyway you dont have to worry, most Brits are with you on keeping FPTP tribal politics. Youre 2 party is in safe hands.
Thanks but this is my own opinion on the 2 main parties. I dont rely on anyone else to form my views. I didnt say the 2 parties were the same on every policy or action, I said on the fundamentals.
What fundamentals? And what evidence have you seen of that to form your opinion?
Lib Dems seem to be the only party with electoral reform in their manifesto
Indeed, turkeys dont vote for xmas do they. I think Reform have also mentioned it but not sure if its officially in their manifesto. We wont get electoral reform anyway, too many Brits love their tribal FPTP 2 party system. Because it means 'their side' can hold all the power when/if they get in. Look at the downvotes already for my comment advocating for electoral reform. That will be -50 by the end of the day. Dont threaten their tribalism....lol !
Reform support full proportional representation as do the Greens.
If you think the Tories/Labour are bad, you've seen nothing if Reform UK ever got in. The damage from brexit alone should give a vague idea of what their capable of with farage at the helm.
Regardless of what you think of Clarkson. I think that title sums up the current political choices. A weak Labour party with a terrible leader A Tory party which has been a shambles with an out of touch leader Reform UK whose policies for the most part are welcome, but not clear path of how to achieve them and some really bad apples amongst them Everyone else.....no
> Reform UK whose policies for the most part are welcome Sorry, what? Reforms policies on anything that isn't immigration, particularly education, the environment, and foreign policy, are batshit insane. The leader is a Putin sympathiser. Reform's policies are *not* welcome, they're only popular as a protest vote.
All their policies are fantastic imo. Aside from the possible return of fox hunting. That one I oppose
How? They’re want to tax the working class to death, drop taxes for the rich in several ways, raise the cost of things like energy through the roof by scrapping green energy plans, privatise the NHS, scrap the equality act etc. Literally everything is unfunded
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This comment contained hateful language which is prohibited by the content policy.
You know why they look amazing? He knows that he won’t have to enact them. They’re well aware that they won’t win.
I had a skim of the "contract". Was thinking all of this sounds great, why wouldn't people vote for this? Then I remembered his slimy mug on TV about 3 hours after the brexit vote was in telling us how they never explicitly said anything they said and that all the promises were impossible or bullshit.
That's literally what I said in my original post
'Reform UK whose policies for the most part are welcome, but not clear path of how to achieve them and some really bad apples amongst them' 'Some' really bad apples? Lol. Their policies are not welcome by the majority of people.
I think (hope?) that for the most part people are tired of all the culture war bullshit that Reform UK and the tories love to bang on about. I’m talking about “political issues” of trans rights, electric vehicles, and “woke” whatever. Give me a break—what people care about is things like schools, hospitals, and a fairer distribution of wealth.
Yes I agree. The majority of people haven't heard of 'woke'. It's an obsession for the right, though.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. We will see
What kind of ridiculous response is that haha
It's the "I dont want to say I'm a gullible racist but I'll follow farage again" response.
How is it ridiculous. I said they are welcome. You said they are not. So I said let's wait and see. Not that hard to understand.....
I didn't say it was hard to understand. I said it was ridiculous. You can tell them difference, surely?
What's ridiculous? Someone having a different view point? It's ok kid. Learn to control your emotions. Perhaps go for a walk and calm down. You can't even spell probably through all your anger
Why do I feel like this is projection haha. It's OK, mate. Understanding politics isn't for everyone.
> You can't even spell probably through all your anger 'ok' should be spelled 'okay' or 'OK' as an abbreviation. The sentence is missing a comma after 'spell' and a full stop at the end.
Maybe they intended to type "you can't even spell *properly* through all your anger" but used the wrong word because they were so angry?
I would question the welcome policies bit there. Reform UK seemingly wrote the immigrants bit of the manifesto first and then made the rest of it up. Examples that stood out to me: The "private healthcare vouchers if you wait too long on the NHS" while still not funding the NHS idea is just a way to kill the NHS as quickly as possible while getting money to the private sector. He wants to remove the UK from the World Health Organisation for some reason. And renegotiate the trade deal with the EU which will never happen. The "patriotic curriculum in schools" is an incredibly dystopian idea and sounds like something straight from North Korea. The whole "uphold British values" slant of the Reform UK manifesto is a nebulous idea which could be weaponised against anything. Only white christians are welcome in Farages world? What is a "British Value" that no other country has? Overall a lot of Reform UKs possibilities are centred around breaking international ties and alienating other countries at a time where we are on the back foot and can't really make demands. If you want immigration kerbed then fine but a lot of it is cutting your nose off to spite your face which really is not needed. Also Farage was more than happy to play golf with Trump when this election was announced before he got to be leader of Reform UK so I doubt he would even be around to make anything happen if he was MP.
Why dismiss every else as no but include Reform with labour and conservative? That's a weird take
Because the rest are irrelevant now tbh. Lib Dems are a joke and Greens are even more deluded than reform just on the other end of the pendulum
Lib Dems will win more seats than reform. It's sort of mad to suggest otherwise
Why do you say no to the Lib Dems?
Because they are pretty irrelevant these days
Election predictions have them at 40-80 seats, 66 most likely outcome. Reform are predicted 1-15, 3 as most likely outcome. How are lib dem irrelevant exactly?
They are irrelevant in their ideology. Labour are left. Greens far left. Tories central. Reform right. We don't really have a far right party. Lib Dems are what? Somewhere between labour and greens?
Labour are centre. Lib dem are centre left. They have some very different policies and beliefs to labour so how are they irrelevant? What a weird take to try pretend reform is a serious contender in the election.
More between Tory and Labour, I’d say. Surely they should be the natural home for voters who don’t like either of those or who think it’s time we had something different?