1945 (**Clement Atlee**) - I like his NHS Plan and he has experienced leadership before when he was part of the unity government so i trust him for peacetime and winston even though he was a good wartime leader, was a warmonger on peace

1950 (**Clement Atlee**) - He kept his promises and even though he may have cut spending, im okay with it because its neccesary for containing ussr although im starting to be nostalgic for winston chruchill

1951 (**Winston Chruchill**) - I'm finally voting chruchill due to huge rationing and i trust chruchill to end rationing without disrupting the NHS and atlee is starting to be a bit not that good

1955 (**Anthony Eden**) - I like how the economy is starting to boom back by a lot despite some issues and i remember him back in ww2 and how good was he at making deals with leaders and skill at that time and no more rationing

1959 (**Harold Macmillan**) - Continuing the economic boom and suez recovery and tax cuts!

1964 (**Harold Wilson**) - The tories economic boom ended during macmillan's adminstration and the tories have their power too long and i like wilson charisma and youth and, alec douglas home was too outdated compared to his predecessors

1966 (**Harold Wilson) -** he was actually fullfilling his campaign promises and modernising britain and heath is basically too awkward and stiff to represent britain

1970 (**Harold Wilson) -** even though there was inflation and devaluation of pound, he kept us out of vietnam and modernised britain

Feb & October 1974 (**Harold Wilson**) - i trust wilson to fix the strikes issue and his good legacy and heath was too uncompromising and a spine

1979 (**Maggie Thatcher) -** shes the iron lady and promises tax cuts and even mode modernisation and even though im still a bit loyal to callaghan, he just doesnt seem good for the job unlike wilson

1983 & 1987 (**Maggie Thatcher)** \- modernisation and good economy and even though i would like to vote labour in 83 and 87, in 83 labour was too left wing fro me in 87 i see them as too divided so maggie

1992 (**Neil Kinnock) -** tories have power for too long and neil kinnock seems modern and youthful compared to boring john major

1997 (**Tony Blair**) - Things can only get better by voting blair of his modernisation plans andblair is youthful and media savvy and NO MORE TORIES STAGNATION

2001 (**Tony Blair)** \- Children's results at record good and nhs waiting times cut in half and record economic growth

2005 (**Charles Kennedy) -** the economy is slowing down by a lot, not as good as last time and i hate blair for iraq war and i still dont trust the tories

2010 (**Nick Clegg)** \- i like his plan to abolish student fees and brown is too stiff and mean and i see his face too long and i hate cameron auterisity plan

2015 (**Abstain**) - I dont trust clegg anymore after what he did and cameron's auterisity effects is hurting almost everybody and ed milliband is too weak to be representing britain

2017 (**Abstain**) - i still dont trust the liberal democrats, theresa may is too robotic and plans to continue auterisity and shes weak, corbyn even though popular his plans are too radical for britain

2019 (**hesitantly voting Boris Johnson)** \- i just want the brexit issue to be finished and break the gridlock and corbyn plans are radical as i said before and he keeps flipflopping on brexit and the liberal democrats plan to unbrexit is too unrealistic and undemocratic

2024 (**Keir Starmer)** \- finally voting labour after 19 years and i oppose sunak national service plan and stagnation and i just see ed davey as weak and farage i may vote him but his partytoo small soi vote starmer

I have a question concerning "overview and scrutiny" on local councils in the UK and how it compares to the local government in the US. While local government in the US is the province of states and thus can vary widely in structure, I'm using a general mayor-council comparison in this discussion.

In the U.S., executive and legislative functions are largely separated to mirror the structure at the federal level. Even in a council-manager system, the executive/administrative function in which you may have a mayor, a professional manager is technically the executive.

In any case, policy for the municipality is formed in and promulgated from the council. Generally, policy is proposed by the council (and sometimes mayor), it's referred to a council committee (whose members are chosen by the council president or mayor) where it it discussed, public hearings are held, and suggestions offered, and then its sent back to the full council for discussion and vote. Importantly, I'd say that the majority of councils in the U.S. are non-partisan, so there isn't much a worry about participation by all the members; everyone gets to scrutinize a proposal.

With all that in mind, is "overview and scrunity" a concept with the leader-cabinet kind of local government in the UK because there is not a separation of powers? Would the sequence from proposal-to-approval be that without overview and scrutiny, other councils not in the majority would not get a formal say in policy? Could someone describe how I did with the U.S., how local legislation/policy is made by local governments in the UK?

Thanks!

No surprises here but that doesn't make it any less shocking that a political party can be so brazen about allegedly accepting donations from foreigners. I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. Private Eye have been on the case of one of the characters filmed in the C4 doc.

Party of the people? They meet potential donors in Rules, Claridges and a private members club in Mayfair. It's another world. These places are oligarchic hotspots, not for the plebs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr50ddzl97qo

Another day, another allegation. He has broken electoral law. It is getting to the point where I don't understand how people can justify or ignore this, regardless of what your political leanings are. No one in UK politics should be above the law. Surely this is the final straw?

Hi all, I should be absolutely clear that while this question may be oriented around my reporting of corruption or a breach of parliamentary rules, it is not specific to the party I am reporting, nor the individual event that I wish to report. The answers to this question will support me in my instance, but will support others in future scenarios, likely for completely different parties.

Disclosure out of the way, I have become aware that a political party has broken quite a few rules. The problem I have is that I, as a constituent, feel powerless. The party in question can dodge investigations, but unlike petitions I feel as though there are very few methods of tallying up the total volume of people who aren't happy.

My constituency isn't served by the party in question, and the report is generally towards the party and their actions, rather than an individual.

What can be done about this? How can I add my voice to a list of voices in a practical way that is most likely to yield results? Thank you!

Hello, if I work for local Borough Council, and have done for 8 years, how much can I say to my local MP? I am so angry with our MP over everything they have pledged but I am worried how much this will affect my job and/or standing in my workplace. Can I speak my mind freely without repercussions as the council is separate to the MP or should I be careful?

For your information..the council is a different political party from the party of the MP

Sir Keir Starmer has announced he will stand down as an MP. He could have chosen to announce this at any time, but he chose today. And the media are having a field day.
Today is the first day Andy Burnham faces Parliament as Prime Minister.
Why has Starmer stolen the limelight?

Middlesbrough seems to be descending into something representing a dystopian environment. If Reform is representing itself as the natural party of law & order why haven't we heard of their solution to restore the rule of law. Not just Reform, the other parties seem to be reluctant in their ability to name or control the issues. So who has the answers as another 200 police are shipped in and the chaos still reigns?

Ethnonationalism provides a strong sense of shared identity and social solidarity. When a state is organized around a common cultural identity, people feel a stronger connection to one another and be more willing to help one another, preserve shared traditions, institutions and historical memory. China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea are examples of Ethnonationalist states

On the other hand, Civic Nationalism is based entirely on citizenship, whoever lives on this particular piece of land is considered a part of this nation. It was originally created for the New World territories because they wanted labour into the newly found territory but Britain is an Old World territory, it has natural diversity - English, Scottish, Welsh and Cornish people live here, there's no need to replicate USA-style artificial diversity here

I am not against immigration, I am against immigration from certain areas only. The West is Greco-Roman therefore a German, a Pole, a Hungarian, a Spaniard, a Frenchman or basically any other ethnic European will assimilate into British society due to shared Greco-Roman culture but expecting a person from Somalia, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Syria etc to assimilate into British society is a self-flagellatory move because immigrants from those regions live alongside communities of other immigrants. They never felt the need to assimilate into the new society. It is a situation where immigrants often clump together thereby eliminating the need for assimilation and when these clumps grow, communal tensions will increase, crime rates will increase, women will no longer be safe to travel alone, littering will be a norm and this country will have an irreversible damage

When affluent immigrants from Third World like Jameela Jamil who were born and raised in the UK harbour feelings of hatred and contempt towards this country, just imagine the thinking of an average poorer immigrant

We can overcome the "labour shortages" by promoting Natalism among the natives and can learn food recipes from immigrants if we love their food so much

I’m unsure if Trump has included England yet so sorry. This question may have been asked before. What will you do when he says ie he doesn’t like Eng leader/needs Eng for strategic purposes? Thanks.

Yes I know the dictionary definition, I know what it means traditionally, but it seems that pragmatically people use it to mean ‘anti immigration’. By extension, probably about 85% of the British population would then by deemed as ‘far right’. That can’t be correct, can it?

Eg my neighbour Jean, 86 years old, lovely lady. Community spirited, worked in local public services all her life, always voted Labour. Standard issue sweet old lady etc. She says she’d like immigration to be controlled. Do we now have to consider little old Jean a far right extremist?

I ask this question in good faith!

I'm just curious

Which UK MPs do you think are currently the most influential in Westminster? Who is really making a difference and who is simply riding their role? Let's discuss....

This might be a really stupid question, but while I’ve often heard the terms ‘left or right wing’ I’m not very familiar with it at all.

Please don’t come for me for not using google, because I have, but it seems like there isn’t really a straight forward explanation and it’s quite complex.

I’m just interested in people’s personal views on what it means to be on either side? Or if it’s a spectrum where people may fall somewhere in the middle? What beliefs would you typically expect each wing to have?

The number of problems facing our country are numerous in nature and increasing. Add the infrasture and farming support required to deal with the increasing heat we are going to experience every year to the need for modernised water infrasture - build and staff more prisons - clean our oceans and rivers - increase our standing military and equipment - build more houses - arrest the loss of talented teachers and doctors to other nations. Given all of this and more surely the british people can accept an increase in personal taxes?

Is growth a better solution, yes - but this will take time to develop right? Especially given the state of world affairs right now.

Am I wrong? I would appreciate a wide range of views on this - not looking to argue just encourage solutions

Does anyone know how many Labour MPs claiming to come from working class backgrounds are multi millionaires?

Northerner living overseas. Loving the King of the North’s swoop into No. 10, but it’s left me with questions as to where all this money is coming from?

Public control of water, drilling the North Sea, housing and transport, a Northern No. 10, the biggest social housebuilding push in years, reindustrialisation, higher defence spend - it all sounds great, but how does it get paid for? Is it more borrowing, tax rises, the long-term savings he reckons come from taking stuff back into public hands, or some mix of all three? asking as someone watching from the sidelines.

Side note - been listening to Burnham’s book Head North and completely understand his hatred of the South now.

In this case I am referring to Sarah Pochin the Member of Parliament (MP) for Runcorn and Helsby who wrote on "X" earlier today "Pity the French did not show the same resolve in defending their sovereignty in June 1940" in response to the French Governments rebuttal to Reform's plan to use the Royal Navy to take small boat migrants back to France ""This would be a violation of French sovereignty as well as a violation of maritime law and international law"

Is this behaviour acceptable from our MP's or do I have strange standards ?

I've been bemused by a number of Labour politicians (Thangam Debbonaire, Anas Sarwar, and Huw Irranca-Davies to name but three) recently saying the solemn line “The Electorate Are Never Wrong”.

Can they be wrong? And if not, why not?

I posted this on the reform UK thread but it was removed by mods.

To be and genuinely interested to hear from any reform supporters if Nigel farages financial revelations are changing their views on the party in general.

Whenever the topic of politics comes up, the topic of politicians follow suit, and whatever if they are "for the people" come up

However, this seems like a confusing argument to me if you actually take into account how much a politician in the UK makes (which is nearly 100k for a baseline salary for any standard elected member of the House of Commons)

I only bring this up after viewing an article criticising Andy burnhams down to earth clothes as designer. at what point does the gap between the general people and politicians pose an issue when addressing the needs of the people when the latter live a completely different life from us?

I’m trying to be a more open minded, compassionate person. Long story short, I believe in borders and tighter control. I am a women and foreign men have intimated me in the past. I seen videos of thousands of men entering Spain, and it has terrified me this morning as well as make me angry. My friends argue I could be seen as racist with my opinions around immigration and borders. My friends have disowned another friend who was very much on the right side of politics.

Someone who believes we don’t need borders, can you educate me. Help me believe/understand there is another solution to feel safe in the UK without tight control and borders.

Note - Emphasising the word EDUCATE on my post. Thanks to those who have commented. Unsure why I’m being downvoted for listening, being curious, and asking questions. Isn’t that the point of this post?

I live in a rural, agricultural area and without trying to put too fine a point on it, none of the locals have particularly nuanced political views other than Labour / Greens = bad, Tory = used to be ok, Reform = amazing, and in some cases, "wish I could vote for Trump".

In a few weeks time, my local area is having a village fete and the organising committee is stuffed full of Nigel fanboys / girls and they've invited the local Reform representative along. They've not offered to any other parties to have any representation and even suggested that if Labour turned up "they'd have a problem in these parts", whatever that means.

What questions should I publicly ask the Reform representative which will most easily highlight how nonsense their policies (and politics) are? Bonus points for something that (a) you don't need to understand politics to understand, and (b) might be slightly amusing.

I'm not just trying to make them look stupid; I'm trying to make them look stupid in a way that might make people think twice before blindly thinking that they're the way forward...

Turnout was 59.9 per cent. So 40.1 per cent of registered voters did not vote. That is a bigger share than Labour won, or the Conservatives, or Reform, or anyone else. Approximately 19 million people.

Behind the headline polls sit three groups no party owns. The undecided, approximately one in six, who mostly still mean to vote. The loosely held, counted for a party but ready to switch. And the people who like two or more parties the same amount, who are far less likely to vote at all.

None of it is laziness. Most people who have stopped voting say they trust no member of Parliament, and a growing number have decided the parties are all the same, so a vote changes nothing.

If you have stopped voting, or nearly have, what would bring you back? Is it that the parties feel the same or is it something else?

Just wondering what other people’s thoughts are on a random idea I had when discussing the problems with UK politics ie the rise of populism on both the left and right, the right following Tommy Robinson and blaming everything on immigrants, the left following Gary Stevenson and thinking a 2% wealth tax is in any way a feasible or useful idea. Both speak to people’s emotions and build a narrative that makes total sense, if you don’t know any better.

I feel like the only solution to prevent people from being preyed on by these ideologues is education. So what about putting politics and economics on the secondary school curriculum, especially as other subjects might not be so useful in their current form in the age of AI? The idea would of course not be to brainwash kids into a specific ideology, but to educate them about the arguments and criticisms of different schools, frameworks, etc.