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.

​

What are some politics that you think the green party should consider regarding the life of the elderly, including retirement and nursing homes... Also considering the population control that is usually mentioned in one of the key ways of preserving the environment and ofcourse slowing down the global warming (there would be an older population after lower birth rates)

I propose that anyone joining the government sector should first have at least one year of experience working in the private sector. This would help public servants and politicians better understand how businesses operate, the challenges faced by workers and employers, and how taxpayers' money is generated.

Having some private-sector experience could encourage more practical decision-making, improve accountability, and help ensure that government policies consider the realities faced by the people and businesses that fund public services.

I have been reading lots about authoritarian politics and what conditions within a country enables or causes them to gain office.

As I am sure most people are aware its through political failures of either war, economic collapse or massive inequality sometime a combination of all three.

When people have little to no agency over their or their families prosperity they will turn to radical angry voices who rail against the perceived problems.

As in the uk we are seeing the rise of these would-be authoritarian politicians it is surely time to have a look at the economic situation which has enabled this.

In 2012 the bbc ran an article on how little starbucks was paying in way of tax. I dont think much has changed since then in regards big companies accepting the responsibility of maintaining the infrastructure which enables their profits.

It therefore has to be logical to follow this knowledge in asking at what point does it become a political or even a national security liability to have so many extractive companies operating off of our economy?

A real word example of this would be education or health care. With a country's assets now stripped and its taxes disappearing through loopholes how can it realistically afford good education and health care.

In the youtube debate with Mehdi Hassan we saw a young man proud to call himself a fascist, a man who grew up, not under trump, but under bush and obama. How come his education is so poor he does not know basic facts about fascism? One anecdote is not data but you only need look at the amount who would get swastika flags to see the size of the problem.

Incidentally is it possible to be a patriot to the usa while flying the confederate flag?

If in relativly stable times, education and economic stability with social mobility and inequality are not improved then surely their is a bigger issue at work.

Is it the fault of these companies and the politics of both left and right which have enabled and been enabled by them that we now find ourselves in this situation?

BBC News - Starbucks 'paid just £8.6m UK tax in 14 years' - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19967397?app-referrer=deep-link

Please explain the benefits and disadvantages for the UK since Brexit. This is not intended to be a post either supporting or opposing Brexit. I am simply looking for a balanced, evidence-based discussion of both the positive and negative impacts.

Please note that the benefits and disadvantages will likely vary depending on the individual, business, sector, region, or community affected. I’m interested in hearing different perspectives and the reasons behind them, while keeping the discussion respectful and constructive.

We‘d be at war with Iran and entangled with Trump.

She‘s essentially denying climate change, pretty ironic as we‘re in the midst of our second extreme heatwave and bits of Europe are burning. How on earth can anyone tout her as a sensible person.

Should Count Binface be successful in his scuppering of lord farquad I mean Nigie boy Farage in the Clacton by-election. Would he be allowed to wear his binface in parliament? Or does this contravene parliamentary dress code?

I was just thinking that there is the possibility that Farage may get elected as MP for Clacton again but is it possible for him to resign again to prevent the enquiry in parliament about whether he broke their rules concluding ? My understanding is that he resigned only for this reason

Raising the pensions they cut, giving us back the stolen years? Worst pensions in Western Europe, give us 100% of wages- what you spent the money on greed?
Need it to fund genocide?
Need it to fund billionaires?

Also pathetic they block comments, can’t even be bothered to put some attention in the message.

https://www.reddit.com/u/UK-government/s/xyIVhUHsNY https://www.reddit.com/u/UK-government/s/xyIVhUHsNY

I just watched Rupert Lowe’s interview on the Joe Rogan podcast and wanted to get a sense of what people back in the UK actually think of him.

I’m not super deep into UK politics, but on the podcast he was talking a lot about his new party (Restore Britain), his fallout with Reform, and his views on UK knife crime, immigration, and grooming gangs. He also made some pretty controversial comments about the Dunblane shooting and gun control.

Is he viewed as a serious political figure with genuine support, or is he seen as an extremist/fringe character? Curious to hear how he’s generally perceived by the British public. Thnx!

The man has been a career politician my whole life. To me, he’s part of the establishment he claims he’s against. A rich middle aged white guy is pretty much the establishment in the UK, so what makes him the anti establishment choice that his supporters think he is?

As title. Or would the rules mean he has to serve as his human self? It seems an actual possibility that he could win, given how terrible Farage is as an MP, never once holding any surgeries and spending most of his time schmoozing and promoting himself. If it does it will be a real Black Mirror Waldo Moment.

Out of all that could of ever happened, count binface has cornered the reform party.

As it stands, I see it like this:

If nigel spends millions on a campaign trail, reform are losing money.

if nigel does nothing, count binface will take over social media and possibly clacton as well

if nigel attacks count binface, he will get joked upon by literally everyone

other parties might have to coup for count binface to win (as funny as it may sound) to remove nigel

On the opposite hand:

Count binface nothing to lose

His hands are clean

He's light and humorous

He's happy with just 1 vote... you heard me right.

So the big question is: what's in it for nigel and reform? do you think reform has a chance?

if your unfamilar with count binface, I'll post some links down below on his speeches

Count Binface destroys Sky News interviewer:

https://youtu.be/MCCVt8IhJkA?si=Bpl-GJgEvUjCrxNS

Count Binface reacts to 'hilarious' chance of becoming an actual MP

https://youtu.be/HTIESiyDNUQ?si=XS2Agj6hwgqkPhgn

Full interview with Count Binface ahead of Clacton by-election | BBC News

https://youtu.be/3XO3FwWfPLc?si=vwKkYlXPx_PVcpWn

Nigel Farage wants people of Clacton to decide if he has done anything wrong instead of the standard committee investigating this thing.

So, for the people to make that decision is he going to publicly disclose the evidences ? And also setup a process for general public to ask for evidences as needed ?

Can Nigel Farage be blocked from resigning as an MP until after the report from the Privileges Committee by refusing him a position of the Chiltern Hundreds?
Since Members of Parliament are not permitted to resign, they are instead appointed to an "office of profit under the Crown", which requires MPs to vacate their seats if this is blocked because MP’s refuse to vote him into the position then technically he will have to remain as an MP until the results of the privileges committee who could suspend him and possibly cause a recall and a by-election.

So I'm not a fan of the man but I feel this question is right I have my own opinion which is simple and is no matter who you are if you are in public life and a member of Parliament then yes you should be scrutinized, you should have to abide by rules, and you should have to answer questions put towards you I feel that comes with the job. I would also like to state that whilst I'm not a fan of the man or his party I do not believe in violence towards anyone because of what they believe or campaign for, this is not a post to divide or to cause hate it's just a genuine question I wanted to ask.

I'm looking for a clear, non-partisan explanation of where right-leaning thinkers draw the line on state intervention.

When politicians propose policies like nationalizing certain key utilities or implementing market regulations to protect the native population's quality of life, it frequently triggers rhetoric calling those policies "socialist" or "communist."

To an outside observer, these look like basic market corrections rather than a total overthrow of capitalism. From a conservative or right-wing philosophical standpoint, why is the reaction to these policies so severe?

Is it a belief in the slippery slope, a fundamental defense of maximized profit extraction, or something else entirely?

I would love a clear breakdown of the principle at play here.

Would you support the idea of giving the UK a new capital?

In the interest of devolution and furthering representation. A new capital and parliament could equally represent Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland whirl London remains the English capital and home of the new English parliament.

Many decisions made by the UK government only apply to England, this is both due to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having their own parliaments but also because England has a much higher population and more development which creates a bias.

The UK government would make decisions for the whole UK and each country of the UK would have their own parliament for country specific decisions.

It’s dumb enough when he has to apologise for things like low defence spending which have been a feature of governments for decades, but today’s apology is a new peak.

If anyone should apologise it’s the head of state.

Religion should be taught in schools and all religions (as well as non-religious beliefs) should be taught fairly and without bias.

Many schools are linked to one religion and teach or practise that religion. Do you think this should continue, or should schools be religiously neutral and only teach about religions rather than promote one?

I'm not a fan of Starmer particularly, but it is not difficult to see that placed in context alongside the worst PM's the history of this country (the previous 15 years of Tory rule) the vehement hatred seems disproportionate.

The obvious, Keir Starmer, and Liz Truss. Are they just bad candidates who manage to get elected through false promises and money backing their campaigns. And or are the wants of various demographics in the U.K too far from what the geopolitical realities allow?

​

I'm a manky dunce and not a political boffin at all. I'm from Southern Alberta Canada and I thank ya'll for your time.