UK Politics

5492 readers

73 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Starmer’s ministers look at new economic blueprint to quell voter anger (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by frankPodmore@slrpnk.net to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For once, 'Labour source' has it right:

“The problem with the answers coming from the populists isn’t that they’re ‘not sensible’, it’s that they’re not radical enough,” one Labour source said. “Price controls and handouts actually accept the premise that things can’t be fundamentally changed. The truly radical thing is taking on why the system is broken in the first place. Why can’t we build homes? Why is energy so expensive? Why do many workers pay a higher marginal tax rate than a landlord?

“Voters aren’t turning to Reform and the Greens because they’re becoming ‘extreme’. They’re, fairly, concluding that the mainstream offer is managed decline and they’d rather roll the dice. The answer is to put forward something genuinely bolder that really changes things for them.”

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Infernal_pizza@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Nationalise energy, water and rail or fuck off

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're already nationalising rail.

The rest is sensible too, but don't kid yourself: it won't be as big a change as you want. Water, for instance, is fucked due to decades of the country being fleeced, and that money is gone. It can't be clawed back; it needs to come from peoples pockets one way or another

[–] Infernal_pizza@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Some of it could be clawed back if those responsible were actually held accountable

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 5 points 1 month ago

Those responsible are foreign nationals, and regulators. Fining ofwat is just fining the country, and individual people at ofwat can't cover the price.

It's gone. It sucks but it's a fact.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

Then punish one of the enablers. Make an example that anyone who is happy to make those kind of deals will face financial repercussions.

[–] WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social 5 points 1 month ago

And that’s just for starters.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How about they look at a new blueprint for not banning all forms of public protest and one for not getting drawn into a paedophile's war of distraction?

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago

Naw, mate, it's all about changing the presentation, not the substance.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

concluding that the mainstream offer is managed decline

I like the term "managed decline", but almost every government appears to be actively coordinating with capitalism to exploit the working class; delivering us a "democracy" that is functionally equivalent to corporate dictatorship.