Unfortunately, if an election were to be held today, the morons at Reform would have the greatest chance of winning, thanks to Starmer's ostrich syndrome, Corbyn dividing the Labour vote and the Tories being absolutely irrelevant after 15 years of continuous rule.

Don’t. Just don’t.

There’s time for some party to sort themselves out before the next election is due (Aug 2029).

I thought Corbyn started his own party? Surely they have time to figure out a way to look more competent than Starmer of all people

The more Corbyn performs, the more the Labour vote will get divided. The same balkanization happened with the Tories and Reform/UKIP.

I'd be interested to know your view on how you think Britain should be governed and the extent to which you think others would agree. Serious question: can you offer a link to some such description?

Curtail immigration to pre-Brexit levels (with a strong focus on repatriating criminals and net tax non-contributing immigrant households), focus on the working class and devise a route for the UK to get back into the EU. Also refocus policing to focus on actual societal issues - child grooming and the rise of fundamentalist elements (as evidenced by the UAE banning their citizens from studying in the UK) - as opposed to elderly citizens tweets. Devalue the GBP to refund the NHS and roll back austerity while investing further into energy independence and removing bureaucratic red tape for consumer scale mitigation technologies.

Any party that does all of these will be guaranteed electoral wins for decades - I've seen the data back when I was a Tory. Problem is, these points are kryptonite to the very identity of either major party.

Disagree on being subsumed into the stagnating EU (far better to align with dynamic English-speaking economies with strong growth, like the US). Inward-looking protectionism and over-regulation among the EU27 is not the solution for a nation like the UK which has a solid history of global trade and innovation.

Austerity is absolutely necessary. If we keep giving the NHS above-inflation pay rises inline with what their staff demand, it would consume the entire annual excess wealth from the productive half of the economy in a matter of decades.

What we need are sensible and pragmatic policies like Reform's scaling back of net zero, for example. The cost of Ed Miliband's net zero measures are an estimated £4.5 trillion over the next 25 years, and a gross cost in excess of £7.6 trillion.

https://iea.org.uk/media/net-zero-could-cost-britain-billion...

That's more than our entire GDP. Just one example is the 20 year wind farm contracts that Miliband has set up, with a guaranteed energy cost that's nearly double the market rate for gas power (and then on top of that we need to pay for wind curtailment, grid upgrades and expensive backup power plants to cover low wind days). We were promised that renewables would reduce energy bills. That was a total fiction, and the politicians are to blame.

Green energy could be a massive success story, and it could make our bills cheaper, but inept politicians from the Tories and Labour have focussed instead on vanity metrics.

Y'all got any of those bilateral trade deals yet? Brexit was done and dusted by 2019, it's been 7 years now. Where are those deals you're talking about? Where's your trade deal with English-speaking economies like the US? Heck, not even CANZ want to deal with you guys now.

On the NHS, of course, gut the only thing that's keeping the country sane. I can literally not keep count anymore of the number of skilled doctors and talent who have left the UK after years of practice because the pay was becoming untenable with current living needs. Remove the NHS and you might as well call yourself a client state of the US.

On renewables and net-zero, yes, what we need is more reliance on conventional fuels so that we can be ever more reliant on Russia and the Middle East and the US right? Meanwhile economies like China, India and even your brethren in Australia are racing to put in more renewables capacity because it is just so much more cheaper and efficient now. Those guys are forging real paths to energy independence, unlike you lot.

Renewables haven't been reducing your energy bills because you guys haven't been putting up anything of note. Wake me up when Hinckley Point C comes online.

We’ve struck an incredible 71 trade deals since Brexit. And there are more in the pipeline. We genuinely have a better global position now than we did in the customs union.

You think the NHS is “keeping us sane”. Two of my family members have been close to death waiting for an ambulance that never arrived / waiting in a crowded emergency waiting room with internal bleeding for hours. I pay about £10K per year in tax to the NHS for a service that is inferior to the private care I receive for approx £1K a year. The whole system is a shambles and gets worse every year. It underpays and mistreats its staff. It is inefficient.

On your point about renewables, I never claimed we needed more reliance on fossil fuels. I think we should be building more nuclear plants. France is a shining example of how to generate electricity. And then, once we have affordable battery storage (in a few years) we will be able to expand wind/solar in a sensible fashion without our stupid politicians making our energy bills the highest in the developed world.

> Renewables haven't been reducing your energy bills because you guys haven't been putting up anything of note.

The UK is #1 in Europe for wind capacity and #2 globally for offshore wind (behind China). And we have the highest energy bills in the developed world

Thank you! I took a bet with myself on what you would say (if you did) and lost! Seems to me that the EU as presently constructed is a huge problem; on some other points I'd agree.

"This" ...?

You jest.

Meet the new government, same as the old government.

old government left them a £20bn funding hole to fix as they broke the rules on spending.

Agreed. I think Parliamentary Democracy has about run in course - all countries under it face basically the same problems, and the elections are meaningless.

The onus is on you to suggest an alternative. Which countries not under it 'face the same problems'?

- A strong leader and a weak bureaucracy, so that your vote means something. - A good constitution that puts hard limits on what they can do, no boiling the frog with freedom of speech restrictions like Canada, Australia, and The UK

So basically an elected dictator with a functioning kill switch. Not a parade of faceless, temporary, unimportant prime ministers and elections which don't matter.

> freedom of speech restrictions like Canada, Australia, and The UK

Unlike in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority?

(If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.)

This was an incredibly stupid comment, for the following reasons:

- I never mentioned the US

- I am not from the US

- I wasn't talking about the US

You had some axe to grind and you ground it false pretexts.

Do better.

> your vote means something. - A good constitution that puts hard limits on what they can do

Quite a lot of serious problems arise when voters want things that are ""unconstitutional"". What if the voters want speech restrictions? That's a big part of why they're implemented, public/media campaigning for them.

So essentially Soviet democracy (at least as it was supposed to have worked in theory)?

How would you ensure that the strong leader wouldn't just bring in the Cheka as quickly as Lenin did?

We both have very different ideas of what "Soviet democracy" is :)

Theirs was a party democracy. Or are you referring to the actual soviets (workers councils) pre Bolshevik coup?

The actual soviets - they remained in operation for the first few years after the Bolshevik coup, and the revolutionary slogan "All power to the soviets!" gave Lenin a convenient figleaf for sidelining the elected Duma.

Of course, the soviets also proved unwilling to entirely subjugate themselves to Lenin's whims, and made a habit of choosing non-Bolshevik delegates. This culminated in the failed Kronstadt rebellion of 1921, after which any pretense at democracy was finally ended.

But - in theory - the soviet model sounds akin to what you're looking for. Being made up of delegates rather than representatives meant that the power of recall on demand was baked-in at every level, and power flowed upwards to a strong executive leadership.

In reality, it's hard to see how any sufficiently strong leader wouldn't be able to override or simply ignore any sort of kill switch or other constitutional arrangements that might happen to stand in their way - as has happened every time it's been tried in the past.

Ah you have misunderstood me.

I think the person elected should hold a lot of powers. Because otherwise, what is the point of voting if they're just going to leak it all to the civil service?

By "kill switch", I just mean you need a way to stop a leader with a lot of powers in exceptional circumstances - such as violation of a constitution.

This government have been in power for less than 2 years. Despite launching a lot of trial balloons on raising taxes they haven't actually raised the headline tax rates (other than allowing fiscal drag to do so).

Overall the tax burden in the UK is middling for western democracies. It's actually on the low side for low earners - which is probably a problem because the distribution is such that the majority pay very little.

The other problem being cliff edges and complexities which distinctive chasing pay rises and working more for a lot of people.

The biggest problem is that the tax on a median taxpayer is not just "middling", it's a bit over a third of what a median German taxpayer is paying. The rest of the fiscal problems (convoluted tax rules, cliff edges to try to claw something back, abrupt tax increases like the one on pubs) are downstream from that.

> the tax on a median taxpayer is not just "middling", it's a bit over a third of what a median German taxpayer is paying

Could you put the actual numbers in for that please, because to me that implies German tax rates of 120%? Is that across all forms of taxation, including local (the relevant one here!)

Apologies, brain glitch: it's half, not third. Also, I'm talking about the effective tax rate, not the marginal tax rate. Here are the numbers:

Median salary of a full time employee in the UK in 2023 (to match the German source): £34,963 [1]

Take home on that salary (after income tax and NI): £28,692 [2]

Effective tax rate on a median salary in the UK: ~18%

Median salary of a full time employee in Germany: €4,479 pm [3] or €53,748 per year

Take home: €34,281 [4]

Effective tax rate on a median salary in Germany: ~36%

Tax _rates_ are not that different, but the previous British governments really ramped up the tax-free allowance, which significantly reduces the effective tax rate.

[1]: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...

[2]: https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

[3]: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Labour/Earnings/Earnings-E...

[4]: https://salaryaftertax.com/de/salary-calculator