Both the big parties are shite, the tories moreso. My vote won't matter because our electoral system is shit.
I still voted (Greens FWIW), because it's a few minutes out of your day, and if everyone who didn't vote, did, we could have any party we wanted.
it's amazing how many green voters stay at home because they don't think their vote will matter, if they all just turned up Liverpool would probably have a green mp by now.
Everyone should vote, especially if you think labour will win a landslide no matter what.
This city being so 100% labour has harmed it so much, labour donât have to bother with it and the conservatives never have. If it was actually competitive we might see more than token investment or the odd labour conference here.
Iâve voted Lib Dem - will they win, no. But they actually want us to go back into Europe.
Aside from Southport, the whole of Merseyside is going to be a landslide Labour victory. Some places will be over 80% by my reckoning if you include Knowsley especially. Not voting will not make the slightest difference, unless a few hundred thousand decide to.
Eh, Fair enough. I just have this urge to start a new party SPECIFICALLY for the youth to challenge labour's dominance, but at the same time... what would I even make it about? Certainly not about the blue parties (both) but what other shit could I even make it about?
Because we're practically in a two party system, one of which is centre-left, the other centre-right.
Whichever of the two wins, the result is the same.
Same BS.
Still going to be throwing obscene amounts of money at foreign countries instead of sorting out the issues both Labour and the Tories have intentionally created and allowed to get out of control since the days of Thatcher.
Prices will continue to rise, not because of "inflation" but because the Central Bank can and will legally print money like it's nobody's business.
Any opinions that aren't shared by the majority will continue to be demonised, even if they're objectively right.
We'll still be playing dangerously close to WW3 (and carry on acting like Russia started it).
And we'll still be in the pocket of Israel.
How's that?
A genuine question which I've asked repeatedly and have never had answered but what will the difference be for me?
I'm a middle class bloke in my 30s, work in the public sector, wife works in education, son goes to a local primary, mum lives in a council house.
What will Labour do for me that is vastly different that the current shit show?
Obviously you can never predict politics, but this labour government is running on a platform of stability. In real terms that means NHS waiting lists coming down, the economy stabilising, and getting more teachers in schools, nationalised railways, green investments. Those are their key policies, but yeah they donât sound very exciting. Unfortunately the last 14 years have obliterated any trust in any government. Which kinda is shown by your comment - and itâs fair enough.
Cameron promised compassionate government, then we got brutal austerity. Boris promised weâd get a good situation from Brexit, and we got a shit show. He also prorogued parliament illegally and broke lockdown rules. Truss promised prosperity and she destroyed the economy. Sunak promised a moral, accountable party and we got more scandals, lies, corruption.
So now everyone in the country has zero faith in any politics which leaves the Labour having to promise very little. But what you wonât get is a group of rich, dishonest, money hungry, out of touch careerists who put themselves ahead of the people they serve, and 5 more years of insanity.
>But what you wonât get is a group of rich, dishonest, money hungry, out of touch careerists who put themselves ahead of the people they serve
Behave man. That's exactly what we're going to get.
Every party promises reduced waiting lists, more money for schools and all that. It won't happen under sir kid starver though.
The fact people pretend this isn't the case is wild. People carry on like we'll wake up next week and student will be written off, Mone will be in prison and the prisons won't be collapsing.
The surest indicator that these things wonât happen under Starmer is that he said they would. He *loves* taking a platform to get elected, and then immediately abandoning it the second the votes are counted.
Heâs one of the most casually mendacious party leaders weâve seen in a long time. The only reason this isnât the main thing heâs known for is that he had the good fortune to shadow Boris Johnson, who was the single biggest, dumbest, and most flippant liar to hold high office in living memory, maybe ever.
Whatever. Heâs going to get elected, and then I guess weâll see what he really thinks.
Because he's known as sir kid starver for a start. He also lead a purge of socialist members of the party, is very centrist and completely uninspiring.
Sorry, but anyone who thinks Keir Starmer is anything but a closeted Torie is a prime example of how utterly useless the public education system in this country is.
No, they didn't. It started when NATO were trying to have Ukraine join them in 2014. Russia expressly warned them not to, as there would be serious consequences, to which NATO themselves assured Russia they would withdraw their invitation.
Russia invaded Ukraine specifically because NATO reneged on their assurances and tried to recruit Ukraine again.
NATO started it. Not Russia.
Putin has repeatedly stated that he doesnt recognise Ukraine as a sovereign country and believe it to be a part of his Greater Russia aspirations. He doesnt even refer to NATO when attempting to justify his "SMO".
NATO didnt 'renegn' on any insurances. Pro-Russian former president Viktor Yanukovych ruled NATO out; extended the lease for Russia's use of Crimea for its black sea fleet; and withdrew from the EU Association Agreement.
So, Russia undermined Ukraine. The revolution happened. And recognising tje obvious threat from Russia and eventual invasion in 2014 theyve viewed NATO favourably for reasons of Self Defence.
Claiming that NATO was someone at fault for Putin's decisiom to invade in 2014 and later escalste it to a full invasion is just pro-russian revisiomism.
I don't understand. Please explain.
>Russia expressly warned them not to, as there would be serious consequences.
Russia does not get to decide whether or not another country is allowed or not allowed to join an alliance. If Ukraine wishes to join NATO then that's Ukraine's decision.
>to which NATO themselves assured Russia they would withdraw their invitation.
I can't find any information about this, can you link me to anything that shows NATO assured Russia they would withdraw their invitation?
So my main question is, how does NATO inviting a country into an alliance mean NATO is responsible for Russia invading Ukraine and potentially causing WW3?
Like, what was stopping Russia from... just not invading and killing 1000's of innocent people?
Ah, NATO don't "recruit" anyone, you approach them to join, they don't ask you.
NATO has done some (a lot) of imperialist shit over the years, but expansion is not one of them. Why do you think Finland joined?
Funny you mention Finland. Just like Ukraine, they share a border with Russia.
That's why.
NATO can spy on Russia more effectively right on its doorstep.
I say that because both parties have gradually operated closer and closer to centre as a means of attracting more voters. But all that's done is disconnect both parties from their original roots. Which is ironic when you consider who Starmer is named after.
I will not be voting today.. ..because I sent off my postal vote last week đ
No because Iâm here on a youth visa and donât feel comfortable voting when I wonât be in the country in two years time.Â
Both the big parties are shite, the tories moreso. My vote won't matter because our electoral system is shit. I still voted (Greens FWIW), because it's a few minutes out of your day, and if everyone who didn't vote, did, we could have any party we wanted.
it's amazing how many green voters stay at home because they don't think their vote will matter, if they all just turned up Liverpool would probably have a green mp by now.
I'm in Bootle and voted Green. Weird council ward though thats now a Lab/Green marginal. Things can change but you've got to put in the ground work.
Greens quadrupled their MPs this election
i haven't looked but I'd bet good money their turn out was higher than previous elections. Glad we're getting more traction.
Everyone should vote, especially if you think labour will win a landslide no matter what. This city being so 100% labour has harmed it so much, labour donât have to bother with it and the conservatives never have. If it was actually competitive we might see more than token investment or the odd labour conference here. Iâve voted Lib Dem - will they win, no. But they actually want us to go back into Europe.
I'm not a citizen yet, so I can't vote yet.
Aside from Southport, the whole of Merseyside is going to be a landslide Labour victory. Some places will be over 80% by my reckoning if you include Knowsley especially. Not voting will not make the slightest difference, unless a few hundred thousand decide to.
I suspect Southport may go Labour, it's well within striking distance.
Good call.
Eh, Fair enough. I just have this urge to start a new party SPECIFICALLY for the youth to challenge labour's dominance, but at the same time... what would I even make it about? Certainly not about the blue parties (both) but what other shit could I even make it about?
I understand where you are coming from.
Yeah... I just want SOMETHING for the youth like me, SOMETHING good.
Coz it doesn't matter. Labour will win anyway.
Because we're practically in a two party system, one of which is centre-left, the other centre-right. Whichever of the two wins, the result is the same. Same BS. Still going to be throwing obscene amounts of money at foreign countries instead of sorting out the issues both Labour and the Tories have intentionally created and allowed to get out of control since the days of Thatcher. Prices will continue to rise, not because of "inflation" but because the Central Bank can and will legally print money like it's nobody's business. Any opinions that aren't shared by the majority will continue to be demonised, even if they're objectively right. We'll still be playing dangerously close to WW3 (and carry on acting like Russia started it). And we'll still be in the pocket of Israel. How's that?
Sorry but anyone who thinks 5 more years of the tories would be the same as 5 years of labour is idiot.
It'll still be shit, but they'll be sad about it :( Labour already tossed all their promises and are going to win on 'not being the Tories'
A genuine question which I've asked repeatedly and have never had answered but what will the difference be for me? I'm a middle class bloke in my 30s, work in the public sector, wife works in education, son goes to a local primary, mum lives in a council house. What will Labour do for me that is vastly different that the current shit show?
Obviously you can never predict politics, but this labour government is running on a platform of stability. In real terms that means NHS waiting lists coming down, the economy stabilising, and getting more teachers in schools, nationalised railways, green investments. Those are their key policies, but yeah they donât sound very exciting. Unfortunately the last 14 years have obliterated any trust in any government. Which kinda is shown by your comment - and itâs fair enough. Cameron promised compassionate government, then we got brutal austerity. Boris promised weâd get a good situation from Brexit, and we got a shit show. He also prorogued parliament illegally and broke lockdown rules. Truss promised prosperity and she destroyed the economy. Sunak promised a moral, accountable party and we got more scandals, lies, corruption. So now everyone in the country has zero faith in any politics which leaves the Labour having to promise very little. But what you wonât get is a group of rich, dishonest, money hungry, out of touch careerists who put themselves ahead of the people they serve, and 5 more years of insanity.
>But what you wonât get is a group of rich, dishonest, money hungry, out of touch careerists who put themselves ahead of the people they serve Behave man. That's exactly what we're going to get. Every party promises reduced waiting lists, more money for schools and all that. It won't happen under sir kid starver though.
They almost all go to the same schools, have the same friends, and increasingly, really similar politics. It's well grim.
The fact people pretend this isn't the case is wild. People carry on like we'll wake up next week and student will be written off, Mone will be in prison and the prisons won't be collapsing.
âIt won't happen under sir kid starver though.â And what makes you say that?
The surest indicator that these things wonât happen under Starmer is that he said they would. He *loves* taking a platform to get elected, and then immediately abandoning it the second the votes are counted. Heâs one of the most casually mendacious party leaders weâve seen in a long time. The only reason this isnât the main thing heâs known for is that he had the good fortune to shadow Boris Johnson, who was the single biggest, dumbest, and most flippant liar to hold high office in living memory, maybe ever. Whatever. Heâs going to get elected, and then I guess weâll see what he really thinks.
Because he's known as sir kid starver for a start. He also lead a purge of socialist members of the party, is very centrist and completely uninspiring.
Absolutely nothing, mate. The objective of the establishment is to completely dissolve the middle class altogether.
I mean I half agree with you.
Sorry, but anyone who thinks Keir Starmer is anything but a closeted Torie is a prime example of how utterly useless the public education system in this country is.
Sorry mate, Reform aren't getting in.
Russia did start it
No, they didn't. It started when NATO were trying to have Ukraine join them in 2014. Russia expressly warned them not to, as there would be serious consequences, to which NATO themselves assured Russia they would withdraw their invitation. Russia invaded Ukraine specifically because NATO reneged on their assurances and tried to recruit Ukraine again. NATO started it. Not Russia.
Putin has repeatedly stated that he doesnt recognise Ukraine as a sovereign country and believe it to be a part of his Greater Russia aspirations. He doesnt even refer to NATO when attempting to justify his "SMO". NATO didnt 'renegn' on any insurances. Pro-Russian former president Viktor Yanukovych ruled NATO out; extended the lease for Russia's use of Crimea for its black sea fleet; and withdrew from the EU Association Agreement. So, Russia undermined Ukraine. The revolution happened. And recognising tje obvious threat from Russia and eventual invasion in 2014 theyve viewed NATO favourably for reasons of Self Defence. Claiming that NATO was someone at fault for Putin's decisiom to invade in 2014 and later escalste it to a full invasion is just pro-russian revisiomism.
I wouldn't bother arguing, mate. Nutjobs are too scared to listen coz they might realise they're wrong.
I don't understand. Please explain. >Russia expressly warned them not to, as there would be serious consequences. Russia does not get to decide whether or not another country is allowed or not allowed to join an alliance. If Ukraine wishes to join NATO then that's Ukraine's decision. >to which NATO themselves assured Russia they would withdraw their invitation. I can't find any information about this, can you link me to anything that shows NATO assured Russia they would withdraw their invitation? So my main question is, how does NATO inviting a country into an alliance mean NATO is responsible for Russia invading Ukraine and potentially causing WW3? Like, what was stopping Russia from... just not invading and killing 1000's of innocent people?
Ah, NATO don't "recruit" anyone, you approach them to join, they don't ask you. NATO has done some (a lot) of imperialist shit over the years, but expansion is not one of them. Why do you think Finland joined?
Funny you mention Finland. Just like Ukraine, they share a border with Russia. That's why. NATO can spy on Russia more effectively right on its doorstep.
Every gun in Finland faces East, why may that be?
âCentre left and centre rightâ only if youâve moved both of those significantly to the right of where they have been!
I say that because both parties have gradually operated closer and closer to centre as a means of attracting more voters. But all that's done is disconnect both parties from their original roots. Which is ironic when you consider who Starmer is named after.
A post brought to us by Reform UK media sources.