@@Noel-ji8nm I think some people forget that he lost two elections. They act like he was so hard done to but most leaders get kicked out after one defeat
Convergence is kind of inevitable, since both parties are angling for the same swing voters. A direct consequence of the awful FPTP system the UK employs, since it's not about winning a majority, it's about convincing a handful of centrists who can go either way.
Because proportional representation is doing so well in mainland Europe, especially Netherlands, Estonia, Finland, Germany (Afd 21% in the polls), Spain hung parliament... Yh not buying it.
@@leecullen759errrm people said that about the parasites of politics before 2010,as soon as they went into coalition with the Tories there true blue credentials were laid bare,they didn’t vote once against the Tories even after they’d got there failed referendum on P.R! So hated were they for being more Tory than the Tories at the 2015 election they lost 42 seats,going from 54 to 12! Don’t let that bunch fool you,they’re as about left wing as Thatcher was!!!
Starmer DID publicly support renationalisation of rail, mail and energy at the start of his term as leader of Labour. However, he has gone back on those pledges.
Starmer has basically backed away from any policy that differentiated them from the Tories. All they've got really is that they are likely to be less corrupt and less incompetent.
Where's Sunak policies on removing Mon Dom status? Where are his policies on implementing a full fix hunting ban? Where are his policies on strengthening worker's rights and unions? Because Labour has policies on all these. They're miles apart, labour just has a serious communication issue.
@@joefortey4 they don't have one. Labour has shown they have an embedded culture of anti-black racism as well as islamaphobia on par with the Tories and have a hierarchy of racism. On that point alone, they are a racist party.
Under a FPTP system, the main parties have to appeal to a very small number of swing voters who live in marginal seats in order to win. As they broadly want the same stuff, ultimately the parties will campaign for similar things, creating the perception of "they're all the same". Therefore the answer is to bring in a PR system.
I think none of the main parties (+SNP) would want PR, since they will mess up their majority (Labour and conservative nationwide, while SNP in Scotland.)
@@Grason20 SNP both benefit from FPTP and yet are ardent supporters of PR for general elections. We already use PR for every other election in Scotland. We've used the greatest selection of electoral systems for our elections. AMS for Scottish parliament, STV for local elections, regional list for former european elections, cumulative voting for old school board elections, FPTP for general elections. So you are incorrect about SNP towards PR. The have signed on to the Good systems agreement along with Greens, Lib Dems, Brexit, Plaid Cymru, NI Alliance. One Tory has signed on. Maybe a dozen Labour MPs have signed on.
or get rid of the swing voters by teaching about politics and school so people won’t be so unprincipled as to be unable to make up their mind over kid starver vs fruit nationalist vs decent person who wants to make country better though with questionable foreign policy. or both
As the saying goes "follow the money". The people/corporations who were donating to the Tories are now donating to the Labour Party, with Labour actively seeking them out.
Labour was at one time a proper working class socialist party that was there for the working class. I dont know what sort of Labour party this lot are supposed to be (New Labour thats it) but they do appear to have some very conservative ideas and views meaning they should probably change there party name. Seems no matter what side of the commons they sit on they are all stealing ideas from eachother no matter what party they are. I could never lend my vote to Labour in its current form and never have and never would vote conservative. Ask Rachel Reeves any question about finances and all you get is 'We can't make any promises as we need to see the state the conservatives have left us in'. Another words more austerity to come but this time under Labour and a never ending blaming the conservatives rather than just get on and fix the mess the countries in. We all know the conservatives have damaged the country Rachel but what are Labour going to do to make it better and improve it? We all know the Conservatives are only there for the rich but the question is will we also see nothing but corruption and making sure our friends are okay from a new Labour government? My vote will go to Lib Dems at the GE and I think if Labour changes and becomes more socialist and for working people again then I could consider voting them in the future. Right now they're just the 'Conservative lite' party.
That's the kind of thinking that will lead to the Tories staying in. The reality is that the old socialist Labour party was full of people with pretty conservative social views. It's not all solidarity and progress. Can you imagine what position those mining communities would take on climate change? Being working class isn't a virtue in and of itself. The political landscape is so radically different now, that's why we see events such as the collapse of the red wall and previously Labour voting constituencies voting for a hard Tory Brexit.
@@MA-jz4yc Corbyn lost that election entirely because the labour party were unable to come up with a defined position on Brexit. Tory's banked on New Labour sycophants preventing Corbyn from openly campaigning for a commitment to Brexit with a socialist future planned for Britain. New Labour crooks' idiocy in questioning the referendum and whether or not Labour would go forward with it at all if in power is what cost Corbyn the 2019 election, not anything to do with the socialist policies he wanted to implement.
@@waynereid9471yeah because the tories are so terrible Starmer looks good next to them by comparison lmao. Ppl won't be voting for Starmer and his Labour party, they'll be voting AGAINST the tories.
@@dennismorgan3701 That's literally the liberals strategy, seize control of the Labour Party and blackmail people into voting for them. I won't be doing it
In my lifetime, all I've seen is the Tories moving right and Labour either half-heartedly attempting to move left and failing, or actually moving left and sabotaging it from within as well as suffering a barrage of press attacks for it. It just seems like Britain's politics is destined to move ever rightwards, ever closer to total privatised free-market extremism mixed with social authoritarianism, no matter who's in charge. We need electoral reform and the newspaper groups broken up to prevent this.
Starmer has moved right, though. He has purged the left and sits on every fence he can until he can judge the public opinion (read: nutcase extremists) and then tentatively follows their lead. He is a spineless Tory on a red leash.
I think it would be a great video idea to do “How different are Conservatives to Labour” this can be from various prospectives such as Economy, Migration, Defence etc. Maybe even some polls of viewers of preconceived ideas of each policy.
I wouldn't hate Starmer nearly as much as if he did in the leadership election of 2020 what Blair did in 1994 and ran on a campaign of moving to the party to the right, instead(in a similiar vein to Neil Kinnock in 1983) he ran as an heir to Corbyn and on his policies in order to basically take RLB's support whereas Nandy ran as the right wing candidate(And even she pretended to like Corbyn's policies), only to instantly shift the party further to the right than it was under Blair, he got elected on a lie and that instantly makes him untrustworthy to me.
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 Accepting that "all politicians are liars, this is how the world works, it's normal, get used to it" ensures that only dishonest people choose political career to begin with. So I wouldn't shrug off his lies, and he should be held responsible. Set an example.
Indeed, the subterfuge undermines the position - there's no mandate for this from the left, and on the right the major influential entities (papers etc) aren't exactly clamoring for Tory-lite (quite the opposite in fact). The political environment is world's away from the pre-conditions needed for a New-Labour style shift and it's instead going to disillusion the left and centre-left with minimal (if any) gain from the right to compensate, an astounding own-goal.
You hit blinder on that one, mate! Starmer's as duplicitous as Johnson ever was, but at least Johnson told such obvious and blatant lies that only the terminally thick or mad could be taken in by them.
Moderates? Since when was running a heavily right-wing government *moderate*? The centre isn't several miles to the right of the centre, it's in the damn centre. Which is nowhere near the Tories current position.
@@Iltazyara The Tories really aren't that far right. Far right is stuff like the republicans or many middle-eastern countries, the Tories are much more soft right than far right.
@@EchoAwakens They're not 'that' far right when compared to the republicans, no. But with Cruella Bravaman still existing as a political figure claiming they're 'soft' right to any degree in social issues is plainly absurd. And since their economic policy comes down to 'how corrupt can we be' they aren't exactly soft right economically either.
@@Iltazyara The centre is relative. It shifts based on what's considered broadly acceptable - so, for instance, virulent transphobia is now a "centrist" position.
Not surprising there is no such thing as a political centre. Just ask yourself why are the so called centrists so intolerant of opposing views? aren't they meant to be somewhere in the middle?
@@mikel8850 centrists are the ones who have enabled the far right to grow and flourish due to their inaction and unwillingness to effectively challenge, or change, the status quo. more over, with any potential challenge to the status quo, a centrist always has the potential to become reactionary and join the far right out of instinct.
I’ve always said comparing parties on their leaders is silly, don’t vote on personalities, vote on policies and manifesto. If only more people objectively did this then the country would not be in a complete mess.
That's kind of like saying "Don't vote for the captain, vote for the ship". The captain is the one that will steer the ship, so even though the Titanic is bigger and more durable than a fishing boat, we all know where that went
UK polling report. Labour party win 345 seats Conservative party 208 seats. SNP 47 seats Liberal Democrats 27 seas. Appreciate your work. Brilliant content. It told truth Thomas about British politics since 1945. Support STV voting system for UK general election England London Britain. Art Bezrukavenko deliver it.
STV!!! Retains local representation while making results more representative within your local multi member district. It means most places will have MPs from more than one party to turn to. No need to worry about voting lesser evil and wasting your vote.
After these types of videos I'm always left feeling that the main obstacle to change in the UK is the FPTP system. I know that PR wouldn't solve all the country's problems, but it would at least mean we were being honest about where everyone actually stands so we could start to have the real conversations. You couldn't sustain a marriage where you both lie about your intentions and settle for half of a thing you want all the time to appease the other, so why do we think we can manage a country this way?
I think I’m just gonna vote for who I actually want to. I live in a safe seat, so my vote is inherently less valuable than other people’s. Also, even though I won’t be able to help my preferred party get an extra MP, at least my vote will give them a few pennies of funding through the Short Money system. That was supposed to be a positive comment, but it actually just sounded really depressing.
@@resiplayerz Since 2010 Hungary and Netherlands have had the same prime minister. Both use a form of PR. In that time the UK has gone thru 6 prime ministers and delivered 2 hung parliaments. I would not say FPTP created stability or kept the extremes out of power. The extremes simply found a home in one of the parties. Devolved assemblies and some local councils use PR. They are mostly stable as far as I know. The key benefit was smashing one party fiefdoms where one party got around 40% or so but had supermajorities of seats. Now they must find a coalition partner or the other parties can form one. While some PR places still return one party to power, they usually have the backing of the majority or close to it. No more majorities when you get 3x% of the vote.
@@theuglykwan Perhaps you could explain why the SNP dominate Scotland then even though pro-union parties took more votes combined? In the 2021 Scottish paliament elections SNP won 1,291,204 votes, Labour 584,392, Tory 592,526, Lib Dems 187,816. If PR worked then the majority of seats should be divided among pro-union parties since they won more votes combined, instead the SNP have all but 1 seat. Same story for the 2019 general election in Scotland, 1.4 million votes for union parties vs 1.29 million votes nationalist parties.
Disappointing that their contrasting stances on the environment didn't even get a mention. It's the biggest and maybe the most crucial difference between the two parties: a green transition is a stated priority for Labour, while it's pretty apparent that Sunak is committed to walking back on environmental commitments.
😂😂😂 how are people so gullible? If you think Starmer will do anything about the environment once the daily mail says it's too expensive I have a bridge to sell you.
Starmer claims he wants to grow the economy, but he doesn't explain exactly how intends to do it. Simply repeating "growth" in answer to any economic question won't do it. And ruling out raising taxes from the wealthiest, or borrowing to invest in infrastructure and public services, and when their only policy on the EU is "make Brexit work" doesn't help either.
Labour is considerably less corrupt than the Tories and that would help a little bit at least. The less money that is siphoned off to line the pockets of corrupt politicans and their croonies, the more there is left to fund vital public services. It's quite possible a labour government will end up being just as corrupt as the Tories are today after a few years in power but they won't be right away if only because it'll take time to establish and consolidate a brand new "good old chums" network.
I'm sorry but Corbyn then was contemplating about leaving NATO and the IFS said that his policies had a near £60bn black hole. Also he was "neutral" on Brexit which was arguably the most critical electoral issues of our time.
@@seamuspadraigsanders431 , rich people and businesses will leave and where would politicians find this extra money to not break their promises? Oh yes, it would be the middle and working class people.
Refusing to even discuss nationalising basic, fundamental infrastructure such as water & rail is by no means committment to a mixed economy. A mixed economy would be with nationalised, or at the very least much more heavily regulated & less profit-seeking, water and rail.
That is a weird reading of history. You could as easily say that, other than a brief period after the war, only centre right parties hold power in the UK. Labour only wins when they move to the right of centre. "Two cheeks of the same arse" is the technical term.
@@fearone9694 I'm glad you agree with me. Labour (as a whole thing) are not a left wing party. Sure they have a left wing wing but they have only held power when the right wing has been in dominance because they get the English floating Tory vote to support them. Internal fighting in Labour ensures the Tories generally hold power two thirds of the time or more. It is much more like Fianna Fáil v Fine Gael in Ireland than some left/right split in British politics. They are both centre right parties but with a vocal socialist group within Labour. The electoral system ensures only a third of the electorate have to play along with this game. e.g. 2005 Labour only got just over 1 in 3 people to vote for them but had a good majority and went ahead and bailed not jailed the bankers in 2008/9 with no real repercussions for the city and hence put us where we are today. The next election will simply switch to a less-crap party for a while.
@@SplashTasty Centre-right talking points, policies, and politics, copying a centre-right party from a decade ago... Seems pretty centre-right to anyone who thinks the centre of the graph isn't off on the right.
People complain that the two parties are broadly the same and that the system is misrepresentive, which is true. Yet continue to vote red or blue expecting them to make changes which they evidently won't. If people want real change they should vote for a third party such as Greens or Lib Dems that actually want electoral reform.
Exactly. All our important utilities as well as council housing is now completely privately owned. Its destroyed the foundation of our economy, collapsing our birth rate (through housing being prohibitively expensive) putting sewage into our rivers, making our transport system too expensive for many all while wages and salaries continue to flatline.
Starmer "I won't scrap the two child benefit limit for the public, but I will keep the THREE child benefit limit if you're an MP living outside London. You're on your own, plebs!" Also is there a signal pledges Starmer has NOT broken? The man folds faster than Superman on laundry day.
Imo, this video was pretty bad. It heavily narrativises and draws false equivalency. The problems are too numerous to list but I'll pull the biggest: 1.) Conflating rhetoric with policy: The video seems to insinuate that because Sunak and Starmer both want to appear as centrists on economics, that means they're both the same. They're not. Sunak is not actually doing anything on the economy. His halving inflation target is something that was supposed to happen on its own and isn't something that solves the problem. Labour have made pledges involving state intervention. They may not talk about nationalising the railways but they've repeatedly said they'll do it 2.) False comparisons: Take the comparison on social policy between Starmer and Wilson. The video compares what Starmer is saying in opposition to what Wilson did in government. In truth, Labour tend to be more radical in government on social policy than they let on during campaigning. Tony Blair did campaign so much on gay rights but did pass an unpopular (at the time) gay rights bill in government. Wilson sought to distance himself from the Tory accusation of 'Vote Labour, get a n***er neighbour'. The comparison would be valid if comparing Starmer to previous Labour prime ministers when they were in opposition, not when they were in government
Here's the problem with what you said: Labour has repeatedly pulled back every single thing they said about doing things, to the poin that both Kier Starmer and Rachel Reeves have EXPLICITLY RULED OUT nationalising the railways. You saying they'll do something they refuse to do is little more than a lie.
In the animation showing Labour and Conservative fluctuating, the squares return to the middle of the frame. In reality, the centre ground moves inexorably towards the right. In some respects, Thatcher's policies were to the left of where Starmer's Labour is now. Ted Heath was even further to the left.
Tories go rightward, media makes that the new norm, Labour follows them because 'obviously' everyone wants that; repeat. Story of Britain going to shit summed up neatly.
That's complete rubbish, it's a well known phenomenon that politics in the entire western world has been slowly moving left. Conservatives these days are labour in 2000
@@loowyatt6463 Which is why they're ten times farther right now than they were in 2010, when they were rightward of Labour in 2000, right? Oh, wait, that's because facts don't agree with right-wing bullshit.
@@loowyatt6463 Ah yes, labour in the 2000s were tagging asylum seekers, putting them in substandard living on boats and attempting to send them to a third world country that hates them. I never knew labour in the 2000s were also quasi fascists.
To be honest, I think what they are presenting themselves is really what the people are looking for. What is really different would not be how they think but what they do.
The way I see it, convergence could actually be a bad thing. Yes, it’s true that it makes the parties seem more moderate and more appealing to centrist voters, but it also drives away the traditional bases the two parties try to appeal to. These voters will then be forced to flock to more radical parties such as UKIP or the Greens.
This is really stupid. One guy is a billionaire with massive interests and financial gains in foreign lands and the other is only a middle of the road Tory.
Politically they're the same. I'd like to think Starmer would be less corrupt, but he's only been leader a couple years and has already accepted more "gifts" (*ahem* bribes) than every Labour leader combined since Blair.
Call it a post-Soviet consensus. Much like the post-War consensus agreed that welfare was a good thing, the post-Soviet consensus agrees that freer markets are equally a good thing. In one consensus the right compromised over welfare and in another the left compromised over the economy. The reason I say post-Soviet is this consensus has arisen post the fall of the USSR, and honestly to me if I could give this period of history one title it would be the post-Soviet period.
And this is precisely why we need a PR electoral system like STV. I'm not sure who I'd vote for in the next GE (probably SDP or Reform depending on who runs in my area) but it won't be for any of the big three parties. All three of them seem to just have policies of endless mass immigration, ever-higher taxes without services to match, a lack of investment in high-skill, high-value industries and just general managed decline.
if by three u mean Lib Dems, they got no chance unless they make their pledges well-known. and not look like their coalition days where they went back on things like tuition fees.
@@swymaj02 Yes, I once voted Lib Dem (I've actually voted for all three at some point in my life). Not happening again. They seem to be labouring (lib dem'ing?) under the delusion that they can fix everything just by rejoining the EU without considering the consequences or whether it's even possible.
Labour have committed to bring rails back into public control as contracts expire, and allowing local transport authorities to franchise buses. Also they are clearly different on climate change, Labour is committed to block new oil licenses and are still planning to invest £28 billion per year into publicly owned renewables, the policy is just now going to be phased in over the term of parliament. Also banning MPs second jobs, abolishing the house of lords, ect. This is basic stuff I found in 5 minutes on google, and that you guys have covered before, why not mention any of it?
Policy aspirations online don’t necessarily translate into actual policy in the real world. For instance even though in the US, the Dems aspire for a so-called “green new deal” other than some provisions in the IRA there hasn’t been much movement towards this.
@@abarzilai0334 the Dems have struggled to push through the green new deal due to the conservative Dems in the senate before the mid terms and republicans controlling the house after. Labour will face issues implementing their policies, but far less than the Dems have because if you got a majority in parliament, you can more or less do anything.
Very apparent just how liberal leaning the internet appears to be compared to the British electorate to think that Starmer being more progressive would be an automatic electoral benefit
Still waiting for an update video on revised UK economy figures which show its actually 2% larger than thought. Which means UK no longer worst in G7, but above Germany, Japan, France and Italy, and just below Canada and the US. And all your UK bashing videos are based on incorrect data.
On rail nationalisation, Labour in September 2022 said they support nationalisation of rail. They also have a public energy company offering as a policy. Kinda blows a hole in your “no nationalisation” point…
This is the central issue with how the two party system and neoliberalism have married. The American founding fathers pointed out the republic they designed would fail over the centuries because eventually firms would buy out/ sponsor the members/ senators leading to an oligopoly based on corporate interest. While I have zero ideological allegiance to that era, they were 100% correct. While major parties rely on corporate donation and there is broadly a two party system, the end result you would expect is a cartel of convergent centrist corporate interests - exactly the situation you see in much of the West.
The way the founders set up the US senate was to bake in an oligopoly. They can't in all honesty pint out it would lead to that over the centuries when it was straight up that from the beginning. I mean the US senate was appointed, not elected. Only white men with property could vote. That was to insulate the land owning gentry from the masses. The voters could rebel even without PR. France has run offs and still has a multi party system. A number of seats held by Lib Dems in the UK are won by plurality. Run offs would require an outright majority so they might have less seats. On the other hand perhaps the anti tory or anti labour vote would back then in the 2nd round to win back more seats?
@@Noel-ji8nmRMT Press Office: Responding to Labour's commitment to public ownership of the railways, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said: "We welcome the Labour Party committing itself to public ownership of the railways. "Tackling the greed and inefficiency of the private sector in our railways and other public services should be a key priority for the next Labour government."
@@pickledegg1989'Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves earlier in the day said the policy was no longer compatible with "fiscal rules" she would introduce to restrain public spending. Asked whether he would re-nationalise those industries, Sir Keir said: "I take a pragmatic approach rather than an ideological one, I agree with what Rachel Reeves said this morning.' Sky News Jul 22
I doubt he would. Apart from Truss and early Johnson Tories didnt really pass the stuff that such moderate like Starmer is gonna try to cancel too actively.
There is a problem though, while 2 parties are supposed to be big tent, they actually aren't. This is different now than it was in the past. Yes Labour has "converged" with the Tories before as big money interest has infected the Labour movement, but now there is no left wing anymore. In fact, Starmer has effectively PURGED the left wing of his party, which is insane and the fact that there is no massive uproar about it baffles me. Imagine if the Democratic Party in the U.S. just purged all their left wing members... AOC BANNED from the Democratic Party. Well, that is the reality of Britain right now. We truly only have centrism and center-right to rightism as effective choices. This leads us to the horrific realization that FPTP is even worse right now in Britain than in the states where at least they have a big tent on the center-left. That's right, British democracy on the left side of the aisle is becoming worse in Britain than in America, an archaic nightmare on it's own. That is how bad it is.
While I think the video was interesting, you fail to connect their alignment with the way elections work and are won, and that both parties need to appeal to the same minority in order to secure victory. This would prompt a degree of alignment of policies or appeal...a flaw in the system we have.
Labour are going to nationalise the train companies. He has said so many many times, because it’s free you just do it when the contracts run out. Labour will reverse the 2 child at the second budget. Just don’t want to have to say where the money is coming from on several policies before the election. You video are normal pretty good this isn’t.
Labour went back and forth on like every single pledge they made ever since Starmer was elected leader, how do u expect a man like that who keeps sliding more and more right with every word he speaks to keep his pledges ?
So, your position is, if Labour are lying about what they plan, they'll do good things. But if they aren't... which is more likely true... they'll be shit? Seems like Labour'll be shit.
Break the cycle, stop voting for them or just lay down and accept nothing will ever change and nobody will really represent you. Campaign for PR, FPTP makes certain MP's way too complacent and hard to get rid of.
@@lllluka that would be better than the rule by dictat we have now, with certain views never getting a hearing if outside of the two main parties, the factions controlling them and their donors interests. The only way to break up that narrow neoliberal consensus.
@@lllluka we have a majority government here in the UK doing the same or worse with no alternative voices heard or acknowledged, only the courts stopping some of the worst excesses. In the end though it is a question of democracy and principles, people either believe in Democracy and that every vote should count or they don't. There is no in between.
@@lllluka not just the spending, only tow parties with both often serving and bought by the same interests, with little to no outside challenge or threat, it's a rigged game called the illusion of democracy.
They are 2 faces of the same coin. Either Starmer will not be able to do enough to change the future of UK, or he won't do anything (like Blair), or he will screw it up (like Blair).
Sunak is not soft right-wing, he is hard right-wing. If he was soft-right wing Suella Braveman would have long since been out of a job, instead Sunak has done everything he can to protect her. Likewise he is fast peddling back on green initiatives and seems to be actively opposing any real changes that might actually 'level' up areas outside of London or allow for the expansion of environmentally friendly generation methods, instead green-lighting further exploitation of North Sea oil and even coal mining.
Corbyn would've been a great leader, and the Brits were fools for being swayed by such a brazen smear campaign agsinst him. Apparently a completely inept Tory government is preferable to tackling poverty and empowering workers.
I mean.. you could vote for another party it might not win in the long run but a major vote for lib dem, green, would show labour and conservative that their voters are losing interest
He voted too many times with the far right Tory law's he shouldn't be in party. He can't hold them to a count cos he voted with them. The Clearing out the left wing members was sicking. He is right wing, and fears the media
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
If only we had proportional representation where we could have more nuanced parties to vote for
PR is the last thing on Labour's mind as it would give the Corbyn's of this world a voice.
@@Noel-ji8nmCorbyn didn't support PR either
@notorio526 Corbyn's objection to PR is totally different from New Labour's objection.
@@Noel-ji8nm I think some people forget that he lost two elections. They act like he was so hard done to but most leaders get kicked out after one defeat
@@Noel-ji8nm
And what is that?
Convergence is kind of inevitable, since both parties are angling for the same swing voters. A direct consequence of the awful FPTP system the UK employs, since it's not about winning a majority, it's about convincing a handful of centrists who can go either way.
It's more about convincing the media barons that their interests are safe and then they can get their complicit support.
@@Lennon6412 Not mutually exclusive.
Because proportional representation is doing so well in mainland Europe, especially Netherlands, Estonia, Finland, Germany (Afd 21% in the polls), Spain hung parliament...
Yh not buying it.
@@inbb510 We got an extreme Tory government without PR, the Torie moderates have been purged.
@@inbb510Approval voting though
What makes me laugh is somewhere between them there are the lib dems
... The Lib Dems are *left* of Labour with Starmer in charge.
Not just socially, but even on economics. Which is patently absurd.
They’re looking pretty left these days actually lol
pretty sure they're left of starmer's shadow government...
@@leecullen759errrm people said that about the parasites of politics before 2010,as soon as they went into coalition with the Tories there true blue credentials were laid bare,they didn’t vote once against the Tories even after they’d got there failed referendum on P.R! So hated were they for being more Tory than the Tories at the 2015 election they lost 42 seats,going from 54 to 12! Don’t let that bunch fool you,they’re as about left wing as Thatcher was!!!
@@leecullen759And the Greens even more so
Starmer DID publicly support renationalisation of rail, mail and energy at the start of his term as leader of Labour. However, he has gone back on those pledges.
Starmer has basically backed away from any policy that differentiated them from the Tories. All they've got really is that they are likely to be less corrupt and less incompetent.
Where's Sunak policies on removing Mon Dom status? Where are his policies on implementing a full fix hunting ban? Where are his policies on strengthening worker's rights and unions? Because Labour has policies on all these.
They're miles apart, labour just has a serious communication issue.
@Hugh_Janus69 you're just angry because you get aroused when animals get hurt 👍
@@joefortey4worker rights and unions?😅😅😅 give me a break.
@@AshMundo errrmm yes pal, it's not my fault you're too lazy to read.
@@joefortey4 they don't have one. Labour has shown they have an embedded culture of anti-black racism as well as islamaphobia on par with the Tories and have a hierarchy of racism. On that point alone, they are a racist party.
Under a FPTP system, the main parties have to appeal to a very small number of swing voters who live in marginal seats in order to win. As they broadly want the same stuff, ultimately the parties will campaign for similar things, creating the perception of "they're all the same". Therefore the answer is to bring in a PR system.
PR is the last thing on Labour's mind as it would give the Corbyn's of this world a voice.
I think none of the main parties (+SNP) would want PR, since they will mess up their majority (Labour and conservative nationwide, while SNP in Scotland.)
I mean, Scotland already have a proportional additional member system in the Scottish Parliament
@@Grason20 SNP both benefit from FPTP and yet are ardent supporters of PR for general elections. We already use PR for every other election in Scotland. We've used the greatest selection of electoral systems for our elections. AMS for Scottish parliament, STV for local elections, regional list for former european elections, cumulative voting for old school board elections, FPTP for general elections.
So you are incorrect about SNP towards PR. The have signed on to the Good systems agreement along with Greens, Lib Dems, Brexit, Plaid Cymru, NI Alliance. One Tory has signed on. Maybe a dozen Labour MPs have signed on.
or get rid of the swing voters by teaching about politics and school so people won’t be so unprincipled as to be unable to make up their mind over kid starver vs fruit nationalist vs decent person who wants to make country better though with questionable foreign policy. or both
As the saying goes "follow the money". The people/corporations who were donating to the Tories are now donating to the Labour Party, with Labour actively seeking them out.
Same think tanks leading both parties.
Same donors.
Same elite circles.
you kind of get a better idea who they work for when you look at the numbers
Labour was at one time a proper working class socialist party that was there for the working class. I dont know what sort of Labour party this lot are supposed to be (New Labour thats it) but they do appear to have some very conservative ideas and views meaning they should probably change there party name. Seems no matter what side of the commons they sit on they are all stealing ideas from eachother no matter what party they are. I could never lend my vote to Labour in its current form and never have and never would vote conservative. Ask Rachel Reeves any question about finances and all you get is 'We can't make any promises as we need to see the state the conservatives have left us in'. Another words more austerity to come but this time under Labour and a never ending blaming the conservatives rather than just get on and fix the mess the countries in. We all know the conservatives have damaged the country Rachel but what are Labour going to do to make it better and improve it? We all know the Conservatives are only there for the rich but the question is will we also see nothing but corruption and making sure our friends are okay from a new Labour government? My vote will go to Lib Dems at the GE and I think if Labour changes and becomes more socialist and for working people again then I could consider voting them in the future. Right now they're just the 'Conservative lite' party.
They did try and move left under corbyn but lost the general election badly.
That's the kind of thinking that will lead to the Tories staying in. The reality is that the old socialist Labour party was full of people with pretty conservative social views. It's not all solidarity and progress. Can you imagine what position those mining communities would take on climate change? Being working class isn't a virtue in and of itself. The political landscape is so radically different now, that's why we see events such as the collapse of the red wall and previously Labour voting constituencies voting for a hard Tory Brexit.
You should have voted for Corbyn
@@MA-jz4yc Corbyn lost that election entirely because the labour party were unable to come up with a defined position on Brexit. Tory's banked on New Labour sycophants preventing Corbyn from openly campaigning for a commitment to Brexit with a socialist future planned for Britain. New Labour crooks' idiocy in questioning the referendum and whether or not Labour would go forward with it at all if in power is what cost Corbyn the 2019 election, not anything to do with the socialist policies he wanted to implement.
Look at the debt the country is in, there is no money to be splashy anymore unfortunately
Even having to ask this question is a bit of an indication that Starmer is not being a good leader for the Labour movement.
Terrible leader , hes only 15% ahead 😛
@@waynereid9471yeah because the tories are so terrible Starmer looks good next to them by comparison lmao.
Ppl won't be voting for Starmer and his Labour party, they'll be voting AGAINST the tories.
He seems to be a great Tory leader
@@waynereid9471 The polls are not leading to election victories
@@dennismorgan3701 That's literally the liberals strategy, seize control of the Labour Party and blackmail people into voting for them. I won't be doing it
In my lifetime, all I've seen is the Tories moving right and Labour either half-heartedly attempting to move left and failing, or actually moving left and sabotaging it from within as well as suffering a barrage of press attacks for it. It just seems like Britain's politics is destined to move ever rightwards, ever closer to total privatised free-market extremism mixed with social authoritarianism, no matter who's in charge. We need electoral reform and the newspaper groups broken up to prevent this.
What you fail to account for is the fact that most voters sit in the middle
I love this, its everything I think too.
Starmer has moved right, though. He has purged the left and sits on every fence he can until he can judge the public opinion (read: nutcase extremists) and then tentatively follows their lead. He is a spineless Tory on a red leash.
The electorate is not far left. It’s in the middle.
Hence why Corbyn was rejected by Labour lifelong supporters in the north and midlands
@youkosm it's more complicated than that.
The middle for westminster and the middle for the voters are very different
I think it would be a great video idea to do “How different are Conservatives to Labour” this can be from various prospectives such as Economy, Migration, Defence etc. Maybe even some polls of viewers of preconceived ideas of each policy.
I wouldn't hate Starmer nearly as much as if he did in the leadership election of 2020 what Blair did in 1994 and ran on a campaign of moving to the party to the right, instead(in a similiar vein to Neil Kinnock in 1983) he ran as an heir to Corbyn and on his policies in order to basically take RLB's support whereas Nandy ran as the right wing candidate(And even she pretended to like Corbyn's policies), only to instantly shift the party further to the right than it was under Blair, he got elected on a lie and that instantly makes him untrustworthy to me.
“He got elected on a lie” so he’s a politician then?
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986
Accepting that "all politicians are liars, this is how the world works, it's normal, get used to it" ensures that only dishonest people choose political career to begin with. So I wouldn't shrug off his lies, and he should be held responsible. Set an example.
Indeed, the subterfuge undermines the position - there's no mandate for this from the left, and on the right the major influential entities (papers etc) aren't exactly clamoring for Tory-lite (quite the opposite in fact). The political environment is world's away from the pre-conditions needed for a New-Labour style shift and it's instead going to disillusion the left and centre-left with minimal (if any) gain from the right to compensate, an astounding own-goal.
You hit blinder on that one, mate!
Starmer's as duplicitous as Johnson ever was, but at least Johnson told such obvious and blatant lies that only the terminally thick or mad could be taken in by them.
Corbyn was incredibly honest.
Honestly, a compromise leave both parties unhappy. Political moderates live in that gray area where no party is really happy about the outcome.
They are neoliberals not moderates, outside of a neoliberal country they are extremely right wing
Moderates? Since when was running a heavily right-wing government *moderate*?
The centre isn't several miles to the right of the centre, it's in the damn centre. Which is nowhere near the Tories current position.
@@Iltazyara The Tories really aren't that far right. Far right is stuff like the republicans or many middle-eastern countries, the Tories are much more soft right than far right.
@@EchoAwakens They're not 'that' far right when compared to the republicans, no. But with Cruella Bravaman still existing as a political figure claiming they're 'soft' right to any degree in social issues is plainly absurd.
And since their economic policy comes down to 'how corrupt can we be' they aren't exactly soft right economically either.
@@Iltazyara The centre is relative. It shifts based on what's considered broadly acceptable - so, for instance, virulent transphobia is now a "centrist" position.
No one needs radicalism in politics, so it is reasonable to have two or three main political parties. Who needs 50 parties in Parliament ?
- What are the conservatives?
- It's the UK right-wing party.
- Ok, so what are Labor?
- Conservatives who like the color red.
What are the conservatives you ask, well I can tell you what they're not, CONSERVATIVES.
@@DavidEdwards-uf5lg LOL, Smart, let me guess the nazi's were socialists too boot.
@@DavidEdwards-uf5lg ??? Why not?
That's not remotely true
Conservatives are just the labour just 6 months later
yes they are both the same, they both have unrivaled levels of incompetence.
None both tories
Centrists are notoriously fickle.
Not surprising there is no such thing as a political centre. Just ask yourself why are the so called centrists so intolerant of opposing views? aren't they meant to be somewhere in the middle?
On what planet is Starmer's pro Brexit, anti foreigner Labour "centrist"?
@@mikel8850 centrists are the ones who have enabled the far right to grow and flourish due to their inaction and unwillingness to effectively challenge, or change, the status quo. more over, with any potential challenge to the status quo, a centrist always has the potential to become reactionary and join the far right out of instinct.
@@jackscott4772
Wrong country
Yup! If you dont like my principles, I have others.
they are both tories....
I’ve always said comparing parties on their leaders is silly, don’t vote on personalities, vote on policies and manifesto. If only more people objectively did this then the country would not be in a complete mess.
Both parties have the same policies.
Starmer keeps U turning on Labour pledges therefore his personality is very important.
@@Noel-ji8nm Fundamentally untrue but ok
@@leikfroakies Name policy differences between Labour and the Conservatives
That's kind of like saying "Don't vote for the captain, vote for the ship". The captain is the one that will steer the ship, so even though the Titanic is bigger and more durable than a fishing boat, we all know where that went
"Prescient social issues"? What on earth is that? Tarot reading creches? Respect my star sign? Clairvoyant identities are valid?
10/10 because of the thumbnail.
They're both WEF/WHO minions
UK polling report. Labour party win 345 seats Conservative party 208 seats. SNP 47 seats Liberal Democrats 27 seas. Appreciate your work. Brilliant content. It told truth Thomas about British politics since 1945. Support STV voting system for UK general election England London Britain. Art Bezrukavenko deliver it.
STV!!! Retains local representation while making results more representative within your local multi member district. It means most places will have MPs from more than one party to turn to. No need to worry about voting lesser evil and wasting your vote.
After these types of videos I'm always left feeling that the main obstacle to change in the UK is the FPTP system.
I know that PR wouldn't solve all the country's problems, but it would at least mean we were being honest about where everyone actually stands so we could start to have the real conversations.
You couldn't sustain a marriage where you both lie about your intentions and settle for half of a thing you want all the time to appease the other, so why do we think we can manage a country this way?
I think I’m just gonna vote for who I actually want to. I live in a safe seat, so my vote is inherently less valuable than other people’s. Also, even though I won’t be able to help my preferred party get an extra MP, at least my vote will give them a few pennies of funding through the Short Money system.
That was supposed to be a positive comment, but it actually just sounded really depressing.
Because FPTP works better, unlike PR voting it keeps the extremes out of power and usually delivers stable governments that don't collapse.
@@resiplayerz 🤣🤣 great satire, where's my lettuce?
@@resiplayerz Since 2010 Hungary and Netherlands have had the same prime minister. Both use a form of PR. In that time the UK has gone thru 6 prime ministers and delivered 2 hung parliaments. I would not say FPTP created stability or kept the extremes out of power. The extremes simply found a home in one of the parties.
Devolved assemblies and some local councils use PR. They are mostly stable as far as I know. The key benefit was smashing one party fiefdoms where one party got around 40% or so but had supermajorities of seats. Now they must find a coalition partner or the other parties can form one. While some PR places still return one party to power, they usually have the backing of the majority or close to it. No more majorities when you get 3x% of the vote.
@@theuglykwan Perhaps you could explain why the SNP dominate Scotland then even though pro-union parties took more votes combined? In the 2021 Scottish paliament elections SNP won 1,291,204 votes, Labour 584,392, Tory 592,526, Lib Dems 187,816. If PR worked then the majority of seats should be divided among pro-union parties since they won more votes combined, instead the SNP have all but 1 seat. Same story for the 2019 general election in Scotland, 1.4 million votes for union parties vs 1.29 million votes nationalist parties.
From the insanity of the current US politics UK appears so boring and sane. I'm envious.
Disappointing that their contrasting stances on the environment didn't even get a mention. It's the biggest and maybe the most crucial difference between the two parties: a green transition is a stated priority for Labour, while it's pretty apparent that Sunak is committed to walking back on environmental commitments.
I am sure we can trust Starmer’s promises
😂😂😂 how are people so gullible? If you think Starmer will do anything about the environment once the daily mail says it's too expensive I have a bridge to sell you.
They have already rowed back on their environmental commitments
@seang2700 Ah but concrete grows
need corbyn back
They’re as different as red and blue smarties. But the brown substance they’re both full of isn’t chocolate.
Well put
@@Ag3nt0fCha0s thank you! ❤️
Starmer claims he wants to grow the economy, but he doesn't explain exactly how intends to do it. Simply repeating "growth" in answer to any economic question won't do it. And ruling out raising taxes from the wealthiest, or borrowing to invest in infrastructure and public services, and when their only policy on the EU is "make Brexit work" doesn't help either.
Labour is considerably less corrupt than the Tories and that would help a little bit at least. The less money that is siphoned off to line the pockets of corrupt politicans and their croonies, the more there is left to fund vital public services.
It's quite possible a labour government will end up being just as corrupt as the Tories are today after a few years in power but they won't be right away if only because it'll take time to establish and consolidate a brand new "good old chums" network.
Politicians should stop saying they are making tough economic decisions when it doesn’t personally effect them.
What are they supposed to say then?
I wish politics here in Israel was so chill like it is in the UK.
Its not chill we’ve had 5 prime ministers in the last 7 years. But compared to Israel i can see why you would think so
Whoever made the thumbnail deserves a raise!
Brits did have a clear choice back in 2017, and they chose the Tories over labourism.
Hard to feel any sympathy for what's happened since.
Don't blame the voters: 56 percent of those who voted did NOT vote Conservative.
Provide left wing social politics without all the student politics baggage and you might be surprised how the electorate responds.
I'm sorry but Corbyn then was contemplating about leaving NATO and the IFS said that his policies had a near £60bn black hole. Also he was "neutral" on Brexit which was arguably the most critical electoral issues of our time.
@@seamuspadraigsanders431 , rich people and businesses will leave and where would politicians find this extra money to not break their promises? Oh yes, it would be the middle and working class people.
@@seamuspadraigsanders431You're a clown 🤡
They are identical neither of them give a toss about the people in this country, sunak seems more interested in India than this country.
Not much difference and thats the scary part the illusion of choice
Refusing to even discuss nationalising basic, fundamental infrastructure such as water & rail is by no means committment to a mixed economy. A mixed economy would be with nationalised, or at the very least much more heavily regulated & less profit-seeking, water and rail.
That is a weird reading of history. You could as easily say that, other than a brief period after the war, only centre right parties hold power in the UK. Labour only wins when they move to the right of centre. "Two cheeks of the same arse" is the technical term.
Nonsense, it was Brexit that was keeping the Tories in power in 2017 and 2019. The Tories had no overall majorities in 2010 and 2017.
@@Noel-ji8nm But they still held power which kind of proves my point.
The labour right including Starmer worked hard to throw those elections.
@@fearone9694 I'm glad you agree with me. Labour (as a whole thing) are not a left wing party. Sure they have a left wing wing but they have only held power when the right wing has been in dominance because they get the English floating Tory vote to support them. Internal fighting in Labour ensures the Tories generally hold power two thirds of the time or more. It is much more like Fianna Fáil v Fine Gael in Ireland than some left/right split in British politics. They are both centre right parties but with a vocal socialist group within Labour. The electoral system ensures only a third of the electorate have to play along with this game. e.g. 2005 Labour only got just over 1 in 3 people to vote for them but had a good majority and went ahead and bailed not jailed the bankers in 2008/9 with no real repercussions for the city and hence put us where we are today. The next election will simply switch to a less-crap party for a while.
@@RogerHyam Centre right party that banned abortion protests?
They are sadly both tories but different colours :(
Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.
Somewhere between dog poo and horse poo.
Both the same WEF puppets.
Are they the same? No. Is Starmer a Tory? Yes.
Corbyn fan speaks.
@@nicksimmons7234 He has literally copied Tory policies, so yes, Starmer is a Tory with a red tie.
@@nicksimmons7234 starmer is pretty centre right. tho i'd take that over fascist tories any day.
No he isn't you spong. @@kanedNunable
@@SplashTasty Centre-right talking points, policies, and politics, copying a centre-right party from a decade ago...
Seems pretty centre-right to anyone who thinks the centre of the graph isn't off on the right.
People complain that the two parties are broadly the same and that the system is misrepresentive, which is true.
Yet continue to vote red or blue expecting them to make changes which they evidently won't.
If people want real change they should vote for a third party such as Greens or Lib Dems that actually want electoral reform.
problem: those parties can't ever win.
The SNP aren't wrong when they say Labour are just a pale imitation of the Tories.
SNP isn't even headed by an scot
SNP are just saying that because Starmer is routing them
@catmonarchist8920 Starmer couldn't rout a rice pudding.
@@karankapoor2701 well he was born in Glasgow...
Glasgow is in Scotland (just in case you didn't know).
I think the SNP are a bunch of Bam pots too, but what you said they said is actually quite right 😂.
5:40 If you're dedicated to a mixed economy you need to nationalize certain industries or else there is no mix.
Exactly. All our important utilities as well as council housing is now completely privately owned. Its destroyed the foundation of our economy, collapsing our birth rate (through housing being prohibitively expensive) putting sewage into our rivers, making our transport system too expensive for many all while wages and salaries continue to flatline.
Totally sucks how we just have two socially conservative bigot parties.
Socially conservative? Both support gay marriage. Here in Hungary the Tories would be considered as a liberal party...
in different places the definition of socially conservative is different
Conservative? 😂
Tories banned anti-abortion protests.
2 peas in the same WEF pod.
How tf is Kier "soft right socially"?
Edit: im not saying he is some uber woke lefty, but he is not right of centre socially.
Apart from him backing away from supporting anything “socially left”
Yes, I agree.
Starmer "I won't scrap the two child benefit limit for the public, but I will keep the THREE child benefit limit if you're an MP living outside London. You're on your own, plebs!"
Also is there a signal pledges Starmer has NOT broken? The man folds faster than Superman on laundry day.
They're both blairites.
Imo, this video was pretty bad. It heavily narrativises and draws false equivalency. The problems are too numerous to list but I'll pull the biggest:
1.) Conflating rhetoric with policy: The video seems to insinuate that because Sunak and Starmer both want to appear as centrists on economics, that means they're both the same. They're not. Sunak is not actually doing anything on the economy. His halving inflation target is something that was supposed to happen on its own and isn't something that solves the problem. Labour have made pledges involving state intervention. They may not talk about nationalising the railways but they've repeatedly said they'll do it
2.) False comparisons: Take the comparison on social policy between Starmer and Wilson. The video compares what Starmer is saying in opposition to what Wilson did in government. In truth, Labour tend to be more radical in government on social policy than they let on during campaigning. Tony Blair did campaign so much on gay rights but did pass an unpopular (at the time) gay rights bill in government. Wilson sought to distance himself from the Tory accusation of 'Vote Labour, get a n***er neighbour'. The comparison would be valid if comparing Starmer to previous Labour prime ministers when they were in opposition, not when they were in government
Here's the problem with what you said: Labour has repeatedly pulled back every single thing they said about doing things, to the poin that both Kier Starmer and Rachel Reeves have EXPLICITLY RULED OUT nationalising the railways.
You saying they'll do something they refuse to do is little more than a lie.
These two are different sides of the same rusty old shilling.
In the animation showing Labour and Conservative fluctuating, the squares return to the middle of the frame. In reality, the centre ground moves inexorably towards the right. In some respects, Thatcher's policies were to the left of where Starmer's Labour is now. Ted Heath was even further to the left.
Tories go rightward, media makes that the new norm, Labour follows them because 'obviously' everyone wants that; repeat.
Story of Britain going to shit summed up neatly.
That's complete rubbish, it's a well known phenomenon that politics in the entire western world has been slowly moving left. Conservatives these days are labour in 2000
@@loowyatt6463 Which is why they're ten times farther right now than they were in 2010, when they were rightward of Labour in 2000, right?
Oh, wait, that's because facts don't agree with right-wing bullshit.
@@loowyatt6463 Ah yes, labour in the 2000s were tagging asylum seekers, putting them in substandard living on boats and attempting to send them to a third world country that hates them. I never knew labour in the 2000s were also quasi fascists.
@@loowyatt6463 So you believe the Overton Window has moved _left_? Fascinating!
if they swapped places tommorow no one would notice
To be honest, I think what they are presenting themselves is really what the people are looking for. What is really different would not be how they think but what they do.
Do you mean what wealthy people are looking for? I know many average everyday people and they don't appear to align with polices of either party.
Yes both have never worked a day in their priviliged lives
The way I see it, convergence could actually be a bad thing. Yes, it’s true that it makes the parties seem more moderate and more appealing to centrist voters, but it also drives away the traditional bases the two parties try to appeal to. These voters will then be forced to flock to more radical parties such as UKIP or the Greens.
Agreed. It shows why artifiically propping up a major party system through FPTP is a bad system
Also there are five centrist voters total. And they all have guardian columns
@@JowanCollier not really, technically a good chunk of the country is.
though general alignment is center-left.
Sunak is centerleft hile starmer is left and a bit centric
This is really stupid. One guy is a billionaire with massive interests and financial gains in foreign lands and the other is only a middle of the road Tory.
Politically they're the same. I'd like to think Starmer would be less corrupt, but he's only been leader a couple years and has already accepted more "gifts" (*ahem* bribes) than every Labour leader combined since Blair.
@@NaaahBruv He's also seemlying trying to compete with Boris for the title of most prolific liar in British politics.
Not sure why, but he is.
As a labour voter I'd rather vote for a banana peel than Starmer. So disappointed. I will be voting Greens next election.
Call it a post-Soviet consensus. Much like the post-War consensus agreed that welfare was a good thing, the post-Soviet consensus agrees that freer markets are equally a good thing. In one consensus the right compromised over welfare and in another the left compromised over the economy.
The reason I say post-Soviet is this consensus has arisen post the fall of the USSR, and honestly to me if I could give this period of history one title it would be the post-Soviet period.
And this is precisely why we need a PR electoral system like STV. I'm not sure who I'd vote for in the next GE (probably SDP or Reform depending on who runs in my area) but it won't be for any of the big three parties. All three of them seem to just have policies of endless mass immigration, ever-higher taxes without services to match, a lack of investment in high-skill, high-value industries and just general managed decline.
if by three u mean Lib Dems, they got no chance unless they make their pledges well-known. and not look like their coalition days where they went back on things like tuition fees.
@@swymaj02 Yes, I once voted Lib Dem (I've actually voted for all three at some point in my life). Not happening again. They seem to be labouring (lib dem'ing?) under the delusion that they can fix everything just by rejoining the EU without considering the consequences or whether it's even possible.
Well the differences in between corporate backed parties are typically few.
Labour have committed to bring rails back into public control as contracts expire, and allowing local transport authorities to franchise buses. Also they are clearly different on climate change, Labour is committed to block new oil licenses and are still planning to invest £28 billion per year into publicly owned renewables, the policy is just now going to be phased in over the term of parliament. Also banning MPs second jobs, abolishing the house of lords, ect. This is basic stuff I found in 5 minutes on google, and that you guys have covered before, why not mention any of it?
Because Keith Stalin won't keep those promises? He's been put there to take us into WW3 against Russia, AKA Blair2.
Policy aspirations online don’t necessarily translate into actual policy in the real world. For instance even though in the US, the Dems aspire for a so-called “green new deal” other than some provisions in the IRA there hasn’t been much movement towards this.
@@abarzilai0334 the Dems have struggled to push through the green new deal due to the conservative Dems in the senate before the mid terms and republicans controlling the house after. Labour will face issues implementing their policies, but far less than the Dems have because if you got a majority in parliament, you can more or less do anything.
Because it is easy to follow political "influences" with their recycled arguments instead of actually doing the research themselves.
No difference.
Honesty it is the lesser of two Evils, the other being American-style polarisation
Republican and Democratic parties are more similar to each other than Labour and Conservative
Been that way for decades. Thanks Tony!!
Very apparent just how liberal leaning the internet appears to be compared to the British electorate to think that Starmer being more progressive would be an automatic electoral benefit
Still waiting for an update video on revised UK economy figures which show its actually 2% larger than thought. Which means UK no longer worst in G7, but above Germany, Japan, France and Italy, and just below Canada and the US. And all your UK bashing videos are based on incorrect data.
You should compare their foreign policy - and how corporate and military American foreign policy is essentially defining everything we go through.
Wow you mean how they both support Ukraine - GOOD.
Don't worry little bro we'll take care of you guys ;)
Remember when the socialist and labour parties in europe and elsewhere were once pacifist and anti-american military industrial complex?
On rail nationalisation, Labour in September 2022 said they support nationalisation of rail. They also have a public energy company offering as a policy. Kinda blows a hole in your “no nationalisation” point…
This is the central issue with how the two party system and neoliberalism have married. The American founding fathers pointed out the republic they designed would fail over the centuries because eventually firms would buy out/ sponsor the members/ senators leading to an oligopoly based on corporate interest. While I have zero ideological allegiance to that era, they were 100% correct. While major parties rely on corporate donation and there is broadly a two party system, the end result you would expect is a cartel of convergent centrist corporate interests - exactly the situation you see in much of the West.
The way the founders set up the US senate was to bake in an oligopoly. They can't in all honesty pint out it would lead to that over the centuries when it was straight up that from the beginning. I mean the US senate was appointed, not elected. Only white men with property could vote. That was to insulate the land owning gentry from the masses.
The voters could rebel even without PR. France has run offs and still has a multi party system. A number of seats held by Lib Dems in the UK are won by plurality. Run offs would require an outright majority so they might have less seats. On the other hand perhaps the anti tory or anti labour vote would back then in the 2nd round to win back more seats?
@@theuglykwanfrance have a two round system
Thank you TLDR
Good video, very informative.
Constructive feedback: There seems to be significantly more reverb on this video, makes it sound a bit odd.
Friendly reminder that during his career as a lawyer, Kier Starmer tried to prevent Jimmy Saville from being investigated.
Labour top MPs have repeatedly said they will nationalise railway and putting GBR on lead.
No they haven't.
@@Noel-ji8nmRMT Press Office:
Responding to Labour's commitment to public ownership of the railways, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said: "We welcome the Labour Party committing itself to public ownership of the railways. "Tackling the greed and inefficiency of the private sector in our railways and other public services should be a key priority for the next Labour government."
Let's hope they keep that promise!
@@pickledegg1989'Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves earlier in the day said the policy was no longer compatible with "fiscal rules" she would introduce to restrain public spending.
Asked whether he would re-nationalise those industries, Sir Keir said: "I take a pragmatic approach rather than an ideological one, I agree with what Rachel Reeves said this morning.' Sky News Jul 22
@@jackscott4772 let's hope they don't
When you can't decide if you're a dove or a hawk, you end up a dork
About 6 months.
Takes about half a year for Starmer to change to whatever policy the Tories have adopted.
It should take a one day not 6 months.
I doubt he would. Apart from Truss and early Johnson Tories didnt really pass the stuff that such moderate like Starmer is gonna try to cancel too actively.
There is a problem though, while 2 parties are supposed to be big tent, they actually aren't. This is different now than it was in the past. Yes Labour has "converged" with the Tories before as big money interest has infected the Labour movement, but now there is no left wing anymore. In fact, Starmer has effectively PURGED the left wing of his party, which is insane and the fact that there is no massive uproar about it baffles me. Imagine if the Democratic Party in the U.S. just purged all their left wing members... AOC BANNED from the Democratic Party. Well, that is the reality of Britain right now. We truly only have centrism and center-right to rightism as effective choices. This leads us to the horrific realization that FPTP is even worse right now in Britain than in the states where at least they have a big tent on the center-left. That's right, British democracy on the left side of the aisle is becoming worse in Britain than in America, an archaic nightmare on it's own. That is how bad it is.
While I think the video was interesting, you fail to connect their alignment with the way elections work and are won, and that both parties need to appeal to the same minority in order to secure victory. This would prompt a degree of alignment of policies or appeal...a flaw in the system we have.
Starmer doesn't believe in anything and just wants to cosplay as Tony Blair.
Labour are going to nationalise the train companies. He has said so many many times, because it’s free you just do it when the contracts run out.
Labour will reverse the 2 child at the second budget. Just don’t want to have to say where the money is coming from on several policies before the election.
You video are normal pretty good this isn’t.
Labour went back and forth on like every single pledge they made ever since Starmer was elected leader, how do u expect a man like that who keeps sliding more and more right with every word he speaks to keep his pledges ?
So, your position is, if Labour are lying about what they plan, they'll do good things. But if they aren't... which is more likely true... they'll be shit?
Seems like Labour'll be shit.
Best thumbnail ever ❤
As an American, I see Sunak and Starmer as extremely different. I would be excited to vote for Starmer.
@@Besthinktwice A state green energy company, £28 billion for green energy projects aren't left wing?
@@somebody2619 They sound left leaning to me.
Break the cycle, stop voting for them or just lay down and accept nothing will ever change and nobody will really represent you. Campaign for PR, FPTP makes certain MP's way too complacent and hard to get rid of.
@@lllluka that would be better than the rule by dictat we have now, with certain views never getting a hearing if outside of the two main parties, the factions controlling them and their donors interests. The only way to break up that narrow neoliberal consensus.
@@lllluka we have a majority government here in the UK doing the same or worse with no alternative voices heard or acknowledged, only the courts stopping some of the worst excesses. In the end though it is a question of democracy and principles, people either believe in Democracy and that every vote should count or they don't. There is no in between.
@@lllluka that's how you end up like America, a full blown oligarchy rather than a democracy.
@@lllluka not just the spending, only tow parties with both often serving and bought by the same interests, with little to no outside challenge or threat, it's a rigged game called the illusion of democracy.
Actually Starmer did wade into the culture war and give his opinion on what a woman is. And it was transphobic and regressive.
Because he didn't agree with the nonsense the " progressives" are trying to push?
Starmer actually said that some women have penises.
is there any party that's explicity against surveillance and against censorship?
They are 2 faces of the same coin.
Either Starmer will not be able to do enough to change the future of UK, or he won't do anything (like Blair), or he will screw it up (like Blair).
They're the same. Not getting my votes!
The day Starmer wins I would really enjoy the meltdown of Tories and Corbynites😂😂😂
hahaha yes!
You are a clown if you think Keith is any different from Rishi
Corbynite?
@@williamhenry8914the only way sunak could somehow win is somehow Corbyn takes the charge
and me - Owen, Novara , This Channel - I think they all preer protest politics rather than actually doing something in power
Sunak is not soft right-wing, he is hard right-wing. If he was soft-right wing Suella Braveman would have long since been out of a job, instead Sunak has done everything he can to protect her. Likewise he is fast peddling back on green initiatives and seems to be actively opposing any real changes that might actually 'level' up areas outside of London or allow for the expansion of environmentally friendly generation methods, instead green-lighting further exploitation of North Sea oil and even coal mining.
Then why did Sunak ban anti-abortion protests?
If you compare them to the labour's previous leader who was unrealistic in his approach to politcs , they are definitely more sane
?
Still sunak would lose😂😂😂
Corbyn would've been a great leader, and the Brits were fools for being swayed by such a brazen smear campaign agsinst him.
Apparently a completely inept Tory government is preferable to tackling poverty and empowering workers.
Yeah public ownership and affordable housing and energy, sooooo unrealistic.
@@dennismorgan3701ik they act like he was fucking Lenin, his policies were just standard European social democratic stuff, hardly ‘radical’
I mean.. you could vote for another party it might not win in the long run but a major vote for lib dem, green, would show labour and conservative that their voters are losing interest
I'm voting Greens, the only real left-wing party left in the UK.
Starmer and Sunak are more alike than they are different Starmer is more like a tory than a memeber of labour
TLDR, Labour openly back rail nationalisation you got this wrong at 5:30 .
Same hand diffrent glove, and there smirking at you
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Labour have committed to nationalising rail so 5:29 is misleading
Sunnak and Starmer are different, but their parties are more alike than they are dissimilar.
He voted too many times with the far right Tory law's he shouldn't be in party. He can't hold them to a count cos he voted with them. The Clearing out the left wing members was sicking. He is right wing, and fears the media