Is the U.K. really broken, or does it just need tinkering?

Changes are always needed, as we change. Industries change, either fade or develop.
UK is not completely or even nearly broken. Dramatic ideas/politicians always take priority in headlines.That's how the media feeds itself. But slow and steady wins the race. I prefer evolution to revolution.

Id like some really radical changes in public ownership of essentials like water and energy. A commitment to public transport and social housing even if it means higher taxes.
And a couple of other things but that would do for a start.😬

You can’t have a radical rethink without the money to do it, we seem to be unable to create enough ourselves, we have a Centre Left government now yet they are not being allowed to do what is needed by their own extremists.

It’s the opposite of the Tory problem, extremists preventing the correct way forward.

Starmer's Government is tinkering. It has not so far proved very successful. I would like to see something different being given a chance, but don't think that would ever be allowed under the current regime.

The "correct way forward " means different things to different people.

Sorry to be po-faced (not to mention predictable), but 'broken' is another of those vague terms that stop people communicating effectively. As long as we talk about the NHS being 'on its knees' and the economy 'dropping off a cliff' nobody knows what anyone else is talking about, which probably makes politicians of all stripes happy.

I'm not sure if this answers the question, but I think the welfare state and tax system both need a radical overhaul, that there should be a publicly expressed (and preferable shared) vision about rights and responsibilities of all citizens, and I'd like to see a proper citizens' contract so that it is clear what is expected of everyone and what they can expect to get back in return.

None of that is 'tinkering', and I don't know how it can be done, really, as it would inevitable mean huge disruption to many people's lives.

There is an argument that the far right (Reform) and the far left perpetuate the ‘myth’ that the UK is totally broken, as it serves their narrative - a sort of destructionism.

Reform, particularly, purport to be disrupters, radical, against the status quo. In order to make people believe their approach is required, they have to persuade citizens that absolutely everything about the country is broken, and can’t possibly be fixed by any other party.

Gaslighting at its most dangerous!

That's true, Lizzie. If it's broken, or nearly broken but still able to be 'reformed' then they're the very badgers to do it, aren't they? Or so they say.

Yes, Faridge et al constantly promise the moon on a stick with bells on … yet they never say how they would actually do this. Just ‘everything is broken’ and ‘we’re the only ones clever enough to fix it’ 🙈

Labour are getting harangued by Badenough at question time over the U turn. Particularly getting personal about Reeves looking awful - she did took awful

Well if things need sorting, why not go the whole hog? No hesitating, just be radical. It may upset a few people along the way, but if the end product is better for it, then there's no point pussyfooting around.

Yes David I saw that.

Really no need for Badenough to make personal attacks on Rachel Reeves - how low can she go.

Reeves did look awful and so would I in her position, I think. She is human - unlike Ms Badenough who’s clearly perfect (in her own head).

escaped

Well if things need sorting, why not go the whole hog? No hesitating, just be radical. It may upset a few people along the way, but if the end product is better for it, then there's no point pussyfooting around.

That's what revolutionaries say .

I think it would go beyond upsetting a few people. Much would depend on what a new contract would involve, but as examples, to say to people who are used to living comfortably that they have to give what they have to others (as the far left might prefer), or to people who haven't paid tax that in order to use the NHS they have to pay (as Reform suggest) would be massively disruptive.

Huge changes are usually better when they are introduced gradually, so that people who have made plans in good faith don't have their lives ruined.

We would need, as a country, to decide what form a new society would take, and that sort of thing is fraught with danger, as the vested interests would be jostling for position, and it could get very ugly.

Oh I didn’t see that. The pressure must be tremendous at times.

For my money, I do think that Reeves has locked herself into this fiscal conservatism, which she might have just got away with if times were good, but they aren’t, and we need far more imaginative and Keynsian thinking to tied us over the current situation.

Re-joining the CU and SM would be highly sensible, especially as growth was her target.

people who haven't paid tax that in order to use the NHS they have to pay (as Reform suggest) would be massively disruptive.
That should read 'people who haven't paid health insurance.

An edit button would be great.

LizzieDrip

Yes David I saw that.

Really no need for Badenough to make personal attacks on Rachel Reeves - how low can she go.

Reeves did look awful and so would I in her position, I think. She is human - unlike Ms Badenough who’s clearly perfect (in her own head).

Badenoch actually said that she looks miserable which she usually does anyway as does Rayner.
It’s PMQ’s and they all have a go at each other.

Doodledog

escaped

Well if things need sorting, why not go the whole hog? No hesitating, just be radical. It may upset a few people along the way, but if the end product is better for it, then there's no point pussyfooting around.

That's what revolutionaries say .

I think it would go beyond upsetting a few people. Much would depend on what a new contract would involve, but as examples, to say to people who are used to living comfortably that they have to give what they have to others (as the far left might prefer), or to people who haven't paid tax that in order to use the NHS they have to pay (as Reform suggest) would be massively disruptive.

Huge changes are usually better when they are introduced gradually, so that people who have made plans in good faith don't have their lives ruined.

We would need, as a country, to decide what form a new society would take, and that sort of thing is fraught with danger, as the vested interests would be jostling for position, and it could get very ugly.

I think escaped is right.Starmer needs to have some vision.I also agree with Ilovecheese and Lathyrus 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Badenoch actually said that she looks miserable which she usually does anyway as does Rayner. It’s PMQ’s and they all have a go at each other

Have a go at each politics and political performance by all means, but Badenough’s comment was a personal slight about Reeves’ appearance. Out of order and totally uncalled for.

What a nasty piece of work Badenough is. I despise her!

lizzie so do most of the Tory MPs as far as I can make out.

LizzieDrip have you watched PMQ’s over the years? I ask as personal slights and insults happen with regularity.
Are you annoyed simply cos she’s a woman? Male MP ‘s and Ministers and leaders take it in their stride and so too usually do female ones.
Corbyn was regularly laughed at by Cameron as to his personal appearance ( after a while Corbyn def smartened up) and I daresay Johnson was too.

In any case, a remark about someone’s expression isn’t about her hair or clothes so hardly personal in that regard.It’s always a bit of a bear pit at PMQ’s.

I agree with the Poster about re-nationalising the water supplies. Which other country has let such an important resource go to private 'investors'?

Oreo

Doodledog

escaped

Well if things need sorting, why not go the whole hog? No hesitating, just be radical. It may upset a few people along the way, but if the end product is better for it, then there's no point pussyfooting around.

That's what revolutionaries say .

I think it would go beyond upsetting a few people. Much would depend on what a new contract would involve, but as examples, to say to people who are used to living comfortably that they have to give what they have to others (as the far left might prefer), or to people who haven't paid tax that in order to use the NHS they have to pay (as Reform suggest) would be massively disruptive.

Huge changes are usually better when they are introduced gradually, so that people who have made plans in good faith don't have their lives ruined.

We would need, as a country, to decide what form a new society would take, and that sort of thing is fraught with danger, as the vested interests would be jostling for position, and it could get very ugly.

I think escaped is right.Starmer needs to have some vision.I also agree with Ilovecheese and Lathyrus 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I didn't say he doesn't . I said that a radical shake-up of how society works would go beyond upsetting a few people.

I would also like to see renationalisation of water and other utilities (including transport). This would be easier to implement than a total rethink of the welfare/benefits/pension system (which I also think the country needs), unless we really do want a multi-tier system with people on legacy benefits alongside those paying different levels of contribution.

There are already various different levels of state pension, claimed at different ages, with amounts depending on whether people paid full 'stamp', inherited their husbands' pension and/or SERPS etc, and that causes no end of resentment. Many women who had six years added to their retirement age have struggled to make the necessary adjustments. People work within the system in which they find themselves and plan accordingly - it's all any of us can do. Sudden and radical changes can ruin those plans, sometimes when it is too late for individuals to make new ones.

Things like increases to the NMW, building more housing, breakfast clubs and so on may seem small, but are all steps in the right direction, IMO, and can be built on and 'tinkered with' until they become larger ones that really have an impact without throwing people's lives into disarray.

I would like to see a 5 year plan from all incoming governments, with annual reports showing how close the aims are to being met. That way the population would understand the reasoning behind decisions that may seem arbitrary or misguided.

There is a lot to fix, but Conservatives had their chance and Reform will never be anything other than incompetent. You only have to look at Farage's ignominious "career" in politics.

Starmer has some redeeming qualities. His understanding of law, and real strengths as a statesman, in diplomacy and foreign affairs and handling Trump, that this country (and the world) cannot afford to lose right now.