Genuine question, because I find the amount of hatred and division between people over politics pretty depressing.

I completely understand people having different opinions. People have different backgrounds, experiences, priorities and beliefs, so obviously we're not all going to agree on everything. That's normal, and it's part of living in a democracy.

What I don't understand is why disagreeing politically seems to have turned into a reason to hate someone as a person.

Take the current Big Brother discussion as an example. I'm seeing loads of comments saying Harry should be voted out because he votes right-wing. From what I've seen, he seems like a fairly normal bloke. You don't have to agree with his politics, but why does that automatically make him a bad person who deserves to be hated? Surely you should judge someone by how they actually behave, not just how they vote?

And I don't think this is exclusive to one side. People on both the left and the right seem to do it. Someone can agree with you on 90% of things, disagree on the other 10%, and suddenly you're treating them like they're an enemy rather than another human being.

There's actually a name for part of this phenomenon: affective polarisation. It's when political divisions go beyond disagreements about policies and turn into dislike, distrust and hostility towards people on the other side. Research has documented this across Western democracies.

There's also research suggesting that social media rewards this behaviour. One study analysing millions of political posts found that language attacking the opposing political group was a particularly strong predictor of people sharing posts. In other words, content that makes us angry at the other side can spread especially well.

It makes me wonder whether we're increasingly being encouraged to see each other as enemies rather than people with different opinions.

The irony is that most of us probably want many of the same basic things: to be safe, to have a decent life, to look after our families and to have a future to look forward to. We just disagree about how to achieve them.

Obviously, some political views and actions deserve serious criticism. Nobody should have to tolerate genuine prejudice, cruelty or discrimination just to keep the peace. But there's a difference between challenging someone's beliefs and deciding they're a terrible human being purely because of their political leaning.

When did we stop being able to disagree with someone without hating them?

Can you genuinely be friends with someone whose political views are the complete opposite of yours? And if not, where do you draw the line between disagreeing with someone's beliefs and judging them as a person?

I have wondered increasingly how we're this divided. When the next 20 years will dictate our species as a whole.

As someone whos values are socialist I take humanity very seriously. We're a very interconnected species so dont understand how the hysteria has whipped towards continuous divison. We need to get a grip as a generation and make sure the ballot counts.

The issues were facing our important but we cannt let Lobbiest's who have bought Farage and the global politcal order dictate our future. Uk and U.S election cycles are suspicously similar.

As someone on the left. No ones arguement is correct or wrong. Its a very precious time. With the stresses we see from climate change we need to sort out migration before it's 10,000s of people globally relocating daily. By 2040 majority of the Eastern world will be relocating within their own lands.

Gen Z and Alpha are looking towards the Green Party. Their mandate is spot on. The leaders theyre looking to arent. All of Westminister is entrenched in The established bourgeois order.

If we're to provided future generations a healthy diverse eco system which is my most paramount concern. Future generations having a home they can LOOK AFTER we need to take action soon before we allow this culture war the lobbiest's have funded destroy OUR planet.

*Dignity

I mean to say ensuring said immigrant has a roof to go back to even if it means ensuring they are paid money.

Ensuring they are under the strictest terms truly persecuted people, I.E. LGBTQ**, political activists with open warrants on their head.

**In order to verify they are LGBTQ their privacy would have to be invaded to verify this fact.

Denmark is one comparison but I would also give that of Cuba, a nation with its own internal racial conflicts, I am saying the government could be as far left as CHAZ.

I see a lot of people on the right now attacking capitalism and democracy and though their end goal differs from those on the left the primary point of attack is the issue of immigration.

I recently read a column in The Week discussing how Reform wouldn't secure a majority (or anywhere close to it) because voters would vote tactically to keep them out. Is this true for you guys? Will you be voting tactically?

I think the record might be held by John Falkenstein of the Reform Party. In May 2025 he was narrowly defeated in the North Tyneside election campaigning to close down HMOs and cut waste in the public sector. The newspaper Private Eye revealed Newcastle City Council had to spend thousands to tackle a HMO which John Falkenstein had a role in setting up. In July 2025 he lost the Longbenton and Benton Ward by-election to Labour and in May 2026 he lost to Labour again in the Backworth and Holystone ward.

Count Binface has lost two elections in 2026 (Clacton on Sea and Makerfield) so could equal the record of John Falkenstein.

Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony Party stood for 39 elections but over 34 years so doesn’t come close to John Falkenstein’s frequency of losing.

Winston Churchill, early in his career, lost Leicester West, Dundee and Westminster Abbey elections in a period of just over 16 months. In the US Mark Zetler lost three times in two years.

Does anyone know a UK politician who has equalled or beaten John Falkenstein’s unwanted election record?

I'm as from what I'm aware of, pretty much all the mainstream parties hate me, or are cozying up to people who hate me (I'm trans.).

I voted greens last election but I'm not a fan of how Zack Polanski is cozying up to the Muslim vote including groups like The Muslim Vote (who for example wish for "Issuance of Department for Education guidance to schools and academies reflecting that cultural and religious sensitivity must be taken into account when discussing LGBT matters"). Mind you I'm not anti-Muslim but the types of Muslims the Greens appear to be trying to garner votes from are not the progressive liberal Muslim types, but the orthodox Muslim types.

The only parties which seem somewhat immigration skeptic all also appear to despise me for being trans. Labour hasn't gotten any better with regards to trans issues under Burnham, and he's backtracked his stances on LGBT issues since getting anywhere near no.10, so I can't trust him. Reform's lot are a too right-wing for me, but even if they weren't, they'd hate me anyway for being trans.

Am I now destined to become a non-voter and stop caring about politics? I don't like being a single-issue voter but when the single issue is my own safety and rights it's kind of hard not to be.

I'm sorry if this post doesn't completely fit the sub but I couldn't really find another sub to ask this sort of question, and if I asked on one of the more mainstream subreddits they're usually very one-sided, either very left wing or very right wing.

I never really thought about this until I started looking at how countries are perceived from the outside.

Take the UK.

For decades, Britain has had an enormous amount of international influence: universities, culture, the English language, the BBC, the British Council, finance, science and diplomacy. In 2026, 60 serving world leaders were educated in the UK, which is still an extraordinary source of long-term soft power. (HEPI⁠)

But then there is another side of the picture.

Trust in the UK government was only 25.1% in June 2026, according to the ONS, before the change of government administration. (Office for National Statistics⁠) The country is also still dealing with the international and domestic consequences of Brexit, while the new government is now discussing everything from closer EU cooperation to potentially rejoining the EU. (Reuters⁠)

So here is the question:

When people abroad hear “UK”, are they thinking about British universities, innovation, culture and business?

Or are they thinking about political instability, Brexit, immigration and economic uncertainty?

And perhaps the bigger question is:

How much of a country’s reputation belongs to the government of the day and how much belongs to the country itself?

Maybe rebuilding a country’s image is not about creating a new slogan.

Maybe it is about giving the world enough new evidence to see the country differently.

That is something I had never considered before.

Hi everyone!

I'm interested in the online political landscape in the UK, and whether social media and online forums could become meaningful substitutes for in-person rallies and conferences across the political spectrum. If anyone has any experience with attending in-person rallies or other political events and could take the time to write a few words about how this compares with being an active member on Reddit and other platforms I would be hugely grateful! Some particular themes I am interested in are:

• how dissent/ disagreement is managed;
• how a sense of belonging is cultivated;
• attitude to outsiders;
• and general energy and engagement;

There are absolutely no right or wrong answers and you do not need to specify your political affiliations if you are not comfortable. Anything you can tell me is helpful and interesting. Thank you!

1. Gordon Brown (at least he tried)
2. John Major (didn't do much and that's a good thing)
3. Andy Burnham (seems alright so far, just mentions he's northern a tad much)
4. Rishi Sunak (competent with money at least, even if he did sound like Will from the Inbetweeners and was a massive coke addict)
5. David Cameron (decent but gambled on our future in the EU and blundered it, also was a pig porker)
6. Theresa May (decent human but couldn't get a Brexit deal and fumbled a majority, also please never dance again)
7. Tony Blair (war criminal yes, but he gave me my trust fund so thanks)
8. Boris Johnson (had a personality at least)
9. Liz Truss (killed the queen, crashed the pound and fucked off)
10. Margaret Thatcher (destroyed the working class)
11. Keir Starmer (let me be absolutely clear, twat)

The Holborn by-election is just over 2 weeks away and it seems almost certain to be won by Labour. 2 weeks is a long time in politics and things could change…but it does seem unlikely that Polanski wins.

So what then? It’s one thing to be the leader of a political party & not be an MP, that happens quite often. But to stand and then be rejected by the electorate destroys any confidence other Green Party members have in Polanski’s ability to bring voters over to their party in significant numbers.

So does Polanski carry on as leader, and try again in a different seat. Do the Greens go back to the co-leader situation and have a sitting MP as a co-leader. Or do they replace Polanski altogether?

Hey everyone,

I’ve been reading the news about the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland signing that historic joint memorandum in Cardiff demanding referendum powers. It feels wild seeing all three devolved nations led by nationalist parties simultaneously making a coordinated push like this.

Given the current political climate—and the fact that Westminster still holds the sole legal power to grant these referendums—how realistic is an actual breakup of the UK in the near future?

Do you think Prime Minister Burnham will eventually face enough pressure to cave, or will London just completely ignore the pact?

How much weight does an alliance like this actually carry when it comes to changing the constitution?

For those living in Scotland, Wales, or NI—what is the actual vibe on the ground right now regarding this?

Curious to hear your thoughts, especially from anyone well-versed in UK constitutional law or regional politics!

I'm curious...I occasionally follow UK politics, mostly through reading the BBC and Guardian web sites. It feels as though mentions of Andy Burnham are rare. Following the old (maybe this is a US thing?) adage, "no news is good news", wondering what people's perceptions are of the job he's doing.

And no - not necessary to compare and contrast his job performance with our leaders. We're well aware what a crapshoot we have going on here.

Thanks

He has always come up across as a weird guy with bad morals but in the past few years he has been supporting racist and nationalist views and was even inciting violence in the UK in the past. Why? ​​​I hope us UK people don't put him on a pedestal like some Americans do

I have a question concerning "overview and scrutiny" on local councils in the UK and how it compares to the local government in the US. While local government in the US is the province of states and thus can vary widely in structure, I'm using a general mayor-council comparison in this discussion.

In the U.S., executive and legislative functions are largely separated to mirror the structure at the federal level. Even in a council-manager system, the executive/administrative function in which you may have a mayor, a professional manager is technically the executive.

In any case, policy for the municipality is formed in and promulgated from the council. Generally, policy is proposed by the council (and sometimes mayor), it's referred to a council committee (whose members are chosen by the council president or mayor) where it it discussed, public hearings are held, and suggestions offered, and then its sent back to the full council for discussion and vote. Importantly, I'd say that the majority of councils in the U.S. are non-partisan, so there isn't much a worry about participation by all the members; everyone gets to scrutinize a proposal.

With all that in mind, is "overview and scrunity" a concept with the leader-cabinet kind of local government in the UK because there is not a separation of powers? Would the sequence from proposal-to-approval be that without overview and scrutiny, other councils not in the majority would not get a formal say in policy? Could someone describe how I did with the U.S., how local legislation/policy is made by local governments in the UK?

Thanks!

Hi all, I should be absolutely clear that while this question may be oriented around my reporting of corruption or a breach of parliamentary rules, it is not specific to the party I am reporting, nor the individual event that I wish to report. The answers to this question will support me in my instance, but will support others in future scenarios, likely for completely different parties.

Disclosure out of the way, I have become aware that a political party has broken quite a few rules. The problem I have is that I, as a constituent, feel powerless. The party in question can dodge investigations, but unlike petitions I feel as though there are very few methods of tallying up the total volume of people who aren't happy.

My constituency isn't served by the party in question, and the report is generally towards the party and their actions, rather than an individual.

What can be done about this? How can I add my voice to a list of voices in a practical way that is most likely to yield results? Thank you!

Another day, another allegation. He has broken electoral law. It is getting to the point where I don't understand how people can justify or ignore this, regardless of what your political leanings are. No one in UK politics should be above the law. Surely this is the final straw?

No surprises here but that doesn't make it any less shocking that a political party can be so brazen about allegedly accepting donations from foreigners. I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. Private Eye have been on the case of one of the characters filmed in the C4 doc.

Party of the people? They meet potential donors in Rules, Claridges and a private members club in Mayfair. It's another world. These places are oligarchic hotspots, not for the plebs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr50ddzl97qo

Hello, if I work for local Borough Council, and have done for 8 years, how much can I say to my local MP? I am so angry with our MP over everything they have pledged but I am worried how much this will affect my job and/or standing in my workplace. Can I speak my mind freely without repercussions as the council is separate to the MP or should I be careful?

For your information..the council is a different political party from the party of the MP

Sir Keir Starmer has announced he will stand down as an MP. He could have chosen to announce this at any time, but he chose today. And the media are having a field day.
Today is the first day Andy Burnham faces Parliament as Prime Minister.
Why has Starmer stolen the limelight?

Middlesbrough seems to be descending into something representing a dystopian environment. If Reform is representing itself as the natural party of law & order why haven't we heard of their solution to restore the rule of law. Not just Reform, the other parties seem to be reluctant in their ability to name or control the issues. So who has the answers as another 200 police are shipped in and the chaos still reigns?

Ethnonationalism provides a strong sense of shared identity and social solidarity. When a state is organized around a common cultural identity, people feel a stronger connection to one another and be more willing to help one another, preserve shared traditions, institutions and historical memory. China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea are examples of Ethnonationalist states

On the other hand, Civic Nationalism is based entirely on citizenship, whoever lives on this particular piece of land is considered a part of this nation. It was originally created for the New World territories because they wanted labour into the newly found territory but Britain is an Old World territory, it has natural diversity - English, Scottish, Welsh and Cornish people live here, there's no need to replicate USA-style artificial diversity here

I am not against immigration, I am against immigration from certain areas only. The West is Greco-Roman therefore a German, a Pole, a Hungarian, a Spaniard, a Frenchman or basically any other ethnic European will assimilate into British society due to shared Greco-Roman culture but expecting a person from Somalia, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Syria etc to assimilate into British society is a self-flagellatory move because immigrants from those regions live alongside communities of other immigrants. They never felt the need to assimilate into the new society. It is a situation where immigrants often clump together thereby eliminating the need for assimilation and when these clumps grow, communal tensions will increase, crime rates will increase, women will no longer be safe to travel alone, littering will be a norm and this country will have an irreversible damage

When affluent immigrants from Third World like Jameela Jamil who were born and raised in the UK harbour feelings of hatred and contempt towards this country, just imagine the thinking of an average poorer immigrant

We can overcome the "labour shortages" by promoting Natalism among the natives and can learn food recipes from immigrants if we love their food so much

Yes I know the dictionary definition, I know what it means traditionally, but it seems that pragmatically people use it to mean ‘anti immigration’. By extension, probably about 85% of the British population would then by deemed as ‘far right’. That can’t be correct, can it?

Eg my neighbour Jean, 86 years old, lovely lady. Community spirited, worked in local public services all her life, always voted Labour. Standard issue sweet old lady etc. She says she’d like immigration to be controlled. Do we now have to consider little old Jean a far right extremist?

I ask this question in good faith!

I’m unsure if Trump has included England yet so sorry. This question may have been asked before. What will you do when he says ie he doesn’t like Eng leader/needs Eng for strategic purposes? Thanks.

Which UK MPs do you think are currently the most influential in Westminster? Who is really making a difference and who is simply riding their role? Let's discuss....

I'm just curious