Many people voted (including me) exhaustion In the last general elections because we wanted to change – a change from policies that put old companies and ideas over people. With this work government, we have more the same so far.
In my anecdotal experience, most UK’s voters want to fix something different and do not really care about what. Yes, some believe that we have a lot of refugees, but I think most of them are not fanatic, just misleading (Farage calls for the United Kingdom to reform the local elections “the beginning of the end” for the conservatives, May 2).
In contrast, those I know who votes work tend to do so because we believe in fairness. We want progressive policies to make a difference in people’s lives. We want the wealthy to pay their fair share of the tax (something common with reformist voters as well). We want clean industries and waterways. We want to reduce energy and water prices, and we hope that these industries (something else jointly with reformist voters) will be re -formed.
Copying right -wing policies of right -wing reform prevents us from working in voting, however, the correctional voters are not convinced as well. Economically Economic Policy seems to be a winner of both sides. But is it too late?
In the municipal elections, I voted for Leip Deem, as she believed they had a better chance to overcome the reform. Like many people I know, we have no tribal loyalties. Our priority is to stop the right wing. The first river system prevents us from voting the way we want. Perhaps if the municipal elections are a convertible vote, we will face work instead.
Reform can be overcome with an optimistic vision that makes life better for people and improves living levels. By standing at companies, by reducing bills, by cleaning our environment – this is how we can be convinced to continue voting to work and ward off reform.
James Marsters
Beverly, East Yorkshire
Return your article (The work is targeted by international students who demand asylum after election losses, May 3) This government’s insistence on responding to the perceived threat to reform by disrupting the issues in which it is strong is completely confusing.
I don’t think any party that can be chosen will be more hostile to migration than repair. Part of the voters who immigrate will not be the only issue that they are interested in voting to work by pledging to reduce asylum requests from international students. It is a ridiculous idea, and at best, it only works to reduce the distinction between the two parties.
In fact, the reform is weak in almost a region that can be perceived: economy, NHS, Donald Trump, Britain’s exit from the European Union … almost a list of weaknesses without borders. However, the government chose to engage in the only basis in which certain reform is being done. It is completely strange.
How is a party allowed with five deputies, less than 800 local advisers, and no actual policies are allowed to dictate the agenda in this way?
Richard Riber
Form, Sumerrest
Marina Hyde (Is Farraj win a new dawn? We can ask the Labor Party, but they are still sleeping, May 2Only my long opinion confirms. Voters do not vote for the parties, and vote against them. In the general elections, they voted against the Conservative Party, and they asked to grind the faces of the poor and the oppressed. In the local elections, they voted against the Labor Party, indicating few signs that it is better. In a timely manner, they will vote against reform, after discovering that the cutting on migration and enjoyment of the plight of poor countries is not the promised healing medicine. I am looking forward to today – but after that, what next?
Tim Gosling
Cambridge
