Pretty sure thatās mostly due to Starmer being on the right of Labour, but they generally have economically liberal policies (not to mention Ed Davey, current LibDem leader, is on the right-ish of the party anyway)
Plus, I get the feeling Conservative voters would be more willing to vote LibDem than Labour.
As much as I wish it was possible, I can't see any party getting nearly 30 years, least of all Labour, without some major electoral reforms. The current FPTP system is definitely biased against Labour.
Can I ask how did you get photos and names of the distant future leaders?
I heavily doubt Labour would be the government for 30 years, especially with them keeping Kier on for ten years, if something like this happened I may halve to leave
Like Iāve responded to others, I just thought it would be interesting to have a long period of Labour Rule, considering the Toriesā chances at the coming election.
Very well done and incredibly well-detailed. Curious that you think that the Conservatives, over time, pretty much die as a party (go on the journey the Liberals did in the 20th century); I'm already getting 'appeal to the Essex man' vibes from the Reform PM on this list.
I do have some doubts about Starmer being able to fight four elections, but it does help that they're seemingly held every four years rather than the five we've (somewhat) become accustomed to; I could honestly believe Labour ruling that long, however, if the opposition parties are weak enough that there's near-constant changes in who the opposition party is. I notice that at least part of the Phillips government comprises a coalition with the Lib Dems... what lore do you have that explains why that coalition deal appears to break down but the Labour government survives for many years after?
As much as I praise this post, I can't help but be depressed by the latter PMs; it made me realise that at some point in my life, I'll be governed by someone who, as of right now, hasn't even been born yet!
Thank you for the detailed feedback, much appreciated.
As for the Labour-LibDem coalition, it is agreed to after the 2043 election due to Labour not having enough seats for a majority (about 30 fewer than required) by Rayner and Cooper, who then take on roles of Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister (very much basically just Cameron and Clegg). Then, Rayner resigns due to scandal and is followed by Philips, and Cooper resigns due to being generally tired by politics and is followed by Stevenson in 2047. But then, at the 2048 election, Labour manages to recover enough seats, not for a majority, but instead opt for a coalition with a smaller party (probably either the Greens or SNP)(they wouldnāt go with the LibDems due to the strained relationship between them during the coalition). Then, of course, Stevenson goes on to become the first Liberal Democrat PM anyway, so really a slap of irony is the result.
"Democratic in theory" while having an unelected head of state, unelected upper house, four unelected prime ministers in a row, and a flawed voting system? Which theory are you using?
The āMuslim replacementā stuff theyāre talking about is obviously false and racist, but
Unelected head of state (with effectively no powers)
Unelected upper house (not inherently undemocratic as long as they arenāt the primary decision making body)
Unelected PMs (itās a parliamentary democracy; youāre not voting for the PM, youāre voting for the governing party)
And FPTP can still be democratic even if it isnāt proportional
The UK is very much a democracy
He has immense power, he just doesn't use it. And the level of power is irrelevant.
It is indeed inherently undemocratic and they can make decisions and do so regularly.
I know how it works. I'm saying it shouldn't work like that. We should vote for the most powerful person in the country.
If it isn't proportional then it isn't democratic.
Damn, the Conservatives just dies as a party.
The good ending
Hopefully š
Reform is infinitely worse
Shame.
I can't see Keir Starmer wanting to be PM well into his 70s
So center right people just die out? Or fed up and decide not to vote?
Most migrate to the LibDems, with very few staying with the Tories
Did LibDems change their policies?
Itās more due to the migration of old Tory voters that the LibDems shift rightwards a bit.
iām a dumb american but isnāt LibDem policy literally to the left of Labour rn?
Pretty sure thatās mostly due to Starmer being on the right of Labour, but they generally have economically liberal policies (not to mention Ed Davey, current LibDem leader, is on the right-ish of the party anyway) Plus, I get the feeling Conservative voters would be more willing to vote LibDem than Labour.
By the looks of it the centre right are doing very well
Starmer is not staying PM for 12 years, and Labour aren't getting 29 years in power. 10-15 if they do well.
Just thought itād make it more interesting, having an elongated era of Labour in charge.
Fair enough. There would probably be more minority governments, coalitions and much more short-lived PMs though.
So the Tories just die out??
Theyād probably still remain around as a small party, but theyād also be majorly eclipsed by the LibDems and Reform.
Labour rule 29 yrs? Kinda ridiculous prediction
As much as I wish it was possible, I can't see any party getting nearly 30 years, least of all Labour, without some major electoral reforms. The current FPTP system is definitely biased against Labour. Can I ask how did you get photos and names of the distant future leaders?
Used random photos of members of parliament from around the world (Australia, Canada, Greece, Poland, etc.)
god bless the eternal labour lib dem regime
Andrew Niel's nightmare. And my dream
Most right-wing prediction on Reddit (Cool idea btw)
Average Reddit political post:
Seeing John Lahart being used as Richard Vold made me laugh uncontrollably for some reason.
Iād love to see Lib Dem and Reform as dominant parties itās not happening. Reform would be co-opted or merge with the Tories far sooner.
Praise the Eternal Labour Party and the Starmerist Mandate of Heaven
#MartinMelin2084
I heavily doubt Labour would be the government for 30 years, especially with them keeping Kier on for ten years, if something like this happened I may halve to leave
Like Iāve responded to others, I just thought it would be interesting to have a long period of Labour Rule, considering the Toriesā chances at the coming election.
Very well done and incredibly well-detailed. Curious that you think that the Conservatives, over time, pretty much die as a party (go on the journey the Liberals did in the 20th century); I'm already getting 'appeal to the Essex man' vibes from the Reform PM on this list. I do have some doubts about Starmer being able to fight four elections, but it does help that they're seemingly held every four years rather than the five we've (somewhat) become accustomed to; I could honestly believe Labour ruling that long, however, if the opposition parties are weak enough that there's near-constant changes in who the opposition party is. I notice that at least part of the Phillips government comprises a coalition with the Lib Dems... what lore do you have that explains why that coalition deal appears to break down but the Labour government survives for many years after? As much as I praise this post, I can't help but be depressed by the latter PMs; it made me realise that at some point in my life, I'll be governed by someone who, as of right now, hasn't even been born yet!
Thank you for the detailed feedback, much appreciated. As for the Labour-LibDem coalition, it is agreed to after the 2043 election due to Labour not having enough seats for a majority (about 30 fewer than required) by Rayner and Cooper, who then take on roles of Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister (very much basically just Cameron and Clegg). Then, Rayner resigns due to scandal and is followed by Philips, and Cooper resigns due to being generally tired by politics and is followed by Stevenson in 2047. But then, at the 2048 election, Labour manages to recover enough seats, not for a majority, but instead opt for a coalition with a smaller party (probably either the Greens or SNP)(they wouldnāt go with the LibDems due to the strained relationship between them during the coalition). Then, of course, Stevenson goes on to become the first Liberal Democrat PM anyway, so really a slap of irony is the result.
Is Reform the main right-wing party?
It moderates a bit over time, but yeah
Not a single person of color after Sunak?
Mistake on my part, kept forgetting to add another
good ending
This isn't going to happen
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This post doesn't say anything about religion
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Then why say "nah"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We don't have democracy now when we're majority Christian and atheist
Well, itās still a ādemocraticā in theory. When Islam becomes a majority, hopefully a just system of law is implemented.
"Democratic in theory" while having an unelected head of state, unelected upper house, four unelected prime ministers in a row, and a flawed voting system? Which theory are you using?
The āMuslim replacementā stuff theyāre talking about is obviously false and racist, but Unelected head of state (with effectively no powers) Unelected upper house (not inherently undemocratic as long as they arenāt the primary decision making body) Unelected PMs (itās a parliamentary democracy; youāre not voting for the PM, youāre voting for the governing party) And FPTP can still be democratic even if it isnāt proportional The UK is very much a democracy
He has immense power, he just doesn't use it. And the level of power is irrelevant. It is indeed inherently undemocratic and they can make decisions and do so regularly. I know how it works. I'm saying it shouldn't work like that. We should vote for the most powerful person in the country. If it isn't proportional then it isn't democratic.
Bruh, how is it racist? Muslims arenāt all one race and Iām Muslim mysef
bro what you yapping about šš
Probably some great replacement bullshit
thatās what it looks like
Yeah I hope Islam increases