Taking @HermioneWeasley 's long post as an example.
IMO, all political parties prefer to ignore nuance. And yet, in most things, the right balance between fairness and pragmatism is quite subtle. It is important that employment should be on decent terms and conditions, but unrealistic to expect employers (especially SMEs that employ about 60% of us all) to fund every right and protection to eg SSP from the first shift, because that just discourages employers from hiring young, or inexperienced staff. Rights should accrue with length of service.
Also on SMEs, governments need to recognise that most small businesses need lighter regulation, not more. And as over 70% of such small businesses already fail to survive the death or retirement of the founder/owner, it's counterproductive to tax entrepreneurs too heavily, because if there's no incentive to go on investing and growing the company while shouldering the whole burden of rents, rates, payroll and compliance, then most people simply won't bother.
I agree with Hermione on migration. I was an emigrant in 1979. But it is reasonable to expect migrants to pay their own way, feed and house themselves and not to burden the tax-payers, who did not invite them. Likewise, if you migrate, please don't bring your historic grudges and vendettas along. Fit in, assimilate and bite your tongue when a secular UK gives equal rights to women, gay people and other faiths.
If you can work, and get work, you should. I supported the two child benefit cap, and still do. Everyone had 24 months' notice before it was introduced and it was not applied retrospectively.
I also think benefits should be time-limited, except for those who are severely physically or intellectually incapacitated; I'd allow two years, but I am also aware that sickness benefits without requirement to seek work are currently supporting a lot of older people who can't physically continue strenuous occupations right through to retirement age. This is a huge issue at the moment.
Rapists in women's prisons? Hard no from me.
Renationalising industries like rail... Again, it needs more nuance. In the early 1990s, I did a lot of work (and travel) on railways. It was nationalised because the government couldn't afford the required investment; British Rail priced demand off the railway; the stations were run down, the rolling stock obsolete. The infrastructure really did improve for almost a decade, but the failure to control who owned the shares was a big failure. Companies like BAA, ABP and the utility and water companies were acquired by overseas investors who paid out those dividend streams to pension funds in other countries and neglected the assets/infrastructures that generated the income, before dumping them when the liabilities got too costly. Thames Water is the most egregious example.
Every government of the last 40 years is equally culpable.