"We need to stop voting for the mythical, one day wealthy carrot party and vote for policies are going to address the problems our society faces today. I'd actually like to see cross party policy making - the current party system is broken too. But that is radical reform."
Yes.
Just yes. 
The party system doesn't work. It is just too antagonistic and silly. Fundamentally, when you get down to brass tacks, there aren't that many ideological differences you can take towards solving a problem, which will inevitably involve money. Blair discovered this when he took power in '97; that's why so many manifesto pledges were funded through PFI.
Take adult social care, for example. In my area, it is currently costing 70p in the council tax pound, so a household in a Band C property (which is a below a Band D "average" house) is paying over £1000 a year for council adult social care. This is actually more than you will pay in income tax a year if you are on full time NMW. It's roughly the equivalent to a combined utilities bill (gas, water, electric) for a lot of average households.
It is severely debateable whether households in properties under Band D in many regions can take any more increases in council tax.
So how do we fund adult social care? The notion is that central government should put more into the pot. But central government is currently estimated to run a £171.8bn annual deficit for FY 2022 (the difference between tax receipts and public expenditure) on top of a £2.5tn national debt.
So then you say ... raise taxes on the rich. And I would agree: let's bring in viable property taxes for multimillion pound properties. It is ridiculous that a property that would cost $14k a year in taxes in Manhattan costs under £5k in council tax pa in Central London.
But aside from that, we don't actually have a huge number of uber-rich people in Britain that we can tax. 90% of Brits earn under £50k pa. You are in the 0.1% if you earn over £100k pa (IFS), which works out at around 68,000-ish people -- that's less than a parliamentary constituency.
So you say, well, lets go for the billionaires. Lets take the top five: Mittal, Abramovich, the Duke of Westminster, the Bertarellis and the Reubens. In total, that's £48.082bn if you seize their wealth French Revolution style.
That sum would pay for half the education spend for one year, which is currently budgeted to be £99.8bn for FY2022.
It would, in fact, just pay for the annual interest payment of £43.5bn on our national debt, with £4.6bn left over to roughly double the police budget, which is miniscule at £5.2bn.
These are the sums we are talking about. When it comes to the NHS, education, pensions and welfare, they are vast.
So back to adult social care, what's the solution? Well, you are basically looking at a solution that lowers medium to long term costs, but retains service. You can't just keep flinging money at it, because the money just isn't there. So you have to look at what costs the money in adult social care, and what you find is that it is nursing homes and the cost of carers going into elderly homes all over a borough three or four times a day.
So the solution starts to become clear. What you need is housing with care: i.e. low to medium assistance elderly housing communities with wardens, onsite nurses and a bistro where people can buy or rent a one or two bed flat. Then you run your nursing homes for people that really need that kind of intense care. And lo! Councils, such as York, that have done this do not have an adult social care crisis!
But what I am saying here is that this solution is a mix of public and private. It needs councils to get involved in planning these solutions, maybe even building them if they have the viable funds. In some cases, private companies might be the best bet, but any plans still need to get through councils.
And in this, there is no left or right, particularly. There is only the possibly affordable solution and the non-affordable solutions.