this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
1069 points (98.2% liked)
Political Memes
4662 readers
4086 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, I've been following UK politics by way of TrashFuture podcast and I gotta say... your immigration plan is to deport people to Rwanda and your government just endorsed a Trans-Panic Committee to decide whether teenagers can consent to gender-affirming care.
And these are the moderate Labour Party positions. Liz Truss wants to do worse.
God damn, dude. Finding the worst people to run the country is not a competition. You can just let the Yanks have this one.
They look at our right wing propaganda machine to see what "works." They also get the added "benefit" of our toxic sludge that is online political discourse to feed off of. They don't need new issues as they have a repository of shit to pick from...
Why does Americas #2 export need to be toxic right wing bullshit....
Wait, what’s #1? It’s freedom, right?
It's "the news".
Its how we get our hooks into you, so we can dissolve your NHS and replace it with our vastly more profitable private health care system.
I'm only here on a marriage visa, I'm not a P.R or citizen yet, so I'm not allowed to vote against having these bigots and con-men in power. Also, while labour is somewhat moderate, the Tories are in power, and they're a bunch of fucking nut jobs. Labour can't decide what they stand for anymore, which means they will stand for nothing, and the rest of the available parties will never get to power again. The available options are shit, just like in the States. And the Yanks think they invented having a shit government, but lemme tell you, the Brits have been fucking up their own government and foreign governments for a lot longer the the US has been a thing.
As a yank who’s followed British politics for a while, I wouldn’t blame labour’s bullshit on the tories. They seem to have done the same thing in response to thatcher that the Dems did to Reagan “ok sure we can be the neutral centrist party, we’ll be conservative while you be regressive”. When I see actual left wing ideas coming out of the UK it’s either from your queer folks, a small and vulnerable actual left wing, or from the SNP. Even now with the tories wildly unpopular Labour seems to be taking the attitude of “we should reach across the aisle and offer to do what they propose”.
But you are right we learned how to govern from two sources, you and the Iroquois confederacy, and the Iroquois functioned (they still do, but they did then too).
Yeah, I'm Canadian buddy.
Edit: I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, just to tired to formulate a proper response, might come back to this tomorrow.
In a similar situation here in NZ. On a perm resident visa through partnership, can’t vote, keenly interested in being on my best behaviour here. Labour wasn’t amazeballs, but the current coalition is like watching a pack of dogs with diarrhoea tear through a quiet town. You just know it’ll be on someone else to clean up after them.
The Rwanda asylum scheme is and has been a Tory plan from its inception, and has never been endorsed by Labour. I'm not familiar with the TrashFuture podcast, but can recommend Pod Save the UK if you're in the market for UK politics pods.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/24/labour-could-keep-sunaks-rwanda-policy-successful/
Pretty big stretch to call that any kind of endorsement, don't you think?
It's cowardly triangulation intended to straddle the issue, rather than denounce the policy.
It was explicitly a hypothetical thought experiment. Starmer has already said they wouldn't go through with the Rwanda plan, even if it did somehow prove effective. That's all stated plainly in the article you linked (from the Telegraph!). It really seems like you're just doubling down in the face of the evidence, rather than admitting to having made an incorrect statement.
By the presumed future minister in charge. If boat crossings to the UK fall following implementation of Rwanda deportations (more a gamble than a hypothetical) they'll continue the program.
Starmer's shadow cabinet - including Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary - have simply asserted the program is "too expensive". That's their sole opposition to the new rule. Not that they won't go through with it, but that they don't want to pay for it.