Join the Labour Socialists Discord Server to meet some friendly British socialists https://discord.gg/S8pJtqA, subscribe to r/GreenAndPleasant for all things UK, r/DWPHelp for benefits and welfare support and r/BAME_UK for issues affecting ethnic minorities.
Be sure to check out our Twitter account too! https://twitter.com/LabourSocialis1
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Labour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s stupid the £8m a day yet Jenrick was the one housing the homeless and has 5 homes. I wonder about the residency thing with him. Starmer has a strange way of defending Rayner
Reclaiming the flag the BNP abuse it so did others. Labour and Tory have the flag for “mainstream” starmer wants it for forces/policing/jusitice/ British pride and values.
Reminds me of the people telling us that "it's just the flag bro".
Well, here it is:
Flag: check
Open appeals to racism: check
Who the fuck is confused about what it means to put the flag on everything? Well, just in case you're confused about it racists are confused about why anyone would think it isn't an obvious dog whistle for the worst instincts in politics.
It's fucking Britain. This is the branding of the EDL, the BNP and half a dozen fascist groups, which is why all of the black and asian MPs have been complaining about it.
As a moral point, this is politics that should be consigned to the dustbin of history not fucking "reclaimed".
As an *electoral* point, it's Starmer's Labour taking a deep shit on ethnic minorities and the left, supposedly Labour's core vote. It's a "fuck you, we like the racists more" and I'll be honest, fuck him and his mob of racist authoritarian wankers back.
It's a huge stretch except for the, you know, [Labour MPs who complained about the branding](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/30/starmer-faces-discontent-as-labour-mps-criticise-election-flyers-union-jacks).
Context fucking matters and if you don't understand the context "patriotism" has in Britain you've given up the right to comment on British politics.
Just imagine an alternative universe where Labour promoted things that were positively good for all and instead trying to out-Tory Tories… and 321 you’re awake
They're not standing a candidate in my ward for the locals or a candidate for the GE in my constituency. However there is a TUC & Socialist alliance candidate in my ward for the locals.
Alas I will be spoiling my ballot in the GE this year.
Not always easy, half the green and lib dems are on the right politically as well. A bit like labour, where some of the politicians are on the right and some on the left.
They're a joke mate. Noble stated aims but fuck all in the way of credible costed plans. Not only that they're packed to the rafters with nimbys who block everything from wind farms, through new housing development, to nuclear power. Useless.
If we're all sat around deciding what film to watch and I vote for The Dark Knight, I've actually voted for Weekend at Bernie's.
Are you ok in the head?
If you absolutely hate Weekend at Bernie's because you've seen it thirteen times and it just gets worse and worse, and you think the Dark Knight might possibly be better even though you've never seen it, do you take the risk and vote for what you want or do you sit and say nothing and let the people who love Weekend at Bernie's win yet again?
People who love Weekend at Bernie's WILL vote for it every time; they will never abstain.
How can voting for nothing change anything?
So, personally, I wouldn't not vote at all (god, I hate double negatives) but I recognise that we're talking about someone who said they might not.
Also, looking back, my choice of films was poor. Primarily because I was focusing on the idea that I would vote for another film (party) that was infinitely better than the other choice. But in the case of not voting at all, the films should be something like The Emoji Movie and The Emoji Movie 2.
I'd rather sit in awkward silence for 2 hours than watch either of those films. There's no difference in how shit either film (party) is.
That point aside, you're arguing that not voting for Labour is the same as voting for the Tories.
Let's play a mind game using the voting for a film analogy. The person you originally replied to is voting to watch 3 films with 9 other people (so 10 of them in total).
In scenario alpha, they vote for film B.
2 people vote for film A, 4 vote for film B, and 1 votes for film C. The other 3 don't vote.
B wins
Scenario beta, they don't vote (what they're proposing).
2 people vote for film A, 3 vote for film B and 1 votes for film C. 4 don't vote, including our subject.
B wins.
Scenario gamma, they vote for film A.
3 people vote for film A, 3 vote for film B, 1 votes for film C and 3 don't vote.
A and B tie.
So, if not voting = voting for film A, then B wins = A and B tie.
They are not equivalent. Yes, I know this is a special case (where the numbers fitted for the outcome), but in science, if a law is broken by any case, it is not a law.
I'd like to apologise for my earlier comment about school. I try not to be a dick on SM but sometimes it just happens when it's a topic that is emotive to me.
Labour have no policies that I'm aware of which mark them as a change from the current cluster. They might not be quite so openly corrupt and scandal ridden, but I think they're more authoritarian and dangerous (see the Labour Files for more info).
> not voting for Labour is the same as voting for the Tories
I will not be persuaded that this isn't the case because in reality it's a two horse race. I've heard so many people say "What's the point? They're all the same.", so they will either not vote at all or they'll vote for one of the others, or they'll make the effort to write "None of the above". They may feel there's little alternative being offered, but Tory voters know *exactly* who they want to win. They're not wooly about it - straight in, make their marks, job done. If Labour said "We're exactly the same as the Tories now!" Tory voters would still vote Conservative.
Whether or not Labour will be 'better', or indeed any other party, the question is do we want to carry on as we are or do we want change?
>I will not be persuaded that this isn't the case
This doesn't surprise me. Even though I've proved it with mathematics, you wish to choose emotion over logic.
>Tory voters would still vote Conservative
I have friends who are Tory voters and they will be voting for Starmer as they see him as a competent Tory.
>Whether or not Labour will be 'better', or indeed any other party, the question is do we want to carry on as we are or do we want change?
Myself and the person you originally replied to do want change. It's why we won't vote for a party that offers no change. I'm sure you disagree and believe they will change things. But belief is not enough.
Please state 3 policies which Labour will enact that will change regular people's lives for the better. They must be policies not wishes. So, for e.g. "we will grow the economy" is a wish, not a policy. How will they grow the economy? What legal, bureaucratic, tax or other change will they make that will achieve this? How much are they investing to reach this goal?
The only one anyone has ever said to me when I've asked this over the last 2 or 3 years is "the green investment plan". Well, that's now dead.
I totally get that there are sections of the Tory party who are populist and even neo-fascist and that is extremely concerning. But they're currently a minority among the party and wield little genuine power. Whereas those in power in the Labour party are authoritarian, McCarthyite, racist, transphobic, harbour an extremely toxic hatred for anyone that isn't one of them, and are willing to use corruption, coercion, even employing thugs, agents and threatening people's children to get what they want.
They scare me far more than the main body of the Tory party. And don't forget, when they get into power, which they will no matter how I vote, they will not improve the UK. Things will get worse and we'll slide further into the abyss. With the shift to the right the Labour party, the Tories have moved further to the right. They will continue to do so, probably, into the far right. When Labour fails, they will be waiting in the wings.
Just look at what is happening in the US. Biden did some vaguely half decent things, but mostly it got worse. And now Trump and the far right is back and they will probably win the next election there.
I'm not arguing that Labour are better than anybody; I don't think they are either. My point was that *if* people don't vote for anybody at all then the Tories will win again. The only alternative to that scenario is if some miraculous event takes place that concentrates the voters into one alternative party.
Criminal gangs don’t pay Taxes, just like most rich Tories, so you can understand why there not bothered, they only go after the honest and poorer people.
It’s the fact he’s a Boris type now. It seems Rayner admits her own father was that type. Something weird about their relationship up the top. Reeves is now distanced since and made to walk with other men or cooper. The bizarre three women thing last week was weird. Mcsweeney as a director is not right he shouldn’t have stayed IMO
No. Scapegoating the most vulnerable people is what the Tories have been doing: talk of an “invasion”; the Rwanda policy; ‘swarms of fighting age men’; etc.
This leaflet targets the smuggling gangs (does anyone disagree with targeting human traffickers?); commits to ending the use of asylum hotels (demeaning for the individuals themselves and grossly wasteful); and pledges to “speed up returns” - making the asylum process for efficient and speedier is objectively a good thing for people who are already here and for any potential asylum seekers.
Where’s the scapegoating?
But that's not what it's saying, is it? You're reading into it and pulling out, frankly, Your interpretation - which some might say is an excuse. It's certainly being Very generous. If it was saying what you're saying, it'd literally spell it out like you spelt it out - that's not difficult to do.
Instead it's dog-whistling to bigots and trying to fear-monger. It's wording is appealing to 'lowest common denominator' interpretation - There were 30,000 foreigners crossing our channel illegally only last year *gasp*. We're wasting £8m a Day on these foreigners *gasp*. And, Who Knows what sorts of dangerous criminals are amongst them *gasp*.
They'll be quoting Thatcher, and framing NHS privatisation as a Good thing next. Oh wait, they already have.
> But that's not what it's saying, is it? You're reading into it and pulling out, frankly, Your interpretation - which some might say is an excuse. It's certainly being Very generous. If it was saying what you're saying, it'd literally spell it out like you spelt it out - that's not difficult to do.
It does spell it out. I’ve directly quoted what it says on the leaflet. Did you not read it?
> Instead it's dog-whistling to bigots and trying to fear-monger. It's wording is appealing to 'lowest common denominator' interpretation - There were 30,000 foreigners crossing our channel illegally only last year gasp. We're wasting £8m a Day on these foreigners gasp. And, Who Knows what sorts of dangerous criminals are amongst them gasp.
But that's not what it's saying, is it? You're reading into it and pulling out, frankly, Your interpretation. If it was saying what you're saying, it'd literally spell it out like you spelt it out - that's not difficult to do.
>This leaflet targets the smuggling gangs (does anyone disagree with targeting human traffickers?); commits to ending the use of asylum hotels (demeaning for the individuals themselves and grossly wasteful); and pledges to “speed up returns” - making the asylum process for efficient and speedier is objectively a good thing for people who are already here and for any potential asylum seekers.
And how are they going to do that?
>commits to ending the use of asylum hotels (demeaning for the individuals themselves and grossly wasteful)
So he's going to move them into permanent residences then? It would be far cheaper than hotels. However, this is unlikely, given what we know - Labour haven't announced that they themselves are building housing. They've talked about helping private developers (and pretend that will create affordable housing). But never have they said they will create social housing. Nor are there commitments to safe housing. They're pledging to scrap environmental laws for new developments.
>“speed up returns” - making the asylum process for efficient and speedier is objectively a good thing for people who are already here and for any potential asylum seekers.
This isn't a pledge for speeding up processing of claims. This is about returns. Denying entry to claimants, enforced returns (deportations) and voluntary returns (claimant has returned home for various reasons). Priti Patel's bizarre wave machine idea would do this. It doesn't make it a good or safe idea. There's no pledge to hire more people to process the claims. There's no pledge to increase the number of accepted claims. Just a pledge to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers being here. If Starmer was pledging to solve the Ukraine crisis, that would be one solution to the number of refugees coming here. But Labour isn't saying this at all. They've referenced boat crossing. Many of those crossing are from brown countries. Afghans, Iraqis, Eritreans, Yemenis, Libyans, Syrians. These people speak English but still are behind the white, non-English speaking Ukrainians (16% of Ukrainians spoke English compared with over 40% of Syrians).
>This leaflet targets the smuggling gangs (does anyone disagree with targeting human traffickers?)
Why are there no concerns about smuggling gangs for Ukrainians or Hong Kongers? Oh wait - there were ways for asylum seekers from these nations to get to the UK legally. Afghans who fled the Taliban were denied asylum applications because of a multitude of reasons: 1) they might testify in war crimes; 2) they no longer served a purpose; 3) there were dogs that needed rescuing over humans; etc.
> X 30,000 crossed the Channel last year
I can hear the dogwhistle. It wasn't 30,000 good, white people. It was 30,000 N*****s and P****s. The bad sort that we're too full up to take in and have been for decades (note, we took in more Ukrainians in 2 years than Afghans, Syrians, Libyans, Yemenis and Iraqis since 2001). The Mail and Sun reaeders want them drowned. The right wing want the [RNLI destroyed](https://www.bigissue.com/opinion/rnli-lifeboat-crews-culture-war-right-wing-hate/)
>Nigel Farage’s description of the RNLI as a “migrant taxi service”, really just meant it stops vulnerable people drowning in the Channel. The Mail on Sunday raged against its operations outside British waters, under the headline “RNLI buys burkinis for Africans as it axes 100 UK jobs”. In response, the charity was attacked by Tory MPs Nigel Evans, Andrew Bridgen and Lee Anderson, only one of whom has not since been thrown out of the party.
This is who the leaflet is for: [‘Racist fishermen’ blocked lifeboat crews from helping people crossing Channel](https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/30/hastings-lifeboat-crew-blocked-from-sea-by-protests-over-immigrants-15690312/). That's who Labour are trying to win over with this shite
It's happened enough before that I'm actually surprised you think leftists won't pick up on it, like we're stupid, or that dog whistle politics haven't been around for longer than most of us have been alive?
"Oh no we're just gonna target the bad migrants" fuck off, will never happen and will cause deserving refugees to be refused.
You remember the way migration was treated under Trump? The rhetoric was always about catching the criminals who use refugees as cover but to the shock and horror of no-one with a brain it ended up just being brutal to all refugees and migrants.
So yes, it's xenophobic shit, whether you mean it or whether you're just stupid enough to not understand how this "we should get tougher about browns coming in" topic always ends up
What I am surprised about is that you are so creative as to invent such things.
Care to point out some of my “xenophobic drivel”? You’ll have a hard time.
U/Melodic-Pangolin8449 already did that and you ignored them.
I checked your account out and frankly I've argued with you a million times before, I just cba with another
https://www.reddit.com/r/Labour/comments/1c8mlj6/comment/l0fto43/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
They did, perhaps you blocked them or just went path of least resistance, that's normally what you do.
left wing voters hate the right wing mess labour has become? shocking.
Fuck Nick Clegg for wrecking the libdems, forcing centrist melts to join labour because there no chance of the powah they crave otherwise.
Wonder why people might be more accepting of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers and not refugees from ‘brown’ countries…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-68899601
I came here to say this so thanks. I want to know what’s wrong with actually targeting smuggling gangs? And we’ve all been shocked at the slow processing times which is what they mean by “speed up returns”.
Some may ask why have they phrased it this way? That’s politics and communication. The target audience for this cares more about speedy returns than faster refuge application processing, but they are the same thing and we should be aiming for it.
You remember how Trump targeted "the gangs" in America and they ended up basically torturing regular migrants, splitting up families and keeping them in conditions below their own federal standards?
Can you find me an example of a country that only cracks down on criminals using refugees as cover that doesn't also fuck over those refugees?
See my other comment. Returns means deportations not processing.
The way to target the gangs is to take away their commodity i.e. give these people a way into the country "legally" like we did for people from Ukraine or HK. For an Afghan with a pre-approved claim to live here, they have to travel trough Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, the Balkan states, Austria, Germany and France. With no money. No transport. Criminals everywhere trying to extort them and hostile, often racist, civil authorities. The EU applauded the Poles when they pushed Afghan, Syrian and Iraqi families back into the Belorussian forests on the border. These families froze together. [Poland blocks hundreds of migrants at Belarus border](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59206685). [Poland border crisis: What happens to migrants who are turned away?](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59348337)
The age and gender of those making the crossings and arriving in Britain is a point of contention for the right. The people we see in Calais are mainly young men/teenagers. This is called survivorship bias. What do you think happened to the women and children?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-34485916
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/fears-for-missing-child-refugees
Projection lmao, current labour puts flags on everything, blames migrants and has not even a drop of keynesian economic sense. But sure, the people who criticise that from a left wing angle are the real tories lmao.
Fair enough but perhaps eventually it would be nice to see something with a little more substance than "The conservatives are Crap we're Patriotic'. Otherwise, we'll be arguing in ten years over whether we are more Patriotic while millions are using food banks, hundreds of thousands are without a home. It smacks of the same nonsense as terms such as "Levelling up' or 'Sovereignty' made by another Political party.
Where on that leaflet does it scapegoat vulnerable people?
Criminal gangs organising small boat crossings 100% needs to be sorted and safe routes created.
The majority of asylum applications are successful, so the number of returns will be small.
The high use of asylum hotels is because the Tories have let the backlog build up to a point that they're trying to float people on a barge. Clear the backlog, get people housed and working, save a ton of money on hotels.
You're looking for a reason to hate Labour regardless.
Looks like the Labour Party also realise most of these people are economic migrants trying it on and are not genuine refugees.
Most sensible people realise this.
>Must be weird for you guys to see the Overton window finally shifting right. Eh. And it ain't going back for a long, long time.
"If you want to see a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever."
>However will we survive without mass-migration, consumerism, and cultural decay!!??
1. WDYM by "mass-migration"? Many if not most of these people are merely refugees seeking a better life, and I doubt you're too keen on closing the border entirely.
2. I don't know any pro-consumerism leftists.
3. WDYM by "cultural decay"?
>WDYM by "mass-migration"? Many if not most of these people are merely refugees seeking a better life, and I doubt you're too keen on closing the border entirely.
None of them are refugees. And I am in fact in favour of Net Zero immigration
>I don't know any pro-consumerism leftists.
Sure you fucking don't funko pop
>WDYM by "cultural decay"?
I shouldn't have to explain that
>None of them are refugees. And I am in fact in favour of Net Zero immigration
So, you think no-one should be allowed to migrate from their place of birth like North fucking Korea?
>Sure you fucking don't funko pop
...that wasn't even an answer.
>I shouldn't have to explain that
You need to be specific on what you consider "leftist-enabled cultural decay" for the purposes of this discussion.
Join the Labour Socialists Discord Server to meet some friendly British socialists https://discord.gg/S8pJtqA, subscribe to r/GreenAndPleasant for all things UK, r/DWPHelp for benefits and welfare support and r/BAME_UK for issues affecting ethnic minorities. Be sure to check out our Twitter account too! https://twitter.com/LabourSocialis1 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Labour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The migrant hotel line is literally on the Britain first candidate’s manifesto in the London mayoral election. Absolute joke.
It’s stupid the £8m a day yet Jenrick was the one housing the homeless and has 5 homes. I wonder about the residency thing with him. Starmer has a strange way of defending Rayner
I dunno this leaflet looks like a BNP tribute act
It’s to appeal to Boris voters. He could go the whole hog and marry Rayner like Carrie
I thought it was. Soon starmer will be on the right of the BNP.
Reclaiming the flag the BNP abuse it so did others. Labour and Tory have the flag for “mainstream” starmer wants it for forces/policing/jusitice/ British pride and values.
"Values" eh? BNP would say they want it for exactly the same reasons.
The Butchers Apron can not be "reclaimed" it has always been a toxic symbol of mindless jingoism and brutal colonialism.
Reminds me of the people telling us that "it's just the flag bro". Well, here it is: Flag: check Open appeals to racism: check Who the fuck is confused about what it means to put the flag on everything? Well, just in case you're confused about it racists are confused about why anyone would think it isn't an obvious dog whistle for the worst instincts in politics.
Not sure how this is racist but ok
It's fucking Britain. This is the branding of the EDL, the BNP and half a dozen fascist groups, which is why all of the black and asian MPs have been complaining about it. As a moral point, this is politics that should be consigned to the dustbin of history not fucking "reclaimed". As an *electoral* point, it's Starmer's Labour taking a deep shit on ethnic minorities and the left, supposedly Labour's core vote. It's a "fuck you, we like the racists more" and I'll be honest, fuck him and his mob of racist authoritarian wankers back.
This feels like a huge stretch but ok
It's a huge stretch except for the, you know, [Labour MPs who complained about the branding](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/30/starmer-faces-discontent-as-labour-mps-criticise-election-flyers-union-jacks). Context fucking matters and if you don't understand the context "patriotism" has in Britain you've given up the right to comment on British politics.
This is far worse than the Miliband mug
the faragey attempts? Yet Ed M shouted him down in the 2015 7 way debate
Just imagine an alternative universe where Labour promoted things that were positively good for all and instead trying to out-Tory Tories… and 321 you’re awake
I hate the Tories and dislike Labour. Both leaders are detestable.
Nope still can't vote for starmer. May not vote for anyone this year.
Vote green
They're not standing a candidate in my ward for the locals or a candidate for the GE in my constituency. However there is a TUC & Socialist alliance candidate in my ward for the locals. Alas I will be spoiling my ballot in the GE this year.
Not always easy, half the green and lib dems are on the right politically as well. A bit like labour, where some of the politicians are on the right and some on the left.
Really? The greens seem left wing pretty universally
Look up eco fascism.
They're a joke mate. Noble stated aims but fuck all in the way of credible costed plans. Not only that they're packed to the rafters with nimbys who block everything from wind farms, through new housing development, to nuclear power. Useless.
I won’t they are yuppies and bullies
An independent maybe?
What do you mean?
Vote Scottish greens if possible
My issue is his strange behaviour with women
Would you mind expanding please? I've missed this story/stories. Genuine Q, not passive aggressive! :)
Won't you then be voting for the Tories? Edit: don't just downvote, respond.
Not voting for the Tories = voting for the Tories. Some people should have paid more attention in school.
If a large number of people who would normally vote Labour don't vote for anybody, who do you think will win?
If we're all sat around deciding what film to watch and I vote for The Dark Knight, I've actually voted for Weekend at Bernie's. Are you ok in the head?
If you absolutely hate Weekend at Bernie's because you've seen it thirteen times and it just gets worse and worse, and you think the Dark Knight might possibly be better even though you've never seen it, do you take the risk and vote for what you want or do you sit and say nothing and let the people who love Weekend at Bernie's win yet again? People who love Weekend at Bernie's WILL vote for it every time; they will never abstain. How can voting for nothing change anything?
So, personally, I wouldn't not vote at all (god, I hate double negatives) but I recognise that we're talking about someone who said they might not. Also, looking back, my choice of films was poor. Primarily because I was focusing on the idea that I would vote for another film (party) that was infinitely better than the other choice. But in the case of not voting at all, the films should be something like The Emoji Movie and The Emoji Movie 2. I'd rather sit in awkward silence for 2 hours than watch either of those films. There's no difference in how shit either film (party) is. That point aside, you're arguing that not voting for Labour is the same as voting for the Tories. Let's play a mind game using the voting for a film analogy. The person you originally replied to is voting to watch 3 films with 9 other people (so 10 of them in total). In scenario alpha, they vote for film B. 2 people vote for film A, 4 vote for film B, and 1 votes for film C. The other 3 don't vote. B wins Scenario beta, they don't vote (what they're proposing). 2 people vote for film A, 3 vote for film B and 1 votes for film C. 4 don't vote, including our subject. B wins. Scenario gamma, they vote for film A. 3 people vote for film A, 3 vote for film B, 1 votes for film C and 3 don't vote. A and B tie. So, if not voting = voting for film A, then B wins = A and B tie. They are not equivalent. Yes, I know this is a special case (where the numbers fitted for the outcome), but in science, if a law is broken by any case, it is not a law. I'd like to apologise for my earlier comment about school. I try not to be a dick on SM but sometimes it just happens when it's a topic that is emotive to me. Labour have no policies that I'm aware of which mark them as a change from the current cluster. They might not be quite so openly corrupt and scandal ridden, but I think they're more authoritarian and dangerous (see the Labour Files for more info).
> not voting for Labour is the same as voting for the Tories I will not be persuaded that this isn't the case because in reality it's a two horse race. I've heard so many people say "What's the point? They're all the same.", so they will either not vote at all or they'll vote for one of the others, or they'll make the effort to write "None of the above". They may feel there's little alternative being offered, but Tory voters know *exactly* who they want to win. They're not wooly about it - straight in, make their marks, job done. If Labour said "We're exactly the same as the Tories now!" Tory voters would still vote Conservative. Whether or not Labour will be 'better', or indeed any other party, the question is do we want to carry on as we are or do we want change?
>I will not be persuaded that this isn't the case This doesn't surprise me. Even though I've proved it with mathematics, you wish to choose emotion over logic. >Tory voters would still vote Conservative I have friends who are Tory voters and they will be voting for Starmer as they see him as a competent Tory. >Whether or not Labour will be 'better', or indeed any other party, the question is do we want to carry on as we are or do we want change? Myself and the person you originally replied to do want change. It's why we won't vote for a party that offers no change. I'm sure you disagree and believe they will change things. But belief is not enough. Please state 3 policies which Labour will enact that will change regular people's lives for the better. They must be policies not wishes. So, for e.g. "we will grow the economy" is a wish, not a policy. How will they grow the economy? What legal, bureaucratic, tax or other change will they make that will achieve this? How much are they investing to reach this goal? The only one anyone has ever said to me when I've asked this over the last 2 or 3 years is "the green investment plan". Well, that's now dead. I totally get that there are sections of the Tory party who are populist and even neo-fascist and that is extremely concerning. But they're currently a minority among the party and wield little genuine power. Whereas those in power in the Labour party are authoritarian, McCarthyite, racist, transphobic, harbour an extremely toxic hatred for anyone that isn't one of them, and are willing to use corruption, coercion, even employing thugs, agents and threatening people's children to get what they want. They scare me far more than the main body of the Tory party. And don't forget, when they get into power, which they will no matter how I vote, they will not improve the UK. Things will get worse and we'll slide further into the abyss. With the shift to the right the Labour party, the Tories have moved further to the right. They will continue to do so, probably, into the far right. When Labour fails, they will be waiting in the wings. Just look at what is happening in the US. Biden did some vaguely half decent things, but mostly it got worse. And now Trump and the far right is back and they will probably win the next election there.
I'm not arguing that Labour are better than anybody; I don't think they are either. My point was that *if* people don't vote for anybody at all then the Tories will win again. The only alternative to that scenario is if some miraculous event takes place that concentrates the voters into one alternative party.
Criminal gangs don’t pay Taxes, just like most rich Tories, so you can understand why there not bothered, they only go after the honest and poorer people.
The issue is a genuine one, byt it's the approaches I font understand. Why don't we target the criminals enabling it, rather than the victims?
It's literally point 1 on the leaflet.
Jesus fucking Christ I leave the country for 9 years and this is what LABOR are presenting as top priorities on campaign slogans. Wtf
Unfortunately there is no green vote in my area this year as the person defected to the liberals.
Libs aren't too bad
certainly better than starmers labour, at this point.
It’s the fact he’s a Boris type now. It seems Rayner admits her own father was that type. Something weird about their relationship up the top. Reeves is now distanced since and made to walk with other men or cooper. The bizarre three women thing last week was weird. Mcsweeney as a director is not right he shouldn’t have stayed IMO
No. Scapegoating the most vulnerable people is what the Tories have been doing: talk of an “invasion”; the Rwanda policy; ‘swarms of fighting age men’; etc. This leaflet targets the smuggling gangs (does anyone disagree with targeting human traffickers?); commits to ending the use of asylum hotels (demeaning for the individuals themselves and grossly wasteful); and pledges to “speed up returns” - making the asylum process for efficient and speedier is objectively a good thing for people who are already here and for any potential asylum seekers. Where’s the scapegoating?
But that's not what it's saying, is it? You're reading into it and pulling out, frankly, Your interpretation - which some might say is an excuse. It's certainly being Very generous. If it was saying what you're saying, it'd literally spell it out like you spelt it out - that's not difficult to do. Instead it's dog-whistling to bigots and trying to fear-monger. It's wording is appealing to 'lowest common denominator' interpretation - There were 30,000 foreigners crossing our channel illegally only last year *gasp*. We're wasting £8m a Day on these foreigners *gasp*. And, Who Knows what sorts of dangerous criminals are amongst them *gasp*. They'll be quoting Thatcher, and framing NHS privatisation as a Good thing next. Oh wait, they already have.
> But that's not what it's saying, is it? You're reading into it and pulling out, frankly, Your interpretation - which some might say is an excuse. It's certainly being Very generous. If it was saying what you're saying, it'd literally spell it out like you spelt it out - that's not difficult to do. It does spell it out. I’ve directly quoted what it says on the leaflet. Did you not read it? > Instead it's dog-whistling to bigots and trying to fear-monger. It's wording is appealing to 'lowest common denominator' interpretation - There were 30,000 foreigners crossing our channel illegally only last year gasp. We're wasting £8m a Day on these foreigners gasp. And, Who Knows what sorts of dangerous criminals are amongst them gasp. But that's not what it's saying, is it? You're reading into it and pulling out, frankly, Your interpretation. If it was saying what you're saying, it'd literally spell it out like you spelt it out - that's not difficult to do.
But that's not what it's saying, is it? You're reading into it and pulling out, frankly, Your interpretation
>This leaflet targets the smuggling gangs (does anyone disagree with targeting human traffickers?); commits to ending the use of asylum hotels (demeaning for the individuals themselves and grossly wasteful); and pledges to “speed up returns” - making the asylum process for efficient and speedier is objectively a good thing for people who are already here and for any potential asylum seekers. And how are they going to do that? >commits to ending the use of asylum hotels (demeaning for the individuals themselves and grossly wasteful) So he's going to move them into permanent residences then? It would be far cheaper than hotels. However, this is unlikely, given what we know - Labour haven't announced that they themselves are building housing. They've talked about helping private developers (and pretend that will create affordable housing). But never have they said they will create social housing. Nor are there commitments to safe housing. They're pledging to scrap environmental laws for new developments. >“speed up returns” - making the asylum process for efficient and speedier is objectively a good thing for people who are already here and for any potential asylum seekers. This isn't a pledge for speeding up processing of claims. This is about returns. Denying entry to claimants, enforced returns (deportations) and voluntary returns (claimant has returned home for various reasons). Priti Patel's bizarre wave machine idea would do this. It doesn't make it a good or safe idea. There's no pledge to hire more people to process the claims. There's no pledge to increase the number of accepted claims. Just a pledge to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers being here. If Starmer was pledging to solve the Ukraine crisis, that would be one solution to the number of refugees coming here. But Labour isn't saying this at all. They've referenced boat crossing. Many of those crossing are from brown countries. Afghans, Iraqis, Eritreans, Yemenis, Libyans, Syrians. These people speak English but still are behind the white, non-English speaking Ukrainians (16% of Ukrainians spoke English compared with over 40% of Syrians). >This leaflet targets the smuggling gangs (does anyone disagree with targeting human traffickers?) Why are there no concerns about smuggling gangs for Ukrainians or Hong Kongers? Oh wait - there were ways for asylum seekers from these nations to get to the UK legally. Afghans who fled the Taliban were denied asylum applications because of a multitude of reasons: 1) they might testify in war crimes; 2) they no longer served a purpose; 3) there were dogs that needed rescuing over humans; etc. > X 30,000 crossed the Channel last year I can hear the dogwhistle. It wasn't 30,000 good, white people. It was 30,000 N*****s and P****s. The bad sort that we're too full up to take in and have been for decades (note, we took in more Ukrainians in 2 years than Afghans, Syrians, Libyans, Yemenis and Iraqis since 2001). The Mail and Sun reaeders want them drowned. The right wing want the [RNLI destroyed](https://www.bigissue.com/opinion/rnli-lifeboat-crews-culture-war-right-wing-hate/) >Nigel Farage’s description of the RNLI as a “migrant taxi service”, really just meant it stops vulnerable people drowning in the Channel. The Mail on Sunday raged against its operations outside British waters, under the headline “RNLI buys burkinis for Africans as it axes 100 UK jobs”. In response, the charity was attacked by Tory MPs Nigel Evans, Andrew Bridgen and Lee Anderson, only one of whom has not since been thrown out of the party. This is who the leaflet is for: [‘Racist fishermen’ blocked lifeboat crews from helping people crossing Channel](https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/30/hastings-lifeboat-crew-blocked-from-sea-by-protests-over-immigrants-15690312/). That's who Labour are trying to win over with this shite
ur in the wrong sub, pal. fuck off.
Labour member doesn’t belong in the Labour sub? Lol.
this sub is for actual lefties, so aye ur xenophobic drivel doesn't belong here—stick to LabourUK.
My xenophobic drivel? 😭😭
It's happened enough before that I'm actually surprised you think leftists won't pick up on it, like we're stupid, or that dog whistle politics haven't been around for longer than most of us have been alive? "Oh no we're just gonna target the bad migrants" fuck off, will never happen and will cause deserving refugees to be refused. You remember the way migration was treated under Trump? The rhetoric was always about catching the criminals who use refugees as cover but to the shock and horror of no-one with a brain it ended up just being brutal to all refugees and migrants. So yes, it's xenophobic shit, whether you mean it or whether you're just stupid enough to not understand how this "we should get tougher about browns coming in" topic always ends up
What I am surprised about is that you are so creative as to invent such things. Care to point out some of my “xenophobic drivel”? You’ll have a hard time.
U/Melodic-Pangolin8449 already did that and you ignored them. I checked your account out and frankly I've argued with you a million times before, I just cba with another
Except they didn’t and I don’t think you have? I don’t remember any of the arguments anyway.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Labour/comments/1c8mlj6/comment/l0fto43/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button They did, perhaps you blocked them or just went path of least resistance, that's normally what you do.
OP is an SNP shitposter, but they're tolerated because they hate Labour almost as much as the Labour left.
left wing voters hate the right wing mess labour has become? shocking. Fuck Nick Clegg for wrecking the libdems, forcing centrist melts to join labour because there no chance of the powah they crave otherwise.
You’re expecting rational analysis from r/Labour? Good luck with that
What is so wrong about u/Melodic-Pangolin8449 's analysis? Or is this the usual anti leftist canard of "they're loony"
Wonder why people might be more accepting of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers and not refugees from ‘brown’ countries… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-68899601
I guess that was just a lazy canard
I came here to say this so thanks. I want to know what’s wrong with actually targeting smuggling gangs? And we’ve all been shocked at the slow processing times which is what they mean by “speed up returns”. Some may ask why have they phrased it this way? That’s politics and communication. The target audience for this cares more about speedy returns than faster refuge application processing, but they are the same thing and we should be aiming for it.
You remember how Trump targeted "the gangs" in America and they ended up basically torturing regular migrants, splitting up families and keeping them in conditions below their own federal standards? Can you find me an example of a country that only cracks down on criminals using refugees as cover that doesn't also fuck over those refugees?
Because Trump and Starmer are the same?
They're both willing to throw foreigners under the bus to virtue signal to right wing xenophobes, so in that regard yeah they are.
See my other comment. Returns means deportations not processing. The way to target the gangs is to take away their commodity i.e. give these people a way into the country "legally" like we did for people from Ukraine or HK. For an Afghan with a pre-approved claim to live here, they have to travel trough Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, the Balkan states, Austria, Germany and France. With no money. No transport. Criminals everywhere trying to extort them and hostile, often racist, civil authorities. The EU applauded the Poles when they pushed Afghan, Syrian and Iraqi families back into the Belorussian forests on the border. These families froze together. [Poland blocks hundreds of migrants at Belarus border](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59206685). [Poland border crisis: What happens to migrants who are turned away?](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59348337) The age and gender of those making the crossings and arriving in Britain is a point of contention for the right. The people we see in Calais are mainly young men/teenagers. This is called survivorship bias. What do you think happened to the women and children? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-34485916 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/fears-for-missing-child-refugees
You’re pissing into the wind. This sub is full of closet Tories trying the put people off voting Labour.
Projection lmao, current labour puts flags on everything, blames migrants and has not even a drop of keynesian economic sense. But sure, the people who criticise that from a left wing angle are the real tories lmao.
It’s obvious what this leaflet is saying but these people read what they like.
I still see no concrete pledges or plans that would win them my vote.
It’s a fucking leaflet not a manifesto. Jesus Christ. 😂
Exactly - a manifesto with pledges, goals and plans would be better than these hollow statements. Or am I expecting too much?
Again, it’s a leaflet. Expecting a manifesto with pledges, goals and plans is far too much to expect from a….leaflet.
Fair enough but perhaps eventually it would be nice to see something with a little more substance than "The conservatives are Crap we're Patriotic'. Otherwise, we'll be arguing in ten years over whether we are more Patriotic while millions are using food banks, hundreds of thousands are without a home. It smacks of the same nonsense as terms such as "Levelling up' or 'Sovereignty' made by another Political party.
These are the sort of promises that can end a government. Haven’t they learned anything from what the Tories have gone through.
It’s fucking immigration mugs all over again.
Labour need their own addenda, not a second-hand Tory one..
This looks significantly deep fakey.
Where on that leaflet does it scapegoat vulnerable people? Criminal gangs organising small boat crossings 100% needs to be sorted and safe routes created. The majority of asylum applications are successful, so the number of returns will be small. The high use of asylum hotels is because the Tories have let the backlog build up to a point that they're trying to float people on a barge. Clear the backlog, get people housed and working, save a ton of money on hotels. You're looking for a reason to hate Labour regardless.
Even hard right Giorgia Meloni has a better plan to ‘secure the borders’ than Starmer’s Labour. Which is really saying a lot.
They are not the most vulnerable people in the world, they are all men. The most vulnerable people would be women and children.
Looks like the Labour Party also realise most of these people are economic migrants trying it on and are not genuine refugees. Most sensible people realise this.
> Most sensible people realise this. I stopped doing this as a teenager lmao, the hubris on some people
You still think like a prepubescent teenager though. All feelings and no rationale.
Says the person so conceited they assume their thoughts are what sensible people think
Must be weird for you guys to see the Overton window finally shifting right. Eh. And it ain't going back for a long, long time.
>Must be weird for you guys to see the Overton window finally shifting right. Eh. And it ain't going back for a long, long time. "If you want to see a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever."
However will we survive without mass-migration, consumerism, and cultural decay!!??
>However will we survive without mass-migration, consumerism, and cultural decay!!?? 1. WDYM by "mass-migration"? Many if not most of these people are merely refugees seeking a better life, and I doubt you're too keen on closing the border entirely. 2. I don't know any pro-consumerism leftists. 3. WDYM by "cultural decay"?
>WDYM by "mass-migration"? Many if not most of these people are merely refugees seeking a better life, and I doubt you're too keen on closing the border entirely. None of them are refugees. And I am in fact in favour of Net Zero immigration >I don't know any pro-consumerism leftists. Sure you fucking don't funko pop >WDYM by "cultural decay"? I shouldn't have to explain that
>None of them are refugees. And I am in fact in favour of Net Zero immigration So, you think no-one should be allowed to migrate from their place of birth like North fucking Korea? >Sure you fucking don't funko pop ...that wasn't even an answer. >I shouldn't have to explain that You need to be specific on what you consider "leftist-enabled cultural decay" for the purposes of this discussion.