Labour is running shit scared of Reform polling well so they'll do anything to go after those voters. Newsflash: Appeasing them won't work and will only legitimise even more extreme viewpoints.
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
32 points (97.1% liked)
UK Politics
3309 readers
200 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not only will appeasing them not work, it will alienate people who would otherwise vote Labour. This kind of thing is Labour just shooting themselves in the foot, even without Reform around they'd struggle to win any future elections but they just don't see it (or don't want to see it)
Yep exactly that. People voted for change and currently there's not much difference between Labour and the tories.
Someone needs to AI a video of Labour in opposition decrying this against Labour in government pushing this dog whistle agenda.
How is this news? Entering the country illegally is surely going to get any citizenship application denied
If asylum is claimed. It is illegal for the UK to reject it based on method of entry.
But they have to be legally in the UK for 10 years anyway. So this is a pointless change that never happened.
The news is that it is a new change. The reason why it is being opposed is that it is needlessly restrictive on refugees which we already make as hard as possible to allow to apply already.
For example, imagine you are someone from the DR Congo and need to flee the conflict. You have family in the UK so you attempt to make your way here using refugee routes. You can only make it as far as France before having to take a boat over and get into the country illegally even before you can apply for asylum. Now even if this application is accepted, you can never become a citizen, even though you are legally living in the country.
The unfair bit of it is that you cannot apply for asylum without being in the country (except in certain circumstances) which you cannot enter without entering illegally. This is at least my novice knowledge of the way the system works at the moment.
FFS nobody is walking off a boat and being given citizenship...ever!
First they'd have to be given permission to stay short term. Then indefinite permission to stay (which is normally linked to work status). Then after a decade they can apply for citizenship. Before citizenship, they can't claim benefits and can need to make payments to qualify for NHS care.
...including Stella Creasy who said the change "meant refugees would forever remain second class citizens".
No, they would never be able to become citizens. Her point has merit, but she needs to use the correct terms. Refugees are not citizens, because when they get citizenship they have a new home and are no longer refugees.
The language matters. There's a narrative that we are a soft touch because people land on our shores and immediately get all the benefit of being British. It's weaponised lies that need to be shown to be lies. Calling these people citizens feeds the lie.
The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill sets out Labour's plan to treat people smugglers like terrorists, and creates a new crime of endangering another person during an illegal crossing in the Channel.
Terrorist? Really? How anyone takes this seriously is beyond me.
The new charge of endangering life might have some effect although as I understand it the smugglers often nominate one of the travellers to "drive" the boat until it is picked up. I'm confused about the denying citizenship clause though. The last 14 years the Tories where complaining that human rights legislation meant they couldn't deny asylum to people based on the way they got to the country. What changed?
IIRC, the ECHR thing was about the Rwanda flights, because the court was blocking them. I wouldn't be surprised if this was also a violation, but it'd probably need to be taken to the courts to get a ruling.
"The enemy does not come in a small boat. The enemy comes in a yaught"
UK hearing Trump talk about making every other country but them the 51st state.