UK Politics

3109 readers

109 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom

GreatAlbatross

flamingos

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Rishi Sunak has staked his premiership on Rwanda – but the electorate will punish him for it | Henry Hill (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 7 months ago by frankPodmore@slrpnk.net to c/uk_politics

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I thought it was worth sharing this critique of the Rwanda policy from a Conservative point of view.

Henry Hill, deputy editor of Conservative Home, takes a largely practical point of view, with two main related arguments: the policy won't work on its own terms and, if it does, it won't shift any votes anyway.

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] DrCake@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Misread the writer as “Harry Hill”, thought that would be fitting for this government

[–] fakeman_pretendname 6 points 7 months ago

So which is better? Spending years and millions of pounds obsessively trying to send a handful of immigrants to Rwanda, or literally any other policy? There's only one way to find out: FIGHT!!!

[–] Mrkawfee 4 points 7 months ago

Rid us of this wretched Roland Rat.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Cast your mind back to the moment the former Tory prime minister’s renegotiated deal for our EU membership “exploded on the launchpad” ahead of the referendum.

It’s a problem on a much vaster scale than illegal entry; tackling it would be much more difficult (in theory), and, as a creature of the Treasury, Sunak probably doesn’t really see anything fundamentally wrong with the current setup anyway.

Downing Street hoped to get the legislation through the courts without having to confront the serious conflict between its aspirations on border control and the UK’s present international commitments.

Sunak clearly has no personal interest in our relationship with the ECHR: rightwingers have seen in Brexit what happens when a major constitutional change is pushed forward by a reluctant prime minister who doesn’t believe in it.

Indeed, one reason I and others didn’t completely discount the idea of a May election was the reverse argument: that if the bill did get through, Sunak might prefer to go to the country before the policy’s limited impact on Channel crossings became apparent in the summer.

It’s also been suggested to me that some in Downing Street hoped, if not expected, the legislation to fail, allowing them to run an election against the blockers in the House of Lords rather than on the results of the policy itself.

The original article contains 966 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] baggins@beehaw.org 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I wonder if we could send him there. If it's as great as he says, he might even stay.