this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
35 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

4554 readers
448 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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When Keir Starmer and Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, argue that asylum protections must be rewritten for a new “era”, they are not simply adjusting policy. They are reshaping the moral ground our societies stand on.

Their message is clear: hardening rules so that fewer people receive protection is the way to restore confidence in their leadership. They present this as measured and responsible, even progressive. But what they propose is not a new centre ground; it is a retreat into a politics that regards some lives as less worthy than others.

And there is a dreadful irony in seeing such a message conveyed just as the UK justice secretary, David Lammy, and Richard Hermer, the attorney general, travel to Strasbourg on International Human Rights Day – an occasion created to commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the recognition, set down by the postwar generation, that dignity must not depend on borders, status or political fashion.

Human rights were never designed only for safe, comfortable times. They were written precisely for moments like this: when pressure mounts, when scapegoating becomes tempting, when compassion is portrayed as weakness. These protections exist to prevent us from repeating history’s worst mistakes. The whole point of human rights is that they are neither negotiable nor temporary.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Genuinely, what even is the point of Labour at this point? "Unlike Reform and the Tories, we don't want to leave the ECHR. We just want to make it utterly anaemic."

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

"well duh. How else would you get to choose a red or blue cock up your arse.

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 month ago

All while remove the right to trial by jury

[–] PennyRoyal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He should start with removing the right of prime ministers to not be beaten like a piñata for behaviour like this

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago

Let's remove the last 4 words.

It's more a matter of how obvious they are then if.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

Lots of European countries want to reform immigration or execute related policies. Starmer might find supporters for this in other European countries.