• Mrkawfee@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    14 hours ago

    Sorry goys, but supporting the apartheid ethnostate is more important that making sure your bins are collected on time.

  • HelloThere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    14 hours ago

    Given that labour’s policy is for a two state solution, and the greens now classify that as Zionism, and that Zionism is racism, why would the greens want to be in coalition with a party they view as racist?

        • 🍉 DrRedOctopus 🐙🍉@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          9 hours ago

          I know you’re trying to make a point, but their job is to make services work, if they cannot do that (regardless of who’s fault it is), they’ll be out next election.

          it’s local government, not the parliament.

          And yes, the greens are not at fault for that ratfuckery.

          What you’re asking is for them to basically take theor county and become a sovereign state that doesn’t need the rest of the UK to function.

          Which I’d love, but never going to happen.

          • HelloThere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            7 hours ago

            I absolutely agree that it isn’t a local council’s place to dictate foreign policy. I’d also argue it isn’t the place of any UK party to declare exclusive support for a single state solution, that decision is for the people born on the land themselves.

            The point I’m getting at is that if a party’s position is antiracism, and also that thing X is racist, I don’t understand why they would want to work with a party who supports thing X.

            For example, I cannot see Labour or Greens making formal power sharing agreements with Reform, even if just to get the bins collected.

            Why is this different?