# Where were the students when everyone else was getting fucked over?



## SpookyFrank (Dec 23, 2010)

...you know; benefit claimants, public sector workers, people who need public services, Cameron's personal photographer, all that lot. Where was the righteous anger at mandatory unpaid labour for the jobless, or cessation of benefits for disabled people based on government targets rather than their actual capacity to work? Where were the students when lots of people who are far worse off than they are (and far too busy to go on repeated coach trips to london to smash up phone boxes) were getting shat upon in the name of that thankless, all consuming deity answering only to the dread name of 'the economy'? Poll coming...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Do fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Let's tell them to fuck off because of one idiots anger and his inability to think about how things change.

Seriously get in the bin.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 23, 2010)

Knob


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 23, 2010)

Things change by people recognising both their common ground and their common enemies. Not by moaning about how bad they have it and neglecting the fact that pretty much everyone else has it worse. Best case scenario for these clowns; the fees rise is scrapped and the money is found elsewhere by cutting some other public service. This is because the students have presented no analysis beyond a sort of 'waaaah poor us' narrative and apparently can't be arsed to take on the overall government narrative of 'essential' butchering of state spending.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Things change by people recognising both their common ground and their common enemies. Not by moaning about how bad they have it and neglecting the fact that pretty much everyone else has it worse. Best case scenario for these clowns; the fees rise is scrapped and the money is found elsewhere by cutting some other public service. This is because the students have presented no analysis beyond a sort of 'waaaah poor us' narrative and apparently can't be arsed to take on the overall government narrative of 'essential' butchering of state spending.


 Tell you what, fuck and cry in your own corner?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

> Things change by people recognising both their common ground and their common enemies



Yeah, fuck off students when you start to see this.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Tell you what, fuck and cry in your own corner?


 


butchersapron said:


> Yeah, fuck off students when you start to see this.


 
Neither of these is an intelligible sentence.


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 23, 2010)

I think quite a lot of the students were also protesting against cuts in general, weren't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

What private school did you go to frank that you're not a real person but a entry. Let's see what the % is? Going to play?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What private school did you go to frank that you're not a real person but a entry. Let's see what the % is? Going to play?


 
Once again, could we have that in English?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Neither of these is an intelligible sentence.


 
They both are. With what's called context.

 Off you go.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Once again, could we have that in English?





> *What private school did you go to frank that you're not a real person but a entry. Let's see what the % is? Going to play?*


 
Pretty simple.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Pretty simple.


 
No, what you've done there is taken the same stream of drivel and put it bold. That may be how you make Spanish barmen understand you when you're down the costa del sol but it doesn't work on me.

e2a: funnily enough I didn't go to public school. But through independant research I did stumble across the phrase 'ad hominem'...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Game over - i think


----------



## discokermit (Dec 23, 2010)

the students are doing their bit by kicking off. what you doing, spooky?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Being a floppy haired cunt i think


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...you know; benefit claimants, public sector workers, people who need public services, Cameron's personal photographer, all that lot. Where was the righteous anger at mandatory unpaid labour for the jobless, or cessation of benefits for disabled people based on government targets rather than their actual capacity to work? Where were the students when lots of people who are far worse off than they are (and far too busy to go on repeated coach trips to london to smash up phone boxes) were getting shat upon in the name of that thankless, all consuming deity answering only to the dread name of 'the economy'? Poll coming...


Probably still at school, you clueless div.


----------



## embree (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...you know; benefit claimants, public sector workers, people who need public services, Cameron's personal photographer, all that lot. Where was the righteous anger at mandatory unpaid labour for the jobless, or cessation of benefits for disabled people based on government targets rather than their actual capacity to work? Where were the students when lots of people who are far worse off than they are (and far too busy to go on repeated coach trips to london to smash up phone boxes) were getting shat upon in the name of that thankless, all consuming deity answering only to the dread name of 'the economy'? Poll coming...



The Tories, their spineless fellow travellers and their acolytes in the press and elsewhere can do a perfectly good job of this divide and rule bullshit without you giving them a helping hand. Fuck off.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 23, 2010)

Yup, they were probably too young.

Or some of them were protesting, but because the cuts were so varied, the protests were smaller and less organised - it's not like protesting against one big cut that affects tens of thousands of people at once. 

Or perhaps self-interest spurred them into action. We are talking about ordinary humans, after all, not saints. I mean, you reckon they should have railed against benefits cuts and the like - stuff that affects _you_ - so you're not exactly squeaky-clean there either.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...you know; benefit claimants, public sector workers, people who need public services, Cameron's personal photographer, all that lot. Where was the righteous anger at mandatory unpaid labour for the jobless, or cessation of benefits for disabled people based on government targets rather than their actual capacity to work? Where were the students when lots of people who are far worse off than they are (and far too busy to go on repeated coach trips to london to smash up phone boxes) were getting shat upon in the name of that thankless, all consuming deity answering only to the dread name of 'the economy'? Poll coming...



If this is your anarchism, then fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...you know; benefit claimants, public sector workers, people who need public services, Cameron's personal photographer, all that lot. Where was the righteous anger at mandatory unpaid labour for the jobless, or cessation of benefits for disabled people based on government targets rather than their actual capacity to work? Where were the students when lots of people who are far worse off than they are (and far too busy to go on repeated coach trips to london to smash up phone boxes) were getting shat upon in the name of that thankless, all consuming deity answering only to the dread name of 'the economy'? Poll coming...



Where were you?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 23, 2010)

And kids have been affected by the cuts far more than any other group. Taking away EMA removes 100% of many of those kids' incomes. Then there's raising fees, restricting child benefit (and the proposal was to remove it from 16-18-year-olds too), cutting university budgets, cutting school sports and music funds, cutting maternity grants and surestart funds, getting rid of funds like the Booktrust, cutting funding to maternity groups... what have I missed? 

Kids can't be blamed for any of the current problems, yet they're the ones being most affected by the cuts. Fucking right they're protesting.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 23, 2010)

Shut up, Frank, you pillock.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2010)

lol


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 23, 2010)

They're here now, aren't they?


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 23, 2010)

scifisam said:


> And kids have been affected by the cuts far more than any other group. Taking away EMA removes 100% of many of those kids' incomes. Then there's raising fees, restricting child benefit (and the proposal was to remove it from 16-18-year-olds too), cutting university budgets, cutting school sports and music funds, cutting maternity grants and surestart funds, getting rid of funds like the Booktrust, cutting funding to maternity groups... what have I missed?
> 
> Kids can't be blamed for any of the current problems, yet they're the ones being most affected by the cuts. Fucking right they're protesting.


 

Spot on.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Things change by people recognising both their common ground and their common enemies.


that's exactly the case the students were making you clown


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2010)

Google image for SpookyFrank lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...you know; benefit claimants, public sector workers, people who need public services, Cameron's personal photographer, all that lot. Where was the righteous anger at mandatory unpaid labour for the jobless, or cessation of benefits for disabled people based on government targets rather than their actual capacity to work? Where were the students when lots of people who are far worse off than they are (and far too busy to go on repeated coach trips to london to smash up phone boxes) were getting shat upon in the name of that thankless, all consuming deity answering only to the dread name of 'the economy'? Poll coming...


 
It's a fairly well known phenomenon that people first become radicalised by policies and events that affect them directly.
I don't see that because the cuts have radicalised students who may otherwise have not been politically-active, that I should say "fuck off, you student Johnny-Come-Lately cunts", though, because that would be stupid, pointless and sectarian, as well as elitist (my activism is considerably more widely-based that yours") bollocks.


----------



## dylans (Dec 23, 2010)

> ARAGORN: Send out riders, my lord. You must call for aid.
> 
> THÉODEN: And who will come. Workers? The unemployed? We are not so lucky in our friends as you. The old alliances are dead.
> 
> ...





> Gandalf. If the beacons of anti tuition fees demos are lit, the workers must be ready for war.
> Theoden: Tell me, why should we ride to the aid of those who did not come to ours? What do we owe the students?





> Aragorn: The Beacons of the universities. The Beacons are lit! the students call for aid.
> Theoden: (hesitates)......And the workers will answer. Muster the trade unions. Assemble the strikers at hyde Park. As many men as can be found. You have two days. On the 26th March, we ride for London... and war.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> They're here now, aren't they?


 
Quite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2010)

@ dylans.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2010)

lol indeed


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 23, 2010)

Brilliant, dylans!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

dylans said:


>


 
a late competitor for post of the year


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 23, 2010)

dylans said:


>


 
If that makes the NUS leadership the embittered and power mad Denethor then it's pretty spot on I reckon.

And if we're in the mood for torturing analogies to death, what was the battle of the pellenor fields save the struggle of the workers and ordinary folk to defend what was, almost literally, an ivory tower? What happened to the farmland eh? What happened to the villages and towns on the plain below Minas Tirith? Sacrificed for the sake of the posh cunts. Twas ever thus.


----------



## londheart (Dec 23, 2010)

I think your thread deserves more consideration than the reactionary knee-jerk assumption that your intent is counter-revolutionary, your left-wing credentials inadequate, Frank. Poor co-ordination of protest is a real issue, as are continual historical protests exposing relative privilege and Spanish practices amongst the protestors. I thought the same thing in the miners' strike, and on London Tonight, ASLEF, striking for triple-pay on Boxing Day, was caught out by a reporter saying there's people worse off than you, lad. It wouldn't be so undermining if it weren't true. 
You remind me of me, Frank - a lone thinker despised and misunderstood by the unthinking mob.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 23, 2010)

Spooky, I think you've pulled.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

londheart said:


> I think your thread deserves more consideration than the reactionary knee-jerk assumption that your intent is counter-revolutionary, your left-wing credentials inadequate, Frank. Poor co-ordination of protest is a real issue, as are continual historical protests exposing relative privilege and Spanish practices amongst the protestors. I thought the same thing in the miners' strike, and on London Tonight, ASLEF, striking for triple-pay on Boxing Day, was caught out by a reporter saying there's people worse off than you, lad. It wouldn't be so undermining if it weren't true.
> You remind me of me, Frank - a lone thinker despised and misunderstood by the unthinking mob.


you're understood all too well, loser.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> If that makes the NUS leadership the embittered and power mad Denethor then it's pretty spot on I reckon.
> 
> And if we're in the mood for torturing analogies to death, what was the battle of the pellenor fields save the struggle of the workers and ordinary folk to defend what was, almost literally, an ivory tower? What happened to the farmland eh? What happened to the villages and towns on the plain below Minas Tirith? Sacrificed for the sake of the posh cunts. Twas ever thus.


 Yeah, back to what you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> If that makes the NUS leadership the embittered and power mad Denethor then it's pretty spot on I reckon.
> 
> And if we're in the mood for torturing analogies to death, what was the battle of the pellenor fields save the struggle of the workers and ordinary folk to defend what was, almost literally, an ivory tower? What happened to the farmland eh? What happened to the villages and towns on the plain below Minas Tirith? Sacrificed for the sake of the posh cunts. Twas ever thus.


i don't think tolkein ever mentions any towns or villages on the plain below minas tirith.


----------



## dylans (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> If that makes the NUS leadership the embittered and power mad Denethor then it's pretty spot on I reckon.
> 
> And if we're in the mood for torturing analogies to death, what was the battle of the pellenor fields save the struggle of the workers and ordinary folk to defend what was, almost literally, an ivory tower? What happened to the farmland eh? What happened to the villages and towns on the plain below Minas Tirith? Sacrificed for the sake of the posh cunts. Twas ever thus.



Isn't the real analogy that in his heart Theoden knew his bitterness and anger were wrong and self defeating. He knew that the enemy would benefit from division and he knew that by not responding to the call for solidarity he would hand the enemy an easy victory. He would in fact be a traitor instead of a hero? 

The eye of Cameron is watching


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...you know; benefit claimants, public sector workers, people who need public services, Cameron's personal photographer, all that lot. Where was the righteous anger at mandatory unpaid labour for the jobless, or cessation of benefits for disabled people based on government targets rather than their actual capacity to work? Where were the students when lots of people who are far worse off than they are (and far too busy to go on repeated coach trips to london to smash up phone boxes) were getting shat upon in the name of that thankless, all consuming deity answering only to the dread name of 'the economy'? Poll coming...



who said solidarity was dead?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 23, 2010)

I can't help myself, I just have to post this (tangentially relevant) link ... 



> The Lord of the Rings is much more deep-rooted in its infantilism than a good many of the more obviously juvenile books it influenced. It is Winnie-the-Pooh posing as an epic. If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the Mob - mindless football supporters throwing their beer-bottles over the fence the worst aspects of modern urban society represented as the whole by a fearful, backward-yearning class for whom "good taste" is synonymous with "restraint" (pastel colours, murmured protest) and "civilized" behaviour means "conventional behaviour in all circumstances". This is not to deny that courageous characters are found in The Lord of the Rings, or a willingness to fight Evil (never really defined), but somehow those courageous characters take on the aspect of retired colonels at last driven to write a letter to The Times and we are not sure - because Tolkien cannot really bring himself to get close to his proles and their satanic leaders - if Sauron and Co. are quite as evil as we're told. After all, anyone who hates hobbits can't be all bad.


 Epic Pooh


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2010)

actually Theoden was the wise but corrupted king who needed the Voice of Wisdom (mithrander) to awake him to Gondor's call. He had to beat off the welsh dunlanders with their swarthy allies first. Theres was not so much a wakening to solidarity but a base appeal to the very High Men who gave the riddermark its air of something greater than simply thatch and horse fucking.

And SpookyFrank, you are better than this shit. 'Where were you' stuff is pointless and divisive.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2010)

on a side note, just saw the Narnia film and Mr Tumnus is dodgier than a catholic priest.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2010)




----------



## scifisam (Dec 23, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> on a side note, just saw the Narnia film and Mr Tumnus is dodgier than a catholic priest.


 
Tumescent, even. 

There's a scene in one of the books where Lucy makes loves to the goblins, the elves, the dogs.... 'Lucy made love to everyone in the room.' The meaning has changed somewhat since then. I hope.


----------



## southside (Dec 23, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> They're here now, aren't they?


 
Yes, the million heir son of David Gilmour even got arrested for getting over excited at the demo about the price hike.

Tbh I can see where a lot of the students are coming from myself and the issue that really pains me is the fact that the inner city kids who have the intellect to better their lives are being stifled out of a university education by blatant elitism in the name of what can only be described as a tedious buzzword, deficit.  

Where will you be spooky when the cuts have an  impact on your life? and force you out into the cold cold life of not having the right qualifications because some eaton pricks decided to fuck your life up.

Not that I'm bashing you for anything you say of course, infact its really easy to make yourself look a bit of a James.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2010)

CS Lewis has a cruel streak a mile wide. Trolling his child readers is not something I'd put past him.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 23, 2010)

Its not really about tuition fees or students, its about an entire generation feeling well and truly shafted. Everything from the ability to buy houses to the availability of jobs. The targets of that anger are as much the Phil Greens and Vodaphones for tax dodging as they are the Lib Dems for selling out. The anger on the demos was about doors being slammed in faces rather than funding for ancient norse studies being cut. 

Also the question "where were the students", well where was 99% of Britain? And its not the students, its the youth, the demos were to diverse to simply label them 'students'. The youths have shown it takes more than kettles, battons and horses to keep them of the streets week after week. Whos now going to follow them?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 23, 2010)

Most students protesting now will not feel the effects of the changes in tuition fees (Universities in England will be able to charge tuition fees of up to £9,000 per year from 2012), or the scrapping of EMA (EMA will close to new applicants from the 1st of January 2011).

Dumb op, dumb poll.


----------



## londheart (Dec 23, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> SpookyFrank, you are better than this shit. 'Where were you' stuff is pointless and divisive.


Only in your small, reactionary world and that of this virtual ghetto. You are doing the usual thing of the protest control freaks, following the enemy agenda: you are talking about the students now because they're in the media. How about looking at students other times? I do. I ask things like, 'Why isn't the NUS in the TUC,' and 'Why do they work such long hours' - basic questions for a trade unionist. And d'you know what? Middle class Aaron hasn't got an answer - he doesn't even understand the questions, or see them as valid or sane - he's middle class!


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 23, 2010)

londheart said:


> Only in your small, reactionary world and that of this virtual ghetto. You are doing the usual thing of the prostest control freaks, following the enemy agenda: you are talking about the students now because they're in the media. How about looking at students other times? I do. I ask things like, 'Why isn't the NUS in the TUC,' and 'Why do they work such long hours' - basic questions for a trade unionist. And d'you know what? Middle class Aaron hasn't got an answer - he doesn't even understand the questions, or see them as valid or sane - he's middle class!


 
we've got a live one!


----------



## embree (Dec 23, 2010)

what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2010)

londheart said:


> Only in your small, reactionary world and that of this virtual ghetto. You are doing the usual thing of the protest control freaks, following the enemy agenda: you are talking about the students now because they're in the media. How about looking at students other times? I do. I ask things like, 'Why isn't the NUS in the TUC,' and 'Why do they work such long hours' - basic questions for a trade unionist. And d'you know what? Middle class Aaron hasn't got an answer - he doesn't even understand the questions, or see them as valid or sane - he's middle class!


 
I see. Newsletter that I might take a glance at, o prophet of the working man?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 23, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Shut up, Frank, you pillock.


That was constructive and helpful.

Pillock?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> we've got a live one!


 
Must... get ...in ...ghetto


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2010)

12 grams of butter this week!


----------



## dylans (Dec 23, 2010)

londheart said:


> Only in your small, reactionary world and that of this virtual ghetto.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> That was constructive and helpful.
> 
> Pillock?


 
Concise and to the point, I thought. SpookyFrank isn't usually a pillock, but he is in this thread. He's having a pillock moment.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> That was constructive and helpful.
> 
> Pillock?


 
It was precisely as constructive as the OP.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pillock


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

He's having a truthful moment. Always dodgy.


----------



## N_igma (Dec 23, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...you know; benefit claimants, public sector workers, people who need public services, Cameron's personal photographer, all that lot. Where was the righteous anger at mandatory unpaid labour for the jobless, or cessation of benefits for disabled people based on government targets rather than their actual capacity to work? Where were the students when lots of people who are far worse off than they are (and far too busy to go on repeated coach trips to london to smash up phone boxes) were getting shat upon in the name of that thankless, all consuming deity answering only to the dread name of 'the economy'? Poll coming...



Were you there to support the students then?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 23, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Concise and to the point, I thought. SpookyFrank isn't usually a pillock, but he is in this thread. He's having a pillock moment.



Yeah, he's usually sound.



N_igma said:


> Were you there to support the students then?


 
Valid question.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He's having a truthful moment. Always dodgy.


Let's hope he don't go Liberal...


----------



## southside (Dec 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Let's hope he don't go Liberal...


 
Yeah! Just like that Nick Clegg bloke was.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 23, 2010)

Short answer to the question: they were in school you muppet.

Slightly longer answer: you might as well ask, where were the unions and the benefits claimants when the original tuition fees were brought in? We live in a successfully divided society and I don't think 'the students' are to blame for that.

Even longer answer: This is one of those threads that baffles me from time to time, where someone who likes to see themselves as well radical comes along and trots out an argument based on the lies of right wing newspapers. The main lie the papers have been peddling is that the student protests are 'selfish' and they are just rioting for themselves. A moment's reflection will reveal this to be a lie. If you're a student now, you're not affected by these changes to tuition fees. Therefore any student on the streets now is almost by definition not doing it for themselves but for other people. So if you accept this, you might move on to another of the right wing newspaper lies, which is that they are protesting for the benefit of middle class people like them. This is a lie on two levels - firstly, the protesters were not all middle class (and not all students even) and secondly, if you talk to any of those who have put work into these student protests, and even most of those who turned up, they were very consciously fighting for an education system open to all (at least on the financial level) - they are very aware that the current fees have already put off people from poorer backgrounds from going to university etc - and very few of them were old enough to care about their own future children yet.

But y'know, you could just read the newspapers and believe them too. That way we'll all stay *really* divided.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Stop obsessing over "the lies of right wing newspapers" ffs - you call everyone else a cunt each time you do this. You all me, you call me family, you call my mates idiots driven by the papers. They don't even read the papers - who the fuck does? -You're shit at this.  Catch up.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Stop obsessing over "the lies of right wing newspapers" ffs - you call everyone else a cunt each time you do this. You all me, you call me family, you call my mates idiots driven by the papers. They don't even read the papers - who the fuck does? -You're shit at this.  Catch up.


 
Papers, radio, tv - it's all over them. How do you think people come by these almost identical opinions they express then? Why do I end up having the same conversations with people, having to discuss the straw men I've also encountered in the right wing press/radio etc rather than talking about what's actually happening politically?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Papers, radio, tv - it's all over them. How do you think people come by these almost identical opinions they express then? Why do I end up having the same conversations with people, having to discuss the straw men I've also encountered in the right wing press/radio etc rather than talking about what's actually happening politically?


 
Because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know how to talk to people.


Jesus christ, do you want a formal declaration of yes i agree with you and your party before we start talking? This is _oh no the builders are coming_ elevated to a political level. You know, that middle class fear.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 24, 2010)

What would happen if only The Guardian and The Independent were available in a town for a month? Would the people see the light?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2010)

A lot of hostility against things I didn't say there.
Right wing papers I had in mind would range from the Sun and NotW through the Mail and Express to the Times and Telegraph. 
But I await being told how to talk to people with interest


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 24, 2010)

That you don't consider the Guardian and Independent to be right-wing speaks volumes.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> That you don't consider the Guardian and Independent to be right-wing speaks volumes.



I'm sure it does. I love the Guardian so much that my comments account on there is now pre-moderated because nearly every post I made was having a go at the guardian


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2010)

londheart said:


> Only in your small, reactionary world and that of this virtual ghetto. You are doing the usual thing of the protest control freaks, following the enemy agenda: you are talking about the students now because they're in the media. How about looking at students other times? I do. I ask things like, 'Why isn't the NUS in the TUC,' and 'Why do they work such long hours' - basic questions for a trade unionist. And d'you know what? Middle class Aaron hasn't got an answer - he doesn't even understand the questions, or see them as valid or sane - he's middle class!


 
the nus isn't in the tuc because it is not a trade union. you're fucking stupid.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 24, 2010)

wouldn't a more obvious question be, why aren't other groups doing what the students are doing?


----------



## londheart (Dec 24, 2010)

pickman's model said:


> the nus isn't in the tuc because it is not a trade union. You're fucking stupid.


all hail the national un-union of students!


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 24, 2010)

What trade do students do?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2010)

small scale shotting, if you are lucky.


----------



## revlon (Dec 24, 2010)

> Where were the students?
> 
> * Asleep
> * Down the Birmingham Six bar quaffing watered-down carlsberg
> ...



actually thought it was quite funny.

three things immediately sprung to mind
1. 'trade union consciousness' great phrase, great days 
2. the general strike
3. charlie gilmour and otis ferry bare knuckle boxing on the playing fields of eton while zoe williams shouts from her vespa 'it's not worth it'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2010)

londheart said:


> all hail the national un-union of students!


 
you've a nasty stutter there


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 24, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...you know; benefit claimants, public sector workers, people who need public services, Cameron's personal photographer, all that lot. Where was the righteous anger at mandatory unpaid labour for the jobless, or cessation of benefits for disabled people based on government targets rather than their actual capacity to work? Where were the students when lots of people who are far worse off than they are (and far too busy to go on repeated coach trips to london to smash up phone boxes) were getting shat upon in the name of that thankless, all consuming deity answering only to the dread name of 'the economy'? Poll coming...


 
In the case of many students - they also campaign on other issues........I recall that DFail used to frequently bemoan the number of students taking part in rallies etc; asking why they were not "in lectures, etc" especially when the subject was, for example CND, Iraq war, the Poll Tax. There are many other examples....
Back in the old days (ie when I was one) apart from serious study and coursework, a number of other issues - and action days, fundraising, supporting others figured highly in the calender!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 24, 2010)

FWIW I was playing devil's advocate in the OP. Trolling, to put it another way. I kind of thought people would get that from my tone but never mind. The 'selfish whining posh kids' angle is gonna keep coming thick and fast from the press and the people who are out kicking off need to have an answer to it. I don't know what the answer is to be honest, the swappies will doubtless nag on about unions and so forth but I have seen little to suggest that the unions are up for a fight over the cuts issue. I know students who have been doiong their research on this and are genuinely seeking to undermine the government narrative from an angle the press won't touch. What I would suggest (for the record I haven't been out in the streets much, save some anti-tax dodger stuff, but only because I live on a protest site in the middle of nowhere most of the time) is fucking off the NUS entirely and openly inviting everyone to come on demos and actions against cuts. Also, lets pack the 'occupations' in shall we? They take up a shitload of everyone's time and are really quite silly. It's not like the universities are responsible for what's happening, do people really think Cameron and pals give a fuck if the university of northwest Northamptonshire is having to move their philosophy seminars to a different building?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 24, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> I have seen little to suggest that the unions are up for a fight over the cuts issue.



I'd beg to differ. January 29th & March 26th are just the beginning of a Union fight back.


----------



## londheart (Dec 24, 2010)

Lo Siento. said:


> wouldn't a more obvious question be, why aren't other groups doing what the students are doing?


1. Many of the most disadvantaged among us are officially 'on the sick,' which poses a particular problem re demos etc: 'On the sick, but well enough to take one's chances on a demo?!' The _Sun_ reporters would have a field day. Thus the castration of potentially the most fertile field for palpable unrest, and another reason for the continued Establishment 'massaging' of the unemployment figures in this way.

2. I don't want to offend you, because you look Hispanic, but direct action isn't all it's cracked up to be: increasingly dangerous and risky, meanwhile, unmet opportunities for more mundane activism, such as attending one's local Labour Party and TU events and meetings, abound. And perhaps one shouldn't resort to direct action until these more basic opportunities have been fully explored. You & I might have explored them, but clearly a lot of other people haven't, yet - especially the young (which could be one reason they're being offered Labour Party membership for 1p at this time).

3. Despite being 'on the sick,' I am an on-and-off part-time student. In the past, this entitled one to an 'Associate Membership' status of the NUS, bringing a card and some associated benefits for a few quid a year. Cheap at the price, and maybe _under-priced_, but now withdrawn altogether, which gave me the impression, if I may be forgiven, of an apparent long-term move to the right, loss of membership income and withdrawal of service by the NUS. Okay, so I'm not a full-time student, but who else is going to take up any student issues which might arise at the colleges/courses I attend, or provide said benefits? 

4. And then there's Aaron, the picture of youthful middle-class _arrivisme_, political yuppydom and irresponsibility.  He came to the London Socialist Film Co-op, once, like all the lost causes - they come _once_, and expect someone else to keep the show on the road & make up the audience. And can you imagine me bringing up the student issues I refer to with this well-scrubbed-looking young polished bee, on the occasion I mention? - he would have been so wrongfooted by it, so upset, so I kept my mouth shut. We only want the best for Aaron, after all...


----------



## londheart (Dec 24, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> What trade do students do?


Fair question, or at least so it occurred to me, at first, also, after first posting the issue. Students could (and have done) teach as they learn, but that's not entirely up to them, anyway. But it's a non-issue, in the end, the fact being that the prefix 'trade(s)...' in 'trade(s) union' is an anachronistic Britishism, possibly designed in the first place to avoid frightening horses, but no doubt confusing many young working class lads & lasses whose goal is to live in the present.  The historical and heroic National Union of the Unemployed and Workers also once had a mass membership, but I expect it got asked the same ultimately lame and divisive question.


----------



## londheart (Dec 24, 2010)

*SpookyFrank spooked?*



SpookyFrank said:


> FWIW


Very little



SpookyFrank said:


> I was playing devil's advocate in the OP. Trolling, to put it another way. I kind of thought people would get that from my tone


I think we kind of did, from the fashionable irony in your poll (altho responding to a fashionably ironic poll question is a bit too much like mental acrobatics, TBH ).



SpookyFrank said:


> The 'selfish whining posh kids' angle is gonna keep coming thick and fast from the press


Particularly as it is an issue. After all, did they not kick off because their Lib Dem votes let them down, and were they not, in the first place, going along with a middle class student loan system which is no way to fund anything (unless you're middle class, and it's what you're dad's company does?)?



SpookyFrank said:


> the swappies


?



SpookyFrank said:


> lets pack the 'occupations' in shall we? They take up a shitload of everyone's time and are really quite silly. It's not like the universities are responsible for what's happening, do people really think Cameron and pals give a fuck if the university of northwest Northamptonshire is having to move their philosophy seminars to a different building?


Did they not nearly occupy Tory HQ, and a space where the next-in-line-to-the-throne used to be?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Dec 24, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Also, lets pack the 'occupations' in shall we? They take up a shitload of everyone's time and are really quite silly. It's not like the universities are responsible for what's happening, do people really think Cameron and pals give a fuck if the university of northwest Northamptonshire is having to move their philosophy seminars to a different building?


 Some of the fat cat Chancellors of these unis are cheerleading the changes to the uni funding system. I'd say that warrants kicking up a bit of a fuss, no?


----------



## londheart (Dec 24, 2010)

Wolveryeti said:


> Some of the fat cat Chancellors of these unis are cheerleading the changes to the uni funding system. I'd say that warrants kicking up a bit of a fuss, no?


The trouble with irony is that once it kicks off, you never know when it stops (particularly in a written medium where there are no other indicators) - which is why it comes across ultimately, as in the first place, as implying a lack of real engagement.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 24, 2010)

londheart said:


> The trouble with irony is that once it kicks off, you never know when it stops (particularly in a written medium where there are no other indicators) - which is why it comes across ultimately, as in the first place, as implying a lack of real engagement.



What the cunting fuck are you going on about?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2010)

I for one am glad we have londheart to set us all straight - I now see the error of my ways. The only question remaining is what should I do with the 500 I love Aaron Porter T-shirts I just had printed?


----------



## londheart (Dec 24, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> I for one am glad we have londheart to set us all straight - I now see the error of my ways. The only question remaining is what should I do with the 500 I love Aaron Porter T-shirts I just had printed?


I wonder if Conservative Party HQ know about irony? - it doesn't really matter, does it?


----------



## embree (Dec 25, 2010)

are you on medication or something?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 25, 2010)

embree said:


> are you on medication or something?


 
No, he's "being clever". 

Be kind. Allow him his moment in the sun.


----------



## londheart (Dec 25, 2010)

embree said:


> are you on medication or something?


I resist conventional medicine quite consitently, and promote the Alliance for Natural Health


----------



## N_igma (Dec 25, 2010)

Play into the hands of the Tories! Divide and rule! Cunts!


----------



## londheart (Dec 25, 2010)

N_igma said:


> Play into the hands of the Tories! Divide and rule! Cunts!


One common mistake of the left I've noticed, over the years, is to blame the enemy for all our woes, all our divisions.


----------



## flutterbye (Dec 25, 2010)

This may be old, but it made me smile


----------



## Roonster (Dec 25, 2010)

No ..don't fuck off.. where were they in the 80's when Thatcher was mashing up the unions?.. now all of a sudden the students reckon they are being picked on.. fair enough they get out and do something about it but as soon as they are out of Uni they will be voting Tory!


----------



## audiotech (Dec 25, 2010)

Well I met a fair few students, who both participated in miners support groups and were active alongside miners on picket lines.


----------



## dylans (Dec 25, 2010)

Roonster said:


> No ..don't fuck off.. where were they in the 80's when Thatcher was mashing up the unions?.. now all of a sudden the students reckon they are being picked on.. fair enough they get out and do something about it but as soon as they are out of Uni they will be voting Tory!


 
We have to ask ourselves if we want to fight the cuts or not? If we do then it is our duty to respond to those who are fighting with unity and solidarity. Not pointless whining about the 80s for fucks sakes. Don't be so fucking stupid. The only thing that can defeat an effective fightback is division. So put up or shut up. Support those who are already fighting or fuck off because frankly this divisive crap only aids the enemy.


----------



## rioted (Dec 25, 2010)

Roonster said:


> No ..don't fuck off.. where were they in the 80's when Thatcher was mashing up the unions?.. now all of a sudden the students reckon they are being picked on.. fair enough they get out and do something about it but as soon as they are out of Uni they will be voting Tory!


Students of the 80s are now in their forties. The students of today weren't born then.


----------



## londheart (Dec 25, 2010)

I saw a recent headline about students demonstrating against government in Venezuela, allegedly one of the most progressive left-wing nations on earth, and thought of...


----------



## londheart (Dec 25, 2010)

Also, did I not hear of a move within the NUS to remove Aaron Porter for showing insufficient support for the demos, or some such? If there is a genuine internecine struggle, should we not inform ourselves of it, rather than pushing unity without?


----------



## flutterbye (Dec 25, 2010)

Roonster said:


> No ..don't fuck off.. where were they in the 80's when Thatcher was mashing up the unions?.. now all of a sudden the students reckon they are being picked on.. fair enough they get out and do something about it but as soon as they are out of Uni they will be voting Tory!


 
Maybe, maybe not. The student protests are a return to public resistance.
It's a great start to the new decade. Long may it last.


----------



## bingiman (Dec 26, 2010)

If you really have that much energy you are better off attacking bankers rather than students.


----------



## bingiman (Dec 26, 2010)

flutterbye said:


> Maybe, maybe not. The student protests are a return toh  public resistance.
> It's a great start to the new decade. Long may it last.


----------



## dylans (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Also, did I not hear of a move within the NUS to remove Aaron Porter for showing insufficient support for the demos, or some such? If there is a genuine internecine struggle, should we not inform ourselves of  it, rather than pushing unity without?


 
What are you talking about? Noone is suggesting unity with that treacherous snake. Attacking Aaron Porter is not attacking the student movement, it's attacking one of the obstacles to that movement.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> What are you talking about? Noone is suggesting unity with that treacherous snake. Attacking Aaron Porter is not attacking the student movement, it's attacking one of the obstacles to that movement.


Okay. Looking at that, does anyone know where AP stands politically?


----------



## yield (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Okay. Looking at that, does anyone know where AP stands politically?


 
Aaron Porter is a member of the Labour Party.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> What are you talking about? Noone is suggesting unity with that treacherous snake. Attacking Aaron Porter is not attacking the student movement, it's attacking one of the obstacles to that movement.


 
Sunny Hundal was.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 26, 2010)

What a curious thread


----------



## dylans (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Okay. Looking at that, does anyone know where AP stands politically?


 
yeah. he's a cunt


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

yield said:


> Aaron Porter is a member of the Labour Party.


So am I - but there are Labour Party members and Labour Party members. When you look at the Wikipedia entry, it says he graduated four years ago. He may look around the same age as most college students, especially to those of a different generation, but this is not, when you look into it, most people's idea of a representative 'student.' Four years after graduation, most people are in a career. Which makes him in fact very much a full-time professional, in a 'union' so unprofessional that it isn't TUC-affiliated, fails to take up obvious issues like student hours (students are often given 'homework' to cover most of their leisure time!), and acts, like all bad protestors, by responding to the enemy agenda (the gradual introduction and increase in tuition fees for English students) instead of having its own. When Porter appeared on the Daily Politics show, instead of giving the usual short shrift accorded to union leaders in dispute (do they even get a look-in?), Andrew Neill apparently said, '_I think I was listening to a future MP there!_' (Yes, the same Andrew Neill who is so in awe of youth that he reportedly and visibly pays for it).


----------



## killer b (Dec 26, 2010)

he is in a career. well spotted.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

The money doesn't look good, tho - the (unusually intimate?) Wiki entry says he's still living with his parents.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 26, 2010)

you're in the labour party


----------



## killer b (Dec 26, 2010)

spotted that a few posts back... 





londheart said:


> meanwhile, unmet opportunities for more mundane activism, such as attending one's local Labour Party and TU events and meetings, abound.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

You guys have a better idea?


----------



## killer b (Dec 26, 2010)

you lot can fuck off too?


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

killer b said:


> you lot can fuck off too?


Not so much a response as an absence of moderation...


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 26, 2010)

where were the labour party?


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> where were the labour party?


 Given the nature of the beast, potentially anywhere, on both sides, for example. Or did you mean the leadership?


----------



## editor (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> I resist conventional medicine quite consitently, and promote the Alliance for Natural Health


Don't spam please.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 26, 2010)

jesus christ, it's a labourite moon.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Given the nature of the beast, potentially anywhere, on both sides, for example. Or did you mean the leadership?


 
Just the sort of clarity and lead needed


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Sunny Hundal was.


 
AH, but he's yet another enemy of the people -one of those soft-left labour clowns urging a lib-dem vote in may to change the face of british politics. One of those pluralist london bloggers who've not yet realised what's going on, swimming in the same shit as Laurie Penny etc


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Just the sort of clarity and lead needed


Being fucked over, then.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> AH, but he's yet another enemy of the people -one of those soft-left labour clowns urging a lib-dem vote in may to change the face of british politics. One of those pluralist london bloggers who've not yet realised what's going on, swimming in the same shit as Laurie Penny etc


He may have urged a Lib Dem vote in May, but he's in Labour, now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

Not sure i get what you're saying here - that labour members are also getting fucked over by the cuts? And? So are lib-dems and tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> He may have urged a Lib Dem vote in May, but he's in Labour, now.


 
He was in labour _then_. What a great handle on the situation he clearly had.

edit: no he wasn't, he was merely supporting labour (in the same way he'd *previously urged tory votes *i presume "...if you’re brown, then its not worth voting Labour for the sake of your own security." - this of the party he's now made such a principled stand by joining) - he did join later. Point stands, a confused liberal who didn't get what's going on in may and the months before and hasn't suddenly changed his spots by the magic process of filling in an application form. And these people (and there are many of them thrusting themselves to the front right now) are trying to blunt any fight-backs against the cuts or tuition fees rises from being effective by funneling them solely into official channels, channels that they and their liberal networks control and that have to go through them, they're the ones with the contacts and experience etc


----------



## dylans (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> He may have urged a Lib Dem vote in May, but he's in Labour, now.


 
Fuck off with your labour party. If the LP wants to milk the benefits from the anti cuts struggle by doing NOTHING to support it they will be in for a big surprise. We won't get fooled again. We remember who introduced tuition fees. We remember that LP has put forward no anti cuts alternative and we remember the LP are still wedded to the same neo lib economics that are being used to justify this attack on the welfare state.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> Fuck off with your labour party. If the LP wants to milk the benefits from the anti cuts struggle by doing NOTHING to support it they will be in for a big surprise. We won't get fooled again. We remember who introduced tuition fees. We remember that LP has put forward no anti cuts alternative and we remember the LP are still wedded to the same neo lib economics that are being used to justify this attack on the welfare state.


It seems important to distinguish between the Labour Party leadership and its ordinary members, who are often individually, and sometimes collectively, politically indistinguishable from what you say here.


----------



## killer b (Dec 26, 2010)

you could say the same about the lib dem membership ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

Why are they in the labour party? Whay are you? They/are have no real say in a damn thing the leadership - who you pretty much identify as rotten - decides to do. Surely if you did you'd have done something about the extreme neon-liberalism practiced by your party when it was in power for 13 years? Or maybe the membership was quite happy with it? I didn't see much dissent to be honest - and what there was often saw the attacks as a price worth paying for power in an odd mirror image of the lib-dems today.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why are they in the labour party? Whay are you? They/are have no real say in a damn thing the leadership - who you pretty much identify as rotten - decides to do. Surely if you did you'd have done something about the extreme neon-liberalism practiced by your party when it was in power for 13 years? Or maybe the membership was quite happy with it? I didn't see much dissent to be honest - and what there was often saw the attacks as a price worth paying for power in an odd mirror image of the lib-dems today.


This seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Inside the Labour Party I supported the Diane 4 Leader campaign, which, if successful, might have changed all that. It wasn't successful because the Critics (yes, you) preferred haranguing from the upper balcony over getting involved.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> This seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Inside the Labour Party I supported the Diane 4 Leader campaign, which, if successful, might have changed all that. It wasn't successful because the Critics (yes, you) preferred haranguing from the upper balcony over getting involved.


 Sorry, there is absolutely no argument or explanation of anything contained in that post. Your always doomed attempt to elect a hypocrite cosy in the bosom of the establishment to an even more exalted place in that same establishment wasn't successful because i personally didn't support someone who i don't support in a party that i don't support never mind am a member of - not because she got fuck all votes because her PR-led fake radical image politics isn't supported by the majority of your party and never really has been?


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 26, 2010)

Is Sunny Hundal the global warming loon in the Gordian?


----------



## dylans (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> This seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Inside the Labour Party I supported the Diane 4 Leader campaign, which, if successful, might have changed all that. It wasn't successful because the Critics (yes, you) preferred haranguing from the upper balcony over getting involved.


 
Diane? Is that the same Diane who showed her socialist credentials by sending her kid to private school. Oh we are in good hands there aren't we?


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, there is absolutely no argument or explanation of anything contained in that post.


There doesn't have to be. Posts don't need to explain themselves (except to some) and posters aren't always psychic enough to second-guess what your problem with it is going to be.



butchersapron said:


> Your always doomed attempt to elect a hypocrite cosy in the bosom of the establishment to an even more exalted place in that same establishment


'Your,' never 'our?' Whither oh-so-superior Planet Butchersapron? Is it real, at all? 



butchersapron said:


> ...wasn't successful because i personally didn't support someone who i don't support in a party that i don't support never mind am a member of - not because she got fuck all votes because her PR-led fake radical image politics isn't supported by the majority of your party and never really has been?


This is getting circular - the 'majority' you refer to is determined, is it not, by the number of external Critics, like yourself, who insist on not joining, not influencing, while saying things like, 'Sorry guv, I hain't got a penny at the moment.'


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> Diane? Is that the same Diane who showed her socialist credentials by sending her kid to private school. Oh we are in good hands there aren't we?


Do you think I hadn't thought of that - the one item the media was interested in? Did you think I hadn't balanced that with everything else, and considered her explanation that there were no good state schools in her neighbourhood at the time, while mindful of the disruptions, ribbings and bad dinners I got at my own (supposedly 'high standard') state school? You don't need mental acrobatics to agree, in principle, that she supports standards.
And you remain, to me, a shadowy, non-public figure, who could, for all I and many others here know, be spouting hypocrisy.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> There doesn't have to be. Posts don't need to explain themselves (except to some) and posters aren't always psychic enough to second-guess what your problem with it is going to be.
> 
> 
> 'Your,' never 'our?' Whither oh-so-superior Planet Butchersapron? Is it real, at all?
> ...


 
I asked you a series of questions and outlined some problems with potential answers - you chose to post some mad shit with no relation to my post in reply.

Er..yes:

*'your'* because you just said it was a campaign that you were part of.
*'never' * - becuase it's true and borne out 100% by the votes
*'Our'* - didn't appear in my post at all - what on earth would be the problem if it did?

What is is this lat line madness? Maybe people don't want to join the labour party because they don't trust it, have seen how it acts in power and how little influence the ordinary members have and can have (even if you go along with the fantasy that they're all right on socialist types). Your logic really is the logic of the mad section of the far-left re-appearing in the labour party - just as deluded and just as impotent.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Is Sunny Hundal the global warming loon in the Gordian?


Do my eyes deceive me? Is this global warming scepticism on the supposedly famously radical urban75 forum?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Do you think I hadn't thought of that - the one item the media was interested in? Did you think I hadn't balanced that with everything else, and considered her explanation that there were no good state schools in her neighbourhood at the time, while mindful of the disruptions, ribbings and bad dinners I got at my own (supposedly 'high standard') state school? You don't need mental acrobatics to agree, in principle, that she supports standards.
> And you remain, to me, a shadowy, non-public figure, who could, for all I and many others here know, be spouting hypocrisy.


 
My god you're shit - oh, _you'd _considered it had you? That's ok then! 

You can support private health care, private education, the breaking of the welfare state, the destruction of state pensions etc on the catch all ground of _support of standards_ - it's precisely what the lib-dems and tories are doing right now, and precisely what your party used to continue the attacks of the previous tory administration.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 26, 2010)

Nothing radical about this forum chief.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Do my eyes deceive me? Is this global warming scepticism on the supposedly famously radical urban75 forum?


 
No, it's labour party and aaron porter stoogism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

Roonster said:


> No ..don't fuck off.. where were they in the 80's when Thatcher was mashing up the unions?.. now all of a sudden the students reckon they are being picked on.. fair enough they get out and do something about it but as soon as they are out of Uni they will be voting Tory!


 
I remember plenty of students being activist in the 70s and 80s. They were there on the demos and picket lines with the rest of us. Students did become de-politicised during the Major and Blair years, but that was hardly surprising, given the combination of the lack of big causes to rally round (supporting other activists and action, apartheid, etc) and lack of effective coordination by national and regional officers, who were usually more intent on facilitating their own careers than on advancing student activism.

As for your "as soon as they leave uni they'll be voting Tory" line, get a grip. Any analysis of the Tory vote will show you that the voter demographic is concentrated at the upper end of the age scale, not the lower, and is much higher among those with no tertiary education.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> I saw a recent headline about students demonstrating against government in Venezuela, allegedly one of the most progressive left-wing nations on earth, and thought of...


 
...a pompous aperçu to post on Urban?


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I asked you a series of questions and outlined some problems with potential answers - you chose to post some mad shit with no relation to my post in reply.


Funny - it's mutual. My sincere suggestion to you is to slow down, for the sake of content, if nothing else.



butchersapron said:


> *'your'* because you just said it was a campaign that you were part of.
> *'Our'* - didn't appear in my post at all - what on earth would be the problem if it did?


My point was simply that you seem to be criticising from a position unspecified, and therefore not necessarily better. You could be a Tory for all I know. (Your tag is hardly radical _chic_ ).



butchersapron said:


> What is is this lat line madness? Maybe people don't want to join the labour party because they don't trust it, have seen how it acts in power and how little influence the ordinary members have and can have (even if you go along with the fantasy that they're all right on socialist types). Your logic really is the logic of the mad section of the far-left re-appearing in the labour party - just as deluded and just as impotent.


An attack on the left with the flustered tone and way unhip language of the self-appointed psych expert. We really can't be sure about your credentials, now, can we?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Okay. Looking at that, does anyone know where AP stands politically?


 
Wherever is most likely to produce a political career with Labour for him.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Funny - it's mutual. My sincere suggestion to you is to slow down, for the sake of content, if nothing else.
> 
> 
> My point was simply that you seem to be criticising from a position unspecified, and therefore not necessarily better. You could be a Tory for all I know. (Your tag is hardly radical _chic_ ).
> ...



Yet another content free post that deals with no points raised by other posters whatsoever and throws in your second suggestion in a few minutes that other posters are not what they seem. Great stuff, no wonder you're going down so well here. 

And, _you_ may need to take time to come up with your responses or work out what other posters are saying (why you bother when we get the above type stuff in return i don't know) - don't assume that everyone else does - esp when it's powder puff stuff we're replying to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> You guys have a better idea?


 
What, besides ignoring the tripartite neo-liberal tedium-fest that is so-called party politics in the UK? Only that local organisation doesn't need to take place under the banner of a national political party, and that, indeed, doing so is likely to result in autonomy being curtailed, and local organising being shaped to fit the needs of the local manifestation of a national political party.

I left the Labour party when they resiled from Clause Four; when they sopped being a party that even pretended to represent organised labour and the working class. What's your justification for supporting them, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> My god you're shit - oh, _you'd _considered it had you? That's ok then!


It's hardly my fault that I, like the OP, happen to live where the local politics isolates radicals (and urban75 is not proving the panacea advertised).



butchersapron said:


> You can support private health care, private education, the breaking of the welfare state, the destruction of state pensions etc on the catch all ground of _support of standards_ - it's precisely what the lib-dems and tories are doing right now, and precisely what your party used to continue the attacks of the previous tory administration.


No I don't. I was simply defending an imperfect candidate in the public eye from hypocritical sniping from out of the virtual dark.


----------



## ymu (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Funny - it's mutual. My sincere suggestion to you is to slow down, for the sake of content, if nothing else.
> 
> 
> My point was simply that you seem to be criticising from a position unspecified, and therefore not necessarily better. You could be a Tory for all I know. (Your tag is hardly radical _chic_ ).
> ...


 
You've been here a few days and made 25 posts. It may be difficult for _you_ to know where a poster who has been here 9 years and made over 70,000 posts, most of them in the politics forums, is coming from - but it's really quite idiotic of you to presume to extend that to the rest of us.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Not so much a response as an absence of moderation...


 
Ah, yet another poster who didn't bother to read the board FAQs. They allow "robust language", you milquetoast!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I left the Labour party when they resiled from Clause Four; when they sopped being a party that even pretended to represent organised labour and the working class. What's your justification for supporting them, if you don't mind me asking?



I asked him the same question with some related points about the potential answers a little earlier - this was the bizzare reply i got back:



> This seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Inside the Labour Party I supported the Diane 4 Leader campaign, which, if successful, might have changed all that. It wasn't successful because the Critics (yes, you) preferred haranguing from the upper balcony over getting involved.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> He may have urged a Lib Dem vote in May, but he's in Labour, now.


 
So, supported one party that follows neo-lib economic principles, now a member of another party that follows neo-lib economic principles. 
At least the cuntery is consistent, I suppose.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> It's hardly my fault that I, like the OP, happen to live where the local politics isolates radicals (and urban75 is not proving the panacea advertised).
> 
> 
> No I don't. I was simply defending an imperfect candidate in the public eye from hypocritical sniping from out of the virtual dark.


 
I wasn't saying that you did, i was saying that it was possible to do so using the meaningless vague catch all justification that you accepted from DA for sending her kids to private schools against her publicly stated principles -that she believes in _raising standards_. Once again you totally ignored the substantive content of the post you replied to. Please say something.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...a pompous aperçu to post on Urban?


Not pompous, and no, I'm not reading much relevant news from Venezuela in urban75 forums, except in my own post.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Not pompous, and no, I'm not reading much relevant news from Venezuela in urban75 forums, except in my own post.


 
Right, there's not a lot of long threads in the world politics forum - there's just your single line passing comment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> Fuck off with your labour party. If the LP wants to milk the benefits from the anti cuts struggle by doing NOTHING to support it they will be in for a big surprise. We won't get fooled again. We remember who introduced tuition fees. We remember that LP has put forward no anti cuts alternative and we remember the LP are still wedded to the same neo lib economics that are being used to justify this attack on the welfare state.


 
From the '90s-onward, the very name "Labour party" (whether prefixed with "new" or not) ceased to have any meaning, and it's not like the party had ever been of and for the labour movement wholeheartedly. A true party of labour would have at least resisted the infiltration of the ruling classes into its' ranks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> This seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Inside the Labour Party I supported the Diane 4 Leader campaign, which, if successful, might have changed all that. It wasn't successful because the Critics (yes, you) preferred haranguing from the upper balcony over getting involved.


 
Why would any rational person who doesn't agree with the political turn to neo-liberalism "get involved"? It's not as if Abbott (or any of the other leadership candidates) was offering socialism, or even a watered-down version, just the same slightly-ameliorated neo-liberalism that new Labour had historically offered.

I know it's incredibly easy (and indeed often a deliberate tactic) to dismiss criticism from outside as coming from people who didn't "get involved", but that doesn't make the criticism any less accurate, does it?


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I wasn't saying that you did, i was saying that it was possible to do so using the meaningless vague catch all justification that you accepted from DA for sending her kids to private schools against her publicly stated principles -that she believes in _raising standards_. Once again you totally ignored the substantive content of the post you replied to. Please say something.


I'm struggling with your grammar (are you _sure_ you're not going too fast?) but the gist I get is that I somehow accepted DA's choice of school for her only son. I really didn't. It was really not my problem. It typifies a surrender to the hypocritical media agenda, which has always stated or implied that 'a man's private life has no bearing on his public life.' 
A woman, it appears, is expected to live by altogether loftier standards & ideals. 
More to the point, and as she kept pointing out (because the media didn't and wouldn't), you guys let the big money candidates defeat her over the real issue in hand.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

Deluded.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> There doesn't have to be. Posts don't need to explain themselves (except to some) and posters aren't always psychic enough to second-guess what your problem with it is going to be.


A post that explains itself tends to obviate the need for psychic powers, though.



> 'Your,' never 'our?' Whither oh-so-superior Planet Butchersapron? Is it real, at all?


"Our" implies an acceptance of the _status quo_ with reference to UK party politics. If one doesn't accept your _status quo_, then it doesn't indicate an attempt at moral superiority, but merely a disagreement.

Of course, it's more convenient for your view of yourself and your politics to believe or to imply that any critique of your political position is motivated by feelings of superiority, rather than perhaps interrogating the possibility that you're projecting, isn't it?  



> This is getting circular - the 'majority' you refer to is determined, is it not, by the number of external Critics, like yourself, who insist on not joining, not influencing, while saying things like, 'Sorry guv, I hain't got a penny at the moment.'


 
An interesting *perpetuation* of circular argument, that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Do my eyes deceive me? Is this global warming scepticism on the supposedly famously radical urban75 forum?


 
"Supposedly" is right. I'd say "don't believe the hype", but you're a Labour supporter, which rather militates toward that being exactly what you do.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> From the '90s-onward, the very name "Labour party" (whether prefixed with "new" or not) ceased to have any meaning, and it's not like the party had ever been of and for the labour movement wholeheartedly.


Nothing controversial there, for the typical, not-canvassing-at-the-moment, Labour Party rank and file. In fact I would go one step further, and replace '90s-onward' with 'inception.'



ViolentPanda said:


> A true party of labour would have at least resisted the infiltration of the ruling classes into its' ranks.


There I part company.
1. It implies some sort of oppressive, ongoing, Stalinist purge.
2. It prejudges individuals from their origins (the reverse of socialism and liberalism).
3. What makes Ed Miliband, for example, 'ruling class,' if not the subtly privileged access to subtly unegalitarian education of the kind the students appear to be fighting for?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yet another content free post that deals with no points raised by other posters whatsoever and throws in your second suggestion in a few minutes that other posters are not what they seem. Great stuff, no wonder you're going down so well here.


It's not "content-free", it's just that the content is irrelevant to the points made and questions posed. The content is more about the poster wishing to present a picture of condescension and/or amused tolerance, probably rooted in a mistaken sense of intellectual superiority.

I wonder if londheart is related to Gorski?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I asked him the same question with some related points about the potential answers a little earlier - this was the bizzare reply i got back:


 
Yep, that's bizarre!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Not pompous...


To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies, you would say that, wouldn't you?


> and no, I'm not reading much relevant news from Venezuela in urban75 forums, except in my own post.


Why do you expect to? This isn't an international news site, it's a bulletin board where people express opinions.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Our" implies an acceptance of the _status quo_ with reference to UK party politics.


Not in my book. I was just trying to get in the understated point that _any_ party of _any_ political colour might be corrupted by power, if 'we' (meaning you, the Greens, the Socialists, the butchersaprons) were humble enough to countenance that possibility. The flight into endless re-creations of the party of labour could thereby be seen as time-wasting and naive.



ViolentPanda said:


> Of course, it's more convenient for your view of yourself and your politics to believe or to imply that any critique of your political position is motivated by feelings of superiority, rather than perhaps interrogating the possibility that you're projecting, isn't it?


No.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Nothing controversial there, for the typical, not-canvassing-at-the-moment, Labour Party rank and file. In fact I would go one step further, and replace '90s-onward' with 'inception.'
> 
> 
> There I part company.
> ...



3 is exactly the sort of process that leads to 1 - it doesn't need a stalinist purge, modern forms of exclusive social power and privilege operate far more subtly and far more neutrally. That you can idetify this in the case of wider society but not in your own parties functioning is pretty worrying.

2. No, wrong. And why tie socialism and liberalism together - that a game giver away. Socialism is utterly tied up with peoples backgrounds through it's central analysis of the way the system functions, how it produces then transmits privilege and power throughout it's body, through the roles certain institutions play in this etc. This doesn't mean that people who benefit at one point in their life from this privilege and power who recognise and work against this system are morally damned forever. I thought you said you were some sort of radical lefty?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Nothing controversial there, for the typical, not-canvassing-at-the-moment, Labour Party rank and file. In fact I would go one step further, and replace '90s-onward' with 'inception.'


I wasn't attempting to be controversial, and while "inception" may appear to be apt to you, I'd argue that those concessions that the pre-'90s Labour party secured from capital, while very obviously attempts to buy off the working classes, at least meant that the Labour party saw it as in its' own interest to occasionally represent the interests of those working classes, hence the name "Labour party" was semantically-accurate until then, even if only glancingly so.



> There I part company.
> 1. It implies some sort of oppressive, ongoing, Stalinist purge.


No, it doesn't, "infiltration" implies nothing of the sort. get ye to a dictionary - preferably a printed one.


> 2. It prejudges individuals from their origins (the reverse of socialism and liberalism).


Are all members of the ruling class born as members of the ruling class? Have I implied that this is the case?
If not, then you appear to have drawn another mistaken inference.


> 3. What makes Ed Miliband, for example, 'ruling class,' if not the subtly privileged access to subtly unegalitarian education of the kind the students appear to be fighting for?


Access to higher education is hardly the _sine qua non_ of membership of the ruling class, and to imply that it is seems ignorant at best, devious at worst.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Not in my book. I was just trying to get in the understated point that _any_ party of _any_ political colour might be corrupted by power, if 'we' (meaning you, the Greens, the Socialists, the butchersaprons) were humble enough to countenance that possibility.


Perhaps if you made your point clearly in the first place, you wouldn't need to constantly explicate the "understated points"? Just a thought.


> The flight into endless re-creations of the party of labour could thereby be seen as time-wasting and naive.


On whose part?


> No.


I'm not so sure.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, besides ignoring the tripartite neo-liberal tedium-fest that is so-called party politics in the UK?


Like, someone else here didn't know it was like that? _Who_'s being superior?



ViolentPanda said:


> Only that local organisation doesn't need to take place under the banner of a national political party, and that, indeed, doing so is likely to result in autonomy being curtailed, and local organising being shaped to fit the needs of the local manifestation of a national political party.


Ah - the Localist Party - the one the weird fascist dude takes over if you ever dare to go on holiday? 



ViolentPanda said:


> I left the Labour party when they resiled from Clause Four


Well done, you. That'll teach Murdoch and the rest! 



ViolentPanda said:


> when they sopped being a party that even pretended to represent organised labour and the working class.


You could state that at any point in the party's history, if you look closely enough, with relevant analysis. You just followed a herd, a fashion - you reacted.



ViolentPanda said:


> What's your justification for supporting them, if you don't mind me asking?


Have you got a better idea?


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> "infiltration" implies nothing of the sort. get ye to a dictionary - preferably a printed one.


I heartily agree that there could and can be such a thing as 'inflitration' from the right (if that was what you were trying to say, in your inimitably comradely fashion?). But 1) it would be about deviation from party principle, not the person's background, and 2) how could we possibly convince the brainwashed masses that infiltration might be a two-way street?


----------



## dylans (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Have you got a better idea?


 
Strike action and street violence on a European scale.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> Strike action


General strike action is an emergency measure which should have been taken as soon as it became clear that a government, or series of governments openly hostile to the workforce came into power (1979). To suggest it now, when an uneasy coalition is arguably self-destructing before our eyes, begs the question, 'Why now?' If you are a student facing a loan-upping, I can understand it, but isn't that like calling a rebellion against the throne, or ruling class, because the heir apparent is not getting his/her way?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Like, someone else here didn't know it was like that? _Who_'s being superior?


Oh look, you've gone back to answer an earlier question so you can try and get some licks in!



> Ah - the Localist Party - the one the weird fascist dude takes over if you ever dare to go on holiday?


Surely you're not conflating "local" and "localist"?



> Well done, you. That'll teach Murdoch and the rest!


It wasn't intended to teach "Murdoch and the rest" anything. 



> You could state that at any point in the party's history, if you look closely enough, with relevant analysis. You just followed a herd, a fashion - you reacted.


Except that, with honest non value-laden analysis, you can't actually state that. until Kinnock. While the Labour party previous to that may not have been a beacon of socialist endeavour, it did at least make the right gestures toward the electorate. Post-Kinnock it became about power for powers' sake, with Blairism being the apotheosis of that. I didn't follow a fashion. I followed my heart and my mind.



> Have you got a better idea?


Whether I have or not is hardly relevant. Am I supposed to accept the _status quo_ because no alternative is offered? The reality is that I *don't* have to, however much hacks from Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems try to convince otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> General strike action is an emergency measure which should have been taken as soon as it became clear that a government, or series of governments openly hostile to the workforce came into power (1979). To suggest it now, when an uneasy coalition is arguably self-destructing before our eyes, begs the question, 'Why now?' If you are a student facing a loan-upping, I can understand it, but isn't that like calling a rebellion against the throne, or ruling class, because the heir apparent is not getting his/her way?


 
I think you spelt 1997 wrong there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> I heartily agree that there could and can be such a thing as 'inflitration' from the right (if that was what you were trying to say, in your inimitably comradely fashion?).


Who said anything about "the right"?


> But 1) it would be about deviation from party principle, not the person's background, and 2) how could we possibly convince the brainwashed masses that infiltration might be a two-way street?


You appear to be missing the point that infiltration by the ruling class has nothing to do with deviationism, and your _spiel_ about two-way infiltration is irrelevant to my original point. As for your comment about the "brainwashed masses", tasteless.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> General strike action is an emergency measure which should have been taken as soon as it became clear that a government, or series of governments openly hostile to the workforce came into power (1979).


Mmm, because the history of general strikes is so replete with success and/or full collaboration between the Labour party and organised labour, isn't it? 


> To suggest it now, when an uneasy coalition is arguably self-destructing before our eyes...


The relevant word here being "arguably".


> ...begs the question, 'Why now?' If you are a student facing a loan-upping, I can understand it, but isn't that like calling a rebellion against the throne, or ruling class, because the heir apparent is not getting his/her way?


No, because this isn't about the students, or about party politics as much as it (i.e. the cuts and their effects) is about *everyone* whose lives are being or will be adversely affected. Thats why NOW (and for however long it takes) is the time for action, not when the Labour party has come up with a plan that actually has utility for the mass of people affected by the cuts, but now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I think you spelt 1997 wrong there.


 
I think londheart is attempting the old "it all started with Thatcher, therefore she is solely to blame" _schtick_. Even if we set aside the fact that it *didn't* in fact start with Thatcher, there's still no way that "new" Labour can avoid their share of the blame. After all, they perpetuated so many of her policies even though they had a chance to change them.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think londheart is attempting the old "it all started with Thatcher, therefore she is solely to blame" _schtick_.


Not exactly, but surely history might have looked more kindly on a TUC striking against a poll result which i) was FPTP & imperfect and ii) declared open war on its members and principles?



ViolentPanda said:


> Even if we set aside the fact that it *didn't* in fact start with Thatcher, there's still no way that "new" Labour can avoid their share of the blame.


 Catch up, we aren't, and we are gradually (if inevitably) dropping the 'new.' 



ViolentPanda said:


> After all, they perpetuated so many of her policies even though they had a chance to change them.


We also gave them a left twist while you weren't paying attention, and abolished centuries of aristocratic political privilege, for which we get zero credit.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

You're living in some fantasy world that sounds like the WRP circa that same period - 'TUC off your knees', type rubbish. The idea that a vote was taken on FPTP would offer a valid justifcation is nonsense, you could apply it then to any general election ever. As for the rest of the whining about you not getting credit for anything ever - i wonder if that's anything to with the wider attacks that you initiated and supported.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You're living in some fantasy world that sounds like the WRP circa that same period - 'TUC off your knees', type rubbish.


It doesn't sound rubbish to me - the WRP can't be wrong every time.



butchersapron said:


> The idea that a vote was taken on FPTP would offer a valid justifcation is nonsense, you could apply it then to any general election ever.


Again, I beg to differ. Yes you could, but you could argue that the previous ones hadn't bothered you quite as much as this one, what with fundamentals going out of the window for the next thirty-odd years and all.


----------



## londheart (Dec 26, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You appear to be missing the point that infiltration by the ruling class has nothing to do with deviationism, and your _spiel_ about two-way infiltration is irrelevant to my original point. As for your comment about the "brainwashed masses", tasteless.


So you don't care about their views, you just don't want the rich bastards on board, period. Fine, but someone somewhere in the world can and will apply that back to you.
And since when was the truth 'tasteless?'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> Not exactly, but surely history might have looked more kindly on a TUC striking against a poll result which i) was FPTP & imperfect and ii) declared open war on its members and principles?
> 
> Catch up, we aren't, and we are gradually (if inevitably) dropping the 'new.'


Sophistry. Point me at any instance of a member of the PLP accepting their share of the blame, and I'll show you just how shallow that acceptance is. As for the reversion to the old name, we've already heard from some quarters of your parliamentary party that it's mostly an attempt to re-capture some of the core vote that was lost to the relentless creep toward centrism.



> We also gave them a left twist while you weren't paying attention, and abolished centuries of aristocratic political privilege, for which we get zero credit.


 Are you taking the piss? You gave things a centrist twist. Shifting a policy from the right to the centre may involve a leftward direction, but does not constitute a "left twist". As for the HoL, big hairy deal, given the justification for doing so.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> So you don't care about their views, you just don't want the rich bastards on board, period. Fine, but someone somewhere in the world can and will apply that back to you.
> And since when was the truth 'tasteless?'


 
This isn't politics. This is nothing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> So you don't care about their views, you just don't want the rich bastards on board, period. Fine, but someone somewhere in the world can and will apply that back to you.


And still you don't get it. It's neither about wealth _per se_, or about having them or their views on board.
Why do you think they're called "the ruling classes"? Perhaps because inevitably in our current political structure, their views are represented in inverse proportion to their numbers. They're able to access power and influence to their own ends, and if you don't believe that is wrong, you'll do well in the modern Labour party.


> And since when was the truth 'tasteless?'


Because "the brainwashed masses" are a figment of the imagination of the political class.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This isn't politics. This is nothing.


 
Apparently this is radicalism.

When did the meaning change?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 26, 2010)

londheart said:


> We also gave them a left twist while you weren't paying attention, and abolished centuries of aristocratic political privilege, for which we get zero credit.


I assume you're referring to the incident in which the Blair government promised reform of the House of Lords, progressed rapidly to an 'intermediate' stage of the reform before deciding what the HoL would finally look like, then left the HoL in that intermediate stage for the rest of their rather long period in office because it allowed them to pack the house with their rich friends? I really, really don't think you should parade one of them most obvious incidences of the corruption of the Blair government as an example of the wonderful good they did.

As for the 'left twist'. It's true that the Blair-Brown regime was something of an odd hybrid, in that with great fanfare it upped spending in many areas while adhering to a neo-liberal ideology. What that meant in practice was that a lot of the extra money went to...private companies, often with no improvement to services and often involving a degradation of the services and reduction in wages for those at the bottom. So was it a 'left twist' to the dominant ideology, or just a rather clever (clever enough to fool you anyway) form of corruption sitting well within that ideology?


----------



## londheart (Dec 27, 2010)

*Let's twist again*



Brainaddict said:


> So was it a 'left twist'


Now you can join, vote for or become a governor in your local health trust or local involvement network: arguably more democratic than pre-privatisation.
And the massive assault on centuries of assumed genetic and ethnic(?) privilege in what you know as 'the HoL'  should perhaps not be brushed aside with a bit of after-the-fact valid criticism.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

Nor should it be presented as anything at all. Certainly not a shield with which to dismiss criticism of 13 years of neo-liberalism that you voted for. Because, you could have stopped it couldn't you? Couldn't you?


----------



## londheart (Dec 27, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> And still you don't get it. It's neither about wealth _per se_, or about having them or their views on board.
> Why do you think they're called "the ruling classes"? Perhaps because inevitably in our current political structure, their views are represented in inverse proportion to their numbers. They're able to access power and influence to their own ends, and if you don't believe that is wrong, you'll do well in the modern Labour party.


But we can all access power and influence in the Labour Party. You are accessing power and influence in a localist forum, which could be a waste of talent when LP seats go empty.



ViolentPanda said:


> Because "the brainwashed masses" are a figment of the imagination of the political class.


You underestimate the power, the techniques and the successes of the enemy. To which subject: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/340445-Emergency-petition-to-stop-Rupert-Murdoch?p=11368794#post11368794


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

londheart said:


> But we can all access power and influence in the Labour Party. You are accessing power and influence in a localist forum, which could be a waste of talent when LP seats go empty.



No you can't and you live in a mad chocolate factory world if you really believe that.

You are the enemy btw.

How long have you been in the labour party -are you part of their 1p membership lot?


----------



## londheart (Dec 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Nor should it be presented as anything at all.


It is the (partial) triumph of capitalism over feudalism, over two centuries after the USA and France but non-violent.



butchersapron said:


> Certainly not a shield with which to dismiss criticism of 13 years of neo-liberalism that you voted for.


You know I, we didn't. There was no alternative where I live. 



butchersapron said:


> Because, you could have stopped it couldn't you? Couldn't you?


Yes - but that would have revealed my heavenly power.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> It is the (partial) triumph of capitalism over feudalism, over two centuries after the USA and France but non-violent.
> 
> 
> You know I, we didn't. There was no alternative where I live.
> ...



Right, ignore the point and proceed straight to an ill-digested understanding of  the laughable Nairn-Anderson thesis. Why? To impress people? Who did you impress?

Yes there was.

Bottled out of answering. Why didn't you stop 13 years of neo-liberalism?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2010)

How long have you been in the labour party -are you part of their 1p membership lot?


----------



## londheart (Dec 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Right, ignore the point and proceed straight to an ill-digested understanding of  the laughable Nairn-Anderson thesis.


The which thesis? 



butchersapron said:


> Why? To impress people? Who did you impress?


It impresses myself - I don't see it written down elsewhere.



butchersapron said:


> Yes there was.


Submitting a blank voting paper. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. One vote - are you arguing over one non-decisive vote?



butchersapron said:


> Bottled out of answering. Why didn't you stop 13 years of neo-liberalism?


 Democratic politicians don't start/stop things - we facilitate them. You can take a horse to water, but if (s)he prefers to spend his/her time in the minutiae of anonymous localism...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2010)

> Democratic politicians don't start/stop things - we facilitate them. You can take a horse to water, but if (s)he prefers to spend his/her time in the minutiae of anonymous localism...


I give you londheart.


> Democratic politicians don't start/stop things - we facilitate them.



What do you even think this guff means?


----------



## londheart (Dec 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> How long have you been in the labour party -are you part of their 1p membership lot?


Not quite. Many years membership, two (unsuccessful) council candidacies in unwinnables, uncontested Labour/Co-operative health foundation trust governor of late.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2010)

Yeah, i'm sure they were unwinnable with this leaflet:



> Democratic politicians don't start/stop things - we facilitate them.


----------



## londheart (Dec 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What do you even think this guff means?


It means you can't knock the opportunities for fightback we have laid before you unless & until you try them.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2010)

No it doesn't, it says something totally different. You're already lying, even here and now.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 28, 2010)

like, fight the power innit


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2010)

> It means you can't knock the opportunities for fightback *1)we have laid before you* 2)*unless* & *3)until* you try them.


So many wows. 1-3. Fuck me.


----------



## londheart (Dec 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Right, ignore the point and proceed straight to an ill-digested understanding of  the laughable Nairn-Anderson thesis.


I didn't 'ignore the point,' and 'the laughable Nairn-Anderson thesis' is, it appears, about British devolution rather than evolution from feudalism.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> I didn't 'ignore the point,' and 'the laughable Nairn-Anderson thesis' is, it appears, about British devolution rather than evolution from feudalism.


 
No, it's really really not.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2010)

> It means you can't knock the opportunities for fightback _we have laid before you_ unless & _until_ _you_ try them.



I love this.


----------



## londheart (Dec 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, it's really really not.


Go on, then - inform us.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2010)

Us? 

There's only you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Us?
> 
> There's only you.


but how many of londheart are there?


----------



## londheart (Dec 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There's only you.


 Like, everyone else here is perfectly familiar with 'the Nairn-Anderson thesis?' Yeah, right.


----------



## Athos (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> I'm struggling with your grammar (are you _sure_ you're not going too fast?) but the gist I get is that I somehow accepted DA's choice of school for her only son. I really didn't. It was really not my problem. It typifies a surrender to the hypocritical media agenda, which has always stated or implied that 'a man's private life has no bearing on his public life.'
> A woman, it appears, is expected to live by altogether loftier standards & ideals.
> More to the point, and as she kept pointing out (because the media didn't and wouldn't), you guys let the big money candidates defeat her over the real issue in hand.


 
She's despised for the same reason the Lib Dems are: the alternatives were openly arseholes, she let people believe she was different, so they felt all the more betrayed when her mask slipped.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> Like, everyone else here is perfectly familiar with 'the Nairn-Anderson thesis?' Yeah, right.


 
Don't reference it then - tellingly, you didn't realise that it formed the basis for what were the arguments presented to defend your great and oh so ignored constitutional reforms.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> But we can all access power and influence in the Labour Party. You are accessing power and influence in a localist forum, which could be a waste of talent when LP seats go empty.


What a load of bollocks.
The last 16 years of Labour has seen power diverted away from the grass roots, meaning that what "power" is left to the constituency parties is meaningless. You used to at least be able to push for grass roots policy initiatives to be adopted by the party at conference. Christ almighty, the constituency parties don't even have the power to select their own MP any more.



> You underestimate the power, the techniques and the successes of the enemy. To which subject: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/340445-Emergency-petition-to-stop-Rupert-Murdoch?p=11368794#post11368794


 
Another meaningless petition. Well done.


----------



## londheart (Dec 28, 2010)

Athos said:


> She's despised for the same reason the Lib Dems are: the alternatives were openly arseholes, she let people believe she was different, so they felt all the more betrayed when her mask slipped.


 Her mask didn't really slip. Diane Abbott, a black single mother from inner London, made no pretence of the fact that she had sent her only son to a fee-paying school, to save him from the alleged (and highly believable) rigours of the young black culture he would otherwise have been subjected to, and in apparent contradiction to her radical socialist agenda - it isn't even possible. Am I addressing media prey or what?


----------



## Athos (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> Her mask didn't really slip. Diane Abbott, a black single mother from inner London, made no pretence of the fact that she had sent her only son to a fee-paying school, to save him from the alleged (and highly believable) rigours of the young black culture he would otherwise have been subjected to, and in apparent contradiction to her radical socialist agenda - it isn't even possible. Am I addressing media prey or what?


 
She's despicable. She, and those who defend her hypocrisy, sicken me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> Her mask didn't really slip. Diane Abbott, a black single mother from inner London, made no pretence of the fact that she had sent her only son to a fee-paying school, to save him from the alleged (and highly believable) rigours of the young black culture he would otherwise have been subjected to, and in apparent contradiction to her radical socialist agenda - it isn't even possible. Am I addressing media prey or what?


 
yeh cos lots of black single mothers from hackney have gone to oxford and made friends with that well-known liberal michael portillo. her radical socialist agenda? what radical socialist agenda?


----------



## Deareg (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> One common mistake of the left I've noticed, over the years, is to blame the enemy for all our woes, all our divisions.


 
Somebody has to take the blame.


----------



## londheart (Dec 28, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos lots of black single mothers from hackney have gone to oxford and made friends with that well-known liberal michael portillo.



She actually went to the same _state school_ as Michael fucking Portillo - do yer homework!



Pickman's model said:


> her radical socialist agenda? what radical socialist agenda?


Be honest (it would make a change from mean _chic_, after all) - the first black single mum party leader would have sent a message or three in itself!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> She actually went to the same _state school_ as Michael fucking Portillo - do yer homework!


Do yours, you _arschloch_.
She went to Harrow Grammar for Girls, and contrary to popular belief , Portillo went to Harrow Grammar for Boys. Sibling schools, but *not*  "the same state school".


----------



## Athos (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> She actually went to the same _state school_ as Michael fucking Portillo - do yer homework!
> 
> 
> Be honest (it would make a change from mean _chic_, after all) - the first black single mum party leader would have sent a message or three in itself!



The message would be that anyone can attain power if they're prepared to abandon their principles.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 28, 2010)

Athos said:


> The message would be that anyone can attain power if they're prepared to abandon their principles.


 
You really think that Diane Abbott ever really had any principles!!!!!!!!


----------



## londheart (Dec 28, 2010)

What is cheaper or more infantile than posters attacking the principles of socialist candidates from the perspective of resolute anonymity?


----------



## Athos (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> What is cheaper or more infantile than posters attacking the principles of socialist candidates from the perspective of resolute anonymity?


 
If you knew my name, would she be any less of a fucking hypocrite, then?

Oh, and she's not a socialist.


----------



## dylans (Dec 28, 2010)

londheart said:


> the first black single mum party leader would have sent a message or three in itself!


 
What message? 
I remember that same bullshit being said about Margaret Thatcher when she became the first female PM and what message did that send?  That women were just as capable of being total bastards as men? Ok, message received. I don't need the same message about "black single moms" (as if that hypocritical champagne "socialist" has anything in common with struggling working class single parents.)


----------



## londheart (Dec 28, 2010)

dylans said:


> What message?
> I remember that same bullshit being said about Margaret Thatcher when she became the first female PM and what message did that send?  That women were just as capable of being total bastards as men? Ok, message received. I don't need the same message about "black single moms" (as if that hypocritical champagne "socialist" has anything in common with struggling working class single parents.)


I know exactly what you mean. That is a valid worry. I just wish you had been saying this on Day 1 from inside the Diane 4 Leader Campaign, instead of all those ambitious sycophants she had, and instead of making vague and questionable innuendo about 'champagne.'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> What is cheaper or more infantile than posters attacking the principles of socialist candidates from the perspective of resolute anonymity?


 
Diane makes socialist noises, but that doesn't make her either a socialist, or someone with socialist principles.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I said much the same to her in person.   This was, by the way, before the stuff about her son came out, and was a critique of her riding the new Labour horse for all it was worth at the time.


----------



## londheart (Dec 29, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Diane makes socialist noises, but that doesn't make her either a socialist, or someone with socialist principles.
> 
> Oh, and in case you're wondering, I said much the same to her in person.   This was, by the way, before the stuff about her son came out, and was a critique of her riding the new Labour horse for all it was worth at the time.


Fair enough, but, like I said before, that isn't really fair enough, because who are you to criticise (apart from an anonymous online sniper)?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> Fair enough, but, like I said before, that isn't really fair enough, because who are you to criticise (apart from an anonymous online sniper)?


 
Lol


----------



## ymu (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> Fair enough, but, like I said before, that isn't really fair enough, because who are you to criticise (apart from an anonymous online sniper)?


Elected politicians are beyond criticism by ordinary folk now, are they? Good to know where you're coming from (as if it wasn't already obvious).


----------



## londheart (Dec 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lol


duh - what?


----------



## londheart (Dec 29, 2010)

ymu said:


> Elected politicians are beyond criticism by ordinary folk now, are they? Good to know where you're coming from (as if it wasn't already obvious).


 
Since when did we all accept that anonymous snipers = ordinary folk?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 29, 2010)

Anonymous snipers.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> I know exactly what you mean. That is a valid worry. I just wish you had been saying this on Day 1 from inside the Diane 4 Leader Campaign, instead of all those ambitious sycophants she had, and instead of making vague and questionable innuendo about 'champagne.'


 
Stop the anonymous sniping please.


----------



## ymu (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> Since when did we all accept that anonymous snipers = ordinary folk?


You may not be qualified to judge where long-time posters are coming from, but I sure as hell am. Perhaps you should read the boards a bit before wading in with your pathetic party hackery. Or you could just fuck the fuck off.


----------



## Athos (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> Fair enough, but, like I said before, that isn't really fair enough, because who are you to criticise (apart from an anonymous online sniper)?


 
Beyond parody.


----------



## londheart (Dec 29, 2010)

ymu said:


> You may not be qualified to judge where long-time posters are coming from, but I sure as hell am. Perhaps you should read the boards a bit before wading in with your pathetic party hackery. Or you could just fuck the fuck off.


Well bully 4 u! 
Is 'pathetic party hackery' as bad as pathetic oh dear I haven't got one hackery, tho?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> Well bully 4 u!
> Is 'pathetic party hackery' as bad as pathetic oh dear I haven't got one hackery, tho?


 
Are you satire?


----------



## dylans (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> Well bully 4 u!
> Is 'pathetic party hackery' as bad as pathetic oh dear I haven't got one hackery, tho?


 
When there is nothing on the menu but poisonous food don't blame people for walking out of the restaurant


----------



## londheart (Dec 29, 2010)

...and don't blame us for reading between the lines


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> ...and don't blame us for reading between the lines


 
And what are you reading between the lines, prey tell?


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> What is cheaper or more infantile than posters attacking the principles of socialist candidates from the perspective of resolute anonymity?


 
socialist candidate lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> Fair enough, but, like I said before, that isn't really fair enough, because who are you to criticise (apart from an anonymous online sniper)?


 
Who am I to criticise? Someone who pays her wages, and the wages of the other 600+ apologists and time-servers who pretend to be something they're not in order to con the gullible.

Who are *you*?

Just another person looking to get what they can out of the system, from what I see. Choosing the "right" causes to support, making the right noises, and not doing a thing that actually has any meaning to anyone except yourself.

Fucking e-petitions, for fucks' sake!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> duh - what?


 
He's laughing out loud at the way you give yourself away every time you sound off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> Since when did we all accept that anonymous snipers = ordinary folk?


 
Since when did you get elected to speak for anyone besides yourself?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2010)

ymu said:


> You may not be qualified to judge where long-time posters are coming from, but I sure as hell am. Perhaps you should read the boards a bit before wading in with your pathetic party hackery. Or you could just fuck the fuck off.


 
This one believes itself to be a political radical. Strange how that word seems to only get used in parody form nowadays.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> Well bully 4 u!
> Is 'pathetic party hackery' as bad as pathetic oh dear I haven't got one hackery, tho?


 
What, you think people are jealous because they don't belong to a party?

Why do you think political party membership in the UK is at a century's low? Could it be that you have nothing to offer that any  rational person who isn't looking to feed from the trough actually wants?

You don't have to be a member of a political party to do stuff that actually counts in your community.
You do if you're after climbing the greasy pole, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> ...and don't blame us for reading between the lines


 
"Us"? Are you suffering from MPD?


----------

