# Why Labour are Scum



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2013)

With Labour seemingly being the only game in town I think we need a thread illustrating why anybody with any sense wouldn't touch them with a bargepole and exactly what Labour members are supporting.

So here are two stories to kick it off.


> _How the Heygate was sold(out)_
> 
> _The Planning Application was for what was the Heygate Estate an area of 1,100 council homes built in late seventies at the Elephant._
> 
> ...


 
Destroying the arts and closing over half the libraries in Newcastle


> It is also proposing to cut 10 of its 18 libraries and reduce funding to its museums by half.
> 
> .......
> 
> ...


----------



## sim667 (Feb 5, 2013)

But when compared to the tories........


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

... who didn't invade Iraq and bear the responsibility for killing a quarter of a million people it has to be said.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 5, 2013)

two sheds said:


> ... who didn't invade Iraq and bear the responsibility for killing a quarter of a million people it has to be said.


 
They voted for it/supported it. Equally responsible.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2013)

However bad labour are, they'll always be a million times better than the fucking Tories.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 5, 2013)

two sheds said:


> ... who didn't invade Iraq and bear the responsibility for killing a quarter of a million people it has to be said.


 
No, they just egged Blair on every step of the way!


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

Blair and labour bear ultimate responsibility because of the lies they told the rest of the country.

Labour were in another way worse than the tories - they are supposed to be the part of the workers and when they got in after 18 years they turned out just as bad. The tories are the party of the rich and greedy but labour betrayed the people they are supposed to represent.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> However bad labour are, they'll always be a million times better than the fucking Tories.


 
Utter nonsense. Its just that the 'Labour' brand makes you feel better about yourself. Both are two sides of the same shitty stick and in many ways I would argue that worse things happen under a Labour government because of the sort of stupid sentiment you have expressed which means they face less opposition.

Somehow you dont mind being metaphorically fucked if its a nice politican with a red rosette on whilst doing so.


----------



## Remus Harbank (Feb 5, 2013)

both ‘parties’ are two sides of the same coin – the heavy, heavy coin of peasant smackery.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

Can anyone seriously think it makes no difference whatsoever whether the Tories get back in again at the next election or whether we get a Labour government instead?


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 5, 2013)

I don't get those who say they're the same. To those people: would you feel equally disgusted voting for Labour as for the Tories, and if not, why not?


----------



## Random (Feb 5, 2013)

two sheds said:


> ... who didn't invade Iraq and bear the responsibility for killing a quarter of a million people it has to be said.


You're off down a blind alley by accepting this comparison. Labour will always look good when compared to the Tories. That's all they have to do to automatically get millions of votes: point at the Tories; they just have to stay one inch to the left. That's why we need a thread pointing out how self-defeating this kind of support is, because it just allows the LP leadership to drive the party even closer to the Tories.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I don't get those who say they're the same. To those people: would you feel equally disgusted voting for Labour as for the Tories, and if not, why not?


 
Well I would feel more disgusted voting for Labour than the Tories because I see the former as being more hypocritical although my Tory voting days are over so its all hypothetical.


----------



## Onket (Feb 5, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I don't get those who say they're the same. To those people: would you feel equally disgusted voting for Labour as for the Tories, and if not, why not?


 
Yes, I would feel equally disgusted. I've not voted Labour for years, never ever voted Tory. Sadly that means that each time I vote I am basically throwing my vote away. One day I won't be, and I look forward to that day.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 5, 2013)

Onket said:


> Yes, I would feel equally disgusted. I've not voted Labour for years, never ever voted Tory. Sadly that means that each time I vote I am basically throwing my vote away. One day I won't be, and I look forward to that day.


 
And could you ever see a day when you'd vote Labour again? How about Tory?


----------



## maomao (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Can anyone seriously think it makes no difference whatsoever whether the Tories get back in again at the next election or whether we get a Labour government instead?


Yes, the entire political system (which wasn't great in the first place) has been entirely co-opted by neoliberal capitalism. Politicians can tinker round the edges with stuff like gay marriage, asbos, elected police commissioners or whatever insignificant shit they're trying to sell us this week but at the end of the day the Labour party will be trying to prove that they're 'tough on law and order' (see asbos) and the Conservatives will be trying to convince us that they have personal freedoms at heart (see gay marriage) so it'll all end up pretty much the same. Meanwhile the essential political program of fucking over the 99% in favour of the 1% will continue unabated.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 5, 2013)

tusc will save us


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> would you feel equally disgusted voting for Labour as for the Tories, and if not, why not?


Yes, I would.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> tusc will save us


 
A form of voucher democracy could save us. I dont see the democratic process as the problem, just how it is funded and what that brings with it. Make the system state funded via every registered voter having a voucher with a monetary value to give to which ever political party they like, and forbid any other form of financing, and suddenly the politicians have to truly take heed of those they claim to represent.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

Random said:


> You're off down a blind alley by accepting this comparison. Labour will always look good when compared to the Tories. That's all they have to do to automatically get millions of votes: point at the Tories; they just have to stay one inch to the left. That's why we need a thread pointing out how self-defeating this kind of support is, because it just allows the LP leadership to drive the party even closer to the Tories.


 
I agree, but don't see why pointing out Labour's responsibility for Iraq does not belong here. Tories and Lib Dems are now helping to "just" make millions of peoples' lives miserable - that's not as great a crime as being responsible for hundreds of thousands or millions of unnecessary deaths.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

Onket said:


> Yes, I would feel equally disgusted. I've not voted Labour for years, never ever voted Tory. Sadly that means that each time I vote I am basically throwing my vote away. One day I won't be, and I look forward to that day.


 
UKIP in with a real chance, you think?





*scarpers*


----------



## ayatollah (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> However bad labour are, they'll always be a million times better than the fucking Tories.


 
This has always been the mantra right across the Left - even from those with no patience with the consistent pro capitalist status quo record ofall previous  Labour Governments . Defenders of this position rightly point to the very real gains made for the working classs by some previous Labour Governments, the post WWII Welfare state obviously being the biggie.  TODAY  though does New Labour really have any residual connection or loyalty to its traditional working class base ? One only has to look at the social background of the current Parliamentary Labour Party, the money they got/ get from snake-eyed capitalist firms, the penetration of their ranks by "advisors" seconded by Price waterhouse, etc, and the pro-banker, pro capitalist  policies of the blair/Brown  era, to see that the old mantra is now wildly outdated.  The likes of scum like Alan Johnson, entirely dependant on his trades union career for his current status and lifestyle, feels perfectly comfortable , just the other day, to verbally piss on trades unionism yet again !   New Labour have morphed qualitatively over the last 30 years or so, from a generally collaborationist  but nevertheless mass reformist party of organised labour and the working class, to a purely pro-capitalist party, competing only on the fine policy detail of the shared neoloberal economic/political/social agenda. If New Labour were in office today they would be implementing pretty much the IDENTICAL austerity policies of the Coalition. They might be doing it more gradually, and with crocodile tears, but implement them they would. Unlike the class hate-filled Tories, Labour has always understood the need to "boil the (working class) frog ... sloooooowwwly" in case we get too angry, see clearly what's going on, and leap out of the societal  boiling pan and rip their fucking throats out !

With the Trot Left apparently entering long overdue final organisational and doctrinal meltdown, and New Labour utterly lost to any progressive pro-working class role, we all collectively have to seriously start thinking about a building a new mass party of radical left resistance - even if its initially a rag-bag alliance of everyone who simply wants to resist - on the Syriza model. It obviously wouldn't survive forever as a radical route forward - but might at least organise meaningful mass resistance in the medium term. Unfortunately, the chaos on the Trot Left also seems to have given comfort to even more reactionery pseudo-socialist forces - like the neo-stalinist apologists across the blogosphere who currently are salivating at the collapse of the SWP, those who run the "Socialist Unity" blog for instance - cynically masquerading as  proponents  of openness and free debate , in contrast to the cultishness of the SWP - whilst constantly denying the monstrous crimes of stalinism. One things for sure , if the broad Left are ever to attract masses of normal working class people to their ranks they'll/we'll  have to rid themselves/ourselves  of an awful lot of ideological baggage and organisational habits -- and stop suggesting, a la that epochal  world class philosopher and sage, Owen Jones , that we now need to  prioritise "getting  a real socialist movement together to get Labour elected !"         .


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2013)

Random said:


> You're off down a blind alley by accepting this comparison. Labour will always look good when compared to the Tories. That's all they have to do to automatically get millions of votes: point at the Tories; they just have to stay one inch to the left. That's why we need a thread pointing out how self-defeating this kind of support is, because it just allows the LP leadership to drive the party even closer to the Tories.


This precisely.

You support Labour you're arguing/backing exactly the things in the OP.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I agree, but don't see why pointing out Labour's responsibility for Iraq does not belong here. Tories and Lib Dems are now helping to "just" make millions of peoples' lives miserable - that's not as great a crime as being responsible for hundreds of thousands or millions of unnecessary deaths.


The Tories were just as eager for war in Iraq (and a significant proportion of the Labour membership was opposed).  The LDs supported the war once it started.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> This has always been the mantra right across the Left - even from those with no patience with the consistent pro capitalist status quo record ofall previous Labour Governments . Defenders of this position rightly point to the very real gains made for the working classs by some previous Labour Governments, the post WWII Welfare state obviously being the biggie. TODAY though does New Labour really have any residual connection or loyalty to its traditional working class base ?


Barely any, and I hate them for it. But even then, they're still nowhere as near as bad as the Tory party.

If I could vote for them in London, I'd vote Plaid Cymru. At least they have some proper socialist policies left, but they're nowhere near perfect either.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Tories were just as eager for war in Iraq (and a significant proportion of the Labour membership was opposed). The LDs supported the war once it started.


 
Based on lies that the Labour party told. Which will always be the issue. Labour deliberately set out to lie about WMD to justify the war. I am sure the Tories would have supported the war if they had been in government but I doubt they would have told such porkies.


----------



## Balbi (Feb 5, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> tusc will save us



Bit long in the tooth though.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Tories were just as eager for war in Iraq (and a significant proportion of the Labour membership was opposed). The LDs supported the war once it started.


Pathetic, what a snivelling toad you are, this is what your party did/does 



> The OSJI reports that the UK supported CIA rendition operations, interrogated people being secretly detained, allowed the use of British airports and airspace, arranged for one man, Sami al-Saadi, to be rendered to Libya with his entire family, where he was subsequently tortured, and provided intelligence that allowed a second similar operation to take place.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> If I could vote for them in London, I'd vote Plaid Cymru. At least they have some proper socialist policies left, but they're nowhere near perfect either.


 
Now _there's _an idea - Plaid Cymru to stand in England - I'd vote for them too.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> Barely any, and I hate them for it. But even then, they're still *nowhere as near* as bad as the Tory party.





editor said:


> However bad labour are, they'll always be a *million times better* than the fucking Tories.


if they're better the difference is fractional at best...on policy im hard pressed to find the difference myself...all the worst things happening today are a direct continuation of new-labour policies.

"Labour will make cuts to welfare budget if it wins 2015 election" Shadow work and pensions secretary points to resentment of benefit claimants and says social security must be 'reinvented'
enjoy


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

> this is what your party did/does


 
You think that will have stopped happening? I don't justify what happened in any way, shape or form. In fact I'm trying to build opposition to the Tories' "secret courts" proposals which would stop that kind of information getting disclosed.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 5, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Now _there's _an idea - Plaid Cymru to stand in England - I'd vote for them too.


id vote SNP if i could


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2013)

Entirely local but I just heard from my mum at the weekend that Leeds council (Labour run), is closing her local library too.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Feb 5, 2013)

ska invita said:


> if they're better the difference is fractional at best...on policy im hard pressed to find the difference myself...all the worst things happening today are a direct continuation of new-labour policies.
> 
> "Labour will make cuts to welfare budget if it wins 2015 election" Shadow work and pensions secretary points to resentment of benefit claimants and says social security must be 'reinvented'
> enjoy


 
What you are failing to understand is that people who make the sort of proclamations about Labour being 'a million times better than the Tories' (or words to that effect) are not interested in policy but primarily about how they identify themselves. Modern politics are more about brand loyalty than any sort of ideology. I would like to think that Tory voters are proving to be more interested in the later than Labour because of the amount who are switching to UKIP based on hard political matters but I fear that come the next election it will not be the case.


----------



## Onket (Feb 5, 2013)

two sheds said:


> UKIP in with a real chance, you think?


 
I hope not.


----------



## Onket (Feb 5, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> And could you ever see a day when you'd vote Labour again? How about Tory?


 
Who knows if I would vote Labour again. I could have upwards of 50 years left on this planet.

Can't see myself ever voting Tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> What you are failing to understand is that people who make the sort of proclamations about Labour being 'a million times better than the Tories' (or words to that effect) are not interested in policy but primarily about how they identify themselves. Modern politics are more about brand loyalty than any sort of ideology. I would like to think that Tory voters are proving to be more interested in the later than Labour because of the amount who are switching to UKIP based on hard political matters but I fear that come the next election it will not be the case.


Seems to me that people who say that base it entirely on political considerations. What evidence do you have of anything different? Or is this just a generic_ everything everyone else ever does is wrong, they can't even vote for what they see as the least worst option properly nowadays _rant/whinge?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 5, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> With Labour seemingly being the only game in town I think we need a thread illustrating why anybody with any sense wouldn't touch them with a bargepole and exactly what Labour members are supporting.
> 
> So here are two stories to kick it off.
> 
> ...


Good thread. Don't suppose you've got a link for that first story have you?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2013)

The issue not whether Labour are scum or not; but whether there is any political alternative to what is happening, and where that alternative is to be found.

Don't blame Labour or their supporters for seeking a soft social democratic approach - that's what they believe in.

And as for Labour councils implementing the Tory cuts, er what else can they do?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2013)

They can set a needs budget etc


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And as for Labour councils implementing the Tory cuts, er what else can they do?


 
They could show some resistance and table illegal needs budgets - at the very least they can refuse to evict council tenants for falling behind on rent/council tax as a result of benefit changes.


----------



## Onket (Feb 5, 2013)

If they do nothing, they are basically telling people there is no point voting for them.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And as for Labour councils implementing the Tory cuts, er what else can they do?


get some practice in for 2015 when they'll be implementing labour cuts instead


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 5, 2013)

I've got a cracking one from last night - there's a bit of everything in it - lies, hypocrisy, sheer evilness and lashings and lashings of incompetence. On my phone right now so it would take me hours to type it out but when I get in I'll come back here and do a post about it.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 5, 2013)

Miranda Sawyer has just tweeted a link to the story on the U75 blog.


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> However bad labour are, they'll always be a million times better than the fucking Tories.


 
Crap. They are just as bad as each other and at least you KNOW you're going to get shafted by the tories if you're not one of them. Labour are two faced self interested pricks just the same as the tories and have been for a long time.

It's not the social security that needs reinvented, it's the parliamentary system. These people have 'forgotten' that they were elected to represent their voters not to shit on them left, right and centre. Work shy skivers??? Have you seen any parliamentary time lately?? Where the feck are they all?? And they're claiming £60k + to line their own fecking pockets at the cost of you and me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> They could show some resistance and table illegal needs budgets - at the very least they can refuse to evict council tenants for falling behind on rent/council tax as a result of benefit changes.


 
Why the merry fuck would they do that?

where is the mass self confident working class movement demanding they do that and offering to back them up?


----------



## Random (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The issue not whether Labour are scum or not; but whether there is any political alternative to what is happening, and where that alternative is to be found.
> 
> Don't blame Labour or their supporters for seeking a soft social democratic approach - that's what they believe in.
> 
> And as for Labour councils implementing the Tory cuts, er what else can they do?


 If they were Social Democrats worthy of the name at least some of them would be willing to kick up a fuss and show that they were not willing to be the axemen of austerity. Some of them might even be willing to go to prison. Isn't it obvious that there would be a massive outpouring of sympathy for councilors who defie the cuts?

The fact that (as far as I know) no serious amount of Labour representatives want to even try to make austerity unworkable shows that it is not a Social Democratic party at all. It is simply a party that thinks it can do economic Thatcherism without the nasty social and cultural baggage of Thatcher. As a party it genuinely thinks there is no alternative, and is terrified that rocking the boat will stuff its chances of running the British state.

You're right you shouldn't attack people for simply working towards policies they think are a good idea. but the whole point with Labour is that it enforces policies its own members and voters think are shit.

Don't attack a snake for being a snake. But it's a fair point to tell someone wrapping a snake round their neck that it's not a feather boa.


----------



## Random (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> where is the mass self confident working class movement demanding they do that and offering to back them up?


 Where is the mass movement demanding austerity?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2013)

Random said:


> If they were Social Democrats worthy of the name at least some of them would be willing to kick up a fuss and show that they were not willing to be the axemen of austerity. Some of them might even be willing to go to prison. Isn't it obvious that there would be a massive outpouring of sympathy for councilors who defie the cuts?
> 
> The fact that (as far as I know) no serious amount of Labour representatives want to even try to make austerity unworkable shows that it is not a Social Democratic party at all. It is simply a party that thinks it can do economic Thatcherism without the nasty social and cultural baggage of Thatcher. As a party it genuinely thinks there is no alternative, and is terrified that rocking the boat will stuff its chances of running the British state.
> 
> ...


 
Well said.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why the merry fuck would they do that?
> 
> where is the mass self confident working class movement demanding they do that and offering to back them up?


 
they ought to be offering some sought of political leadership, building confidence, mobilising resistance.  Not just saying "if there was a mass movement we'd discover a backbone, but as it is we'll just taxe a big fucking axe to your services instead",


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2013)

Random said:


> Don't attack a snake for being a snake. But it's a fair point to tell someone wrapping a snake round their neck that it's not a feather boa.


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2013)

Random said:


> Where is the mass movement demanding austerity?



Sat in gentleman's clubs in London.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Random said:


> Don't attack a snake for being a snake. But it's a fair point to tell someone wrapping a snake round their neck that it's not a feather boa.


 
Rather depends who it is.

If they're putting it around someone elses neck however...


----------



## Random (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> they ought to be offering some sought of political leadership, building confidence, mobilising resistance.  Not just saying "if there was a mass movement we'd discover a backbone, but as it is we'll just taxe a big fucking axe to your services instead",


I do agree with with Spanky's point, that the lack of a working class movement is the reason why there's no Labour Party backbone. But that's not an excuse, it's an explanation. And it's yet another reason why we always need  independent working class organisations, whether or not Social Democrat/Labour politicians are in government.


----------



## Random (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Rather depends who it is.
> 
> If they're putting it around someone elses neck however...


 Like the anaconda supports the hanged man


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

Random said:


> I do agree with with Spanky's point, that the lack of a working class movement is the reason why there's no Labour Party backbone. But that's not an excuse, it's an explanation. And it's yet another reason why we always need independent working class organisations, whether or not Social Democrat/Labour politicians are in government.


 
Never will there independent organisation if over a dozen variations of excuses for Labour are wheeled out every time.


----------



## Balbi (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> They could show some resistance and table illegal needs budgets - at the very least they can refuse to evict council tenants for falling behind on rent/council tax as a result of benefit changes.



The first one ends, quote quickly given the streamlined legislation, with Eric Pickles setting the budget and all the Councillors in purdah. There's no surcharge issue, as in the eighties - the Councillors get bypassed and neutered by the secretary of state.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

Balbi said:


> The first one ends, quote quickly given the streamlined legislation, with Eric Pickles setting the budget and all the Councillors in purdah. There's no surcharge issue, as in the eighties - the Councillors get bypassed and neutered by the secretary of state.


 
I think you're underestimating the ease with which a Tory cabinet minister could suspend the whole infrastructure of local democracy, override the wishes of the electorate and face down an enraged union workforce and local community.  They could try, but especially if it was to occur in more than one area, this wouldn't be in any way straightforward.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Can anyone seriously think it makes no difference whatsoever whether the Tories get back in again at the next election or whether we get a Labour government instead?


 
Of course it makes a difference.

A difference in presentation of the same policies, you shill.


----------



## Balbi (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I think you're underestimating the ease with which a Tory cabinet minister could suspend the whole infrastructure of local democracy, override the wishes of the electorate and face down an enraged union workforce and local community.  They could try, but especially if it was to occur in more than one area, this wouldn't be in any way straightforward.



It's not so much that they could try, but that it is the process of what happens. The legislation was introduced in the late eighties, and given a bit of a polish recently I believe. The section 5 officer on the council reports the setting of the budget to the finance director and whitehall dept, the council gets a couple of warnings to set a proper budget, and then they lose the power to set budgets. And if you think they would give a fuck, you're very wrong.

There's no good Rocky IV'ing about it - it'd take Labour councils everywhere doing it, and having support in doing it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I don't get those who say they're the same. To those people: would you feel equally disgusted voting for Labour as for the Tories, and if not, why not?


 
I say that they're the same because if you bother to analyse their basic policies, they're the same. What differs is only how they're presented. As I've said _ad nauseam_, a shit sandwich with a flat-leaf parsley garnish is still a shit sandwich.

As for feeling disgusted, I'd feel equally disgusted voting for any of the three main parties. Yellow arseholes, blue arseholes or red arseholes - they're still arseholes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

Onket said:


> Yes, I would feel equally disgusted. I've not voted Labour for years, never ever voted Tory. Sadly that means that each time I vote I am basically throwing my vote away. One day I won't be, and I look forward to that day.


 
Would you be in favour of a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper so you could express disapproval of the choices offered?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Based on lies that the Labour party told. Which will always be the issue. Labour deliberately set out to lie about WMD to justify the war. I am sure the Tories would have supported the war if they had been in government but I doubt they would have told such porkies.


 
Of course they would you're just being naive. They're willing to lie about getting rid of the sick and unemployed being the main problem to address in society, they'll lie about any fucking thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> This has always been the mantra right across the Left...


 
What's that line that pretty much encapsulates every post articul8 makes?

Ah, that's it, "vote Labour with no illusions". The desperate scramble of the ideologically-bereft for any vote they can garner.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Tories were just as eager for war in Iraq (and a significant proportion of the Labour membership was opposed). The LDs supported the war once it started.


 
They did so (and I feel soiled, defending the L-Ds) because it's parliamentary tradition to support the ruling party in such matters once hostilities start.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> They can set a needs budget etc


 
That'd mean having to take responsibility for doing so, and possibly buttfucking any future political career in their party.

So, ain't gonna happen!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why the merry fuck would they do that?
> 
> where is the mass self confident working class movement demanding they do that and offering to back them up?


 
And therein lies part of the problem, IMO.

Many people aren't prepared to lead, but *might* "follow", unfortunately, examples that people can follow are few and far between presently, although this may change as summer comes on, and the austerity measures due to come on-stream between march and July kick in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

chilango said:


> Sat in gentleman's clubs in London.


 
Gentleman's clubs like The Carlton, or "gentlemens' clubs" with nekkid ladies?

Actually, don't answer. It'll obviously be both!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 5, 2013)

Then give people something better to vote for.


----------



## Onket (Feb 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Would you be in favour of a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper so you could express disapproval of the choices offered?



I've always voted for someone, tbh.


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 5, 2013)

Onket said:


> I've always voted for someone, tbh.


 
So had I until the last local election when I decided that not one of them was worth me getting washed, dressed and leaving my house for. The local councillors are a bunch of lying, pathetic, useless shites to a man/woman


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 5, 2013)

Ernestolynch's tactic of scrawling STALIN over his ballot paper looks increasingly sensible.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 5, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> With Labour seemingly being the only game in town I think we need a thread illustrating why anybody with any sense wouldn't touch them with a bargepole and exactly what Labour members are supporting.


 
What's your practical suggestion?

What you're saying is that Labour are not an acceptable alternative to the current government, which I happen to disagree with. Is that what you're saying? I'm assuming you don't mean that the current government are superior to Labour? At least give me that.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> However bad labour are, they'll always be a million times better than the fucking Tories.


 
most of them are tories for fucks sake . Red wedge had some good tunes but it was a load of bollocks.


----------



## youngian (Feb 5, 2013)

geminisnake said:


> So had I until the last local election when I decided that not one of them was worth me getting washed, dressed and leaving my house for. The local councillors are a bunch of lying, pathetic, useless shites to a man/woman


 
You can always go to Washington yourself Mr Smith


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

it's amazing to me how people still defend the Labour Party. The problem in British politics is not which side is in power, it's the narrow limits of the whole political discourse, and the exclusion of the vast majority from that discourse.

If you offer support to the Labour Party, based on whatever criteria, you're helping perpetuate that.


----------



## Onket (Feb 5, 2013)

geminisnake said:


> So had I until the last local election when I decided that not one of them was worth me getting washed, dressed and leaving my house for. The local councillors are a bunch of lying, pathetic, useless shites to a man/woman



I don't think I've ever voted for anyone (while I've been in London) who has actually got in.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

Onket said:


> I don't think I've ever voted for anyone (while I've been in London) who has actually got in.


 
I've lived in various places across south of england for the last 25 years so ditto.


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2013)

Stoat Boy said:


> Utter nonsense. Its just that the 'Labour' brand makes you feel better about yourself. Both are two sides of the same shitty stick and in many ways I would argue that worse things happen under a Labour government because of the sort of stupid sentiment you have expressed which means they face less opposition.
> 
> Somehow you dont mind being metaphorically fucked if its a nice politican with a red rosette on whilst doing so.


I think this may be your most Liked post on here ever.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> it's amazing to me how people still defend the Labour Party. The problem in British politics is not which side is in power, it's the narrow limits of the whole political discourse, and the exclusion of the vast majority from that discourse.
> 
> If you offer support to the Labour Party, based on whatever criteria, you're helping perpetuate that.


 
Good post, and I agree -- apart from you finding it amazing -- I don't find it at all surprising really ...


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 5, 2013)

youngian said:


> You can always go to Washington yourself Mr Smith


 
No I can't. I have difficulty leaving my house most days, the idea of having to interact with people daily scares the feck out of me. I would like to do stuff to help people(and have done before) but I wouldn't be able to switch it off, this is not a good thing for a councillor 
Plus you would need to be more than one or they gang up against you. I've seen it happen


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Don't blame Labour or their supporters for seeking a soft social democratic approach - that's what they believe in.


I'm not I'm blaming them for implementing cuts that will increase inequality, make life worse for most people living in the UK and, as Random has pointed out, are not supported by the majority.



Spanky Longhorn said:


> And as for Labour councils implementing the Tory cuts, er what else can they do?


Is this a joke? They could not fucking implement them, and they wouldn't if they believed in what they profess to believe in.
(I'd also point out that in the first story this measure wasn't "forced" on them by the austerity agenda, they choose to build <100 social homes)


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 5, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> it's the narrow limits of the whole political discourse, and the exclusion of the *vast majority* from that discourse.


"Vast majority"?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Good thread. Don't suppose you've got a link for that first story have you?


Quimcunx posted it on the Heygate thread below and I just pinched it, I think it came from Occupy London's facebook page originally.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> it's amazing to me how people still defend the Labour Party. The problem in British politics is not which side is in power, it's the narrow limits of the whole political discourse, and the exclusion of the vast majority from that discourse.
> 
> If you offer support to the Labour Party, based on whatever criteria, you're helping perpetuate that.


Precisely why we need to make a collection of stories that show exactly what Labour are.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> "Vast majority"?


Yes?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Ernestolynch's tactic of scrawling STALIN over his ballot paper looks increasingly sensible.


 
*Claimed* tactic.

Probably voted Lib-Dem.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

Onket said:


> I don't think I've ever voted for anyone (while I've been in London) who has actually got in.


 
Do us all a favour and vote Boris for Mayor next time round!


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 5, 2013)

Boris is going to get a safe seat imo so won't be available for role of Mayor.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2013)

Once upon a time I'd have given Labour some latitude until _that_ speech.


----------



## Tankus (Feb 5, 2013)

one of kinnocks better ones ...I would have thought


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2013)

Laughable.


----------



## maomao (Feb 5, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Laughable.


Compared to the shit politicians come out with 30 years later it's positively fucking revolutionary.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 5, 2013)

Sheffield 92.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2013)

maomao said:


> Compared to the shit politicians come out with 30 years later it's positively fucking revolutionary.


Witch hunting socialists in the Labour party was "fucking revolutionary"? You'll have to do better than that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 5, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Quimcunx posted it on the Heygate thread below and I just pinched it, I think it came from Occupy London's facebook page originally.


 
Cheers mate


----------



## maomao (Feb 5, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Witch hunting socialists in the Labour party was "fucking revolutionary"? You'll have to do better than that.


I might be thinking of the wrong speech. I couldn't be arsed listening to that welsh cunt. At least there was some fucking socialists to witch hunt in those days.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 5, 2013)

maomao said:


> I might be thinking of the wrong speech. I couldn't be arsed listening to that welsh cunt. At least there was some fucking socialists to witch hunt in those days.


 
Yeah - cos Kinnock hadn't finished the witch hunt.


----------



## maomao (Feb 5, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah - cos Kinnock hadn't finished the witch hunt.


I'm only 38, I don't remember that shit. I thought it was the 'don't get old etc.' speech.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 6, 2013)

maomao said:


> I'm only 38, I don't remember that shit. I thought it was the 'don't get old etc.' speech.


 
I'm only 34


----------



## ymu (Feb 6, 2013)

Random said:


> Where is the mass movement demanding austerity?


----------



## yield (Feb 6, 2013)

ymu said:


>


With the Confederation of British Industry, British Chambers of Commerce and Institute of Directors.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 6, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> This has always been the mantra right across the Left - even from those with no patience with the consistent pro capitalist status quo record ofall previous Labour Governments . Defenders of this position rightly point to the very real gains made for the working classs by some previous Labour Governments, the post WWII Welfare state obviously being the biggie. TODAY though does New Labour really have any residual connection or loyalty to its traditional working class base ? One only has to look at the social background of the current Parliamentary Labour Party, the money they got/ get from snake-eyed capitalist firms, the penetration of their ranks by "advisors" seconded by Price waterhouse, etc, and the pro-banker, pro capitalist policies of the blair/Brown era, to see that the old mantra is now wildly outdated. The likes of scum like Alan Johnson, entirely dependant on his trades union career for his current status and lifestyle, feels perfectly comfortable , just the other day, to verbally piss on trades unionism yet again ! New Labour have morphed qualitatively over the last 30 years or so, from a generally collaborationist but nevertheless mass reformist party of organised labour and the working class, to a purely pro-capitalist party, competing only on the fine policy detail of the shared neoloberal economic/political/social agenda. If New Labour were in office today they would be implementing pretty much the IDENTICAL austerity policies of the Coalition. They might be doing it more gradually, and with crocodile tears, but implement them they would. Unlike the class hate-filled Tories, Labour has always understood the need to "boil the (working class) frog ... sloooooowwwly" in case we get too angry, see clearly what's going on, and leap out of the societal boiling pan and rip their fucking throats out !
> 
> With the Trot Left apparently entering long overdue final organisational and doctrinal meltdown, and New Labour utterly lost to any progressive pro-working class role, we all collectively have to seriously start thinking about a building a new mass party of radical left resistance - even if its initially a rag-bag alliance of everyone who simply wants to resist - on the Syriza model. It obviously wouldn't survive forever as a radical route forward - but might at least organise meaningful mass resistance in the medium term. Unfortunately, the chaos on the Trot Left also seems to have given comfort to even more reactionery pseudo-socialist forces - like the neo-stalinist apologists across the blogosphere who currently are salivating at the collapse of the SWP, those who run the "Socialist Unity" blog for instance - cynically masquerading as proponents of openness and free debate , in contrast to the cultishness of the SWP - whilst constantly denying the monstrous crimes of stalinism. One things for sure , if the broad Left are ever to attract masses of normal working class people to their ranks they'll/we'll have to rid themselves/ourselves of an awful lot of ideological baggage and organisational habits -- and stop suggesting, a la that epochal world class philosopher and sage, Owen Jones , that we now need to prioritise "getting a real socialist movement together to get Labour elected !" .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2013)

geminisnake said:


> Boris is going to get a safe seat imo so won't be available for role of Mayor.


 
Not as easy post-2010 as it was before, gem. Local Conservative Assocs don't have the same control over selection as they previously had, so Boris would need Conservative Central office's approval to get on the selection list for a constituency, something I'm not so sure Cameron or any of his clique will permit. Bore-is being too much of a threat to their own positions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2013)

Tankus said:


> one of kinnocks better ones ...I would have thought


 
Opportunism and macho posturing don't tend to make for a decent speech.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Sheffield 92.


 
21 years later, and I still cringe when I hear Kinnock yelling "AAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2013)

maomao said:


> Compared to the shit politicians come out with 30 years later it's positively fucking revolutionary.


 
Counter-revolutionary, comrade. Counter-revolutionary.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> 21 years later, and I still cringe when I hear Kinnock yelling "AAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!".


 
He'd have made a fine Apple salesman.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 13, 2013)

Dear God, what a dreadful piece of writing from the Academy supporting toe rag.



			
				O'Farrell said:
			
		

> m not quite sure how this happened. A week ago I was peacefully writing away in the London Library, thinking February was looking a bit quiet. Then the Eastleigh byelection was called, with an indecent three weeks' campaigning time till polling day. A fellow Labour party member suggested I should be the candidate. I had not been thinking of standing again any time soon, but I saw her logic. So many politics students have been forced to read my book about being a Labour activist in opposition, maybe they'll be under the illusion that canvassing in the rain is all one big laugh? Plus, I had a few press contacts; I could definitely get on to the Breakfast Show for BBC Radio Solent.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 13, 2013)

yield said:


> With the Confederation of British Industry, British Chambers of Commerce and Institute of Directors.


Like this you mean?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/22/austerity-uk-economic-prospects-cbi



> Austerity will harm UK's economic prospects, says CBI. CBI cuts forecast for economic growth in 2011 and urges chancellor to protect investment in public infrastructure


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Like this you mean?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/22/austerity-uk-economic-prospects-cbi


 
Oh dear if you had only looked a little further down from the very first link on your CBI austerity google (and note that they are all rather more recent than your 30 month old one):

CBI: 'Do not slow down austerity'


> The director general of the CBI John Cridland has said the government cannot afford to slow down the austerity programme and that any government under-spend be used to pay down the deficit


 
CBI cuts UK growth forecasts but backs austerity plans


> "The government must stick to its plans to bring down the deficit to maintain confidence in the UK's public finances and keep the cost of borrowing down," said CBI director general John Cridland.


 
CBI backs Government's austerity measures and rejects calls for Plan B


> The CBI "fundamentally disagrees" with calls for the Government to ditch austerity targets in favour of a "plan B".


----------



## sihhi (Feb 13, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Dear God, what a dreadful piece of writing from the Academy supporting toe rag.


 
Have you read his book Things can only get better? Dreary slurry.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh dear if you had only looked a little further down from the very first link on your CBI austerity google (and note that they are all rather more recent than your 30 month old one):


Well, I went to bed instead.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Have you read his book Things can only get better? Dreary slurry.


No after seeing a few interviews with the prick, I couldn't bear to read his crappy book.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> No after seeing a few interviews with the prick, I couldn't bear to read his crappy book.


Imagine the mark steel book written by articul8.


----------



## Jollity Farm (Feb 15, 2013)

I think John O'Farrell seems like a nice guy - I have read his book, it was okay. Obviously, that doesn't mean he'd be any good at actual politics or anything, but it'd be a step up from all the politicians we have who are terrible at politics and aren't even nice to make up for it.

Anyway, the Lib Dems will probably win again, because those other people are strangers. O'Farrell's candidacy does seem a tiny bit like Delingpole in Corby, only the former will probably stump up the cash money and hang in there all the way to the election - not least because he's representing one of the country's main parties rather than some pretendy independent cause. Also, Delingpole is not nice at all.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 15, 2013)

A nice man who helped to undermine comprehensive schooling in order to ensure that his own kids got a better start in life.

Fuck him and his Polly Toynbee piss weak Blair-lite politics.


----------



## Jollity Farm (Feb 15, 2013)

Do you have a comprehensive list of people it is acceptable to consider nice? It would be most helpful.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 15, 2013)

How about any new Labour backers, or those involved in the dismantling of what remains of the welfare state.

Any what makes O'Farrell so _nice_? That he wrote some shitty book supporting a party that has/is attacking working class communities?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> A nice man who helped to undermine comprehensive schooling in order to ensure that his own kids got a better start in life.
> 
> Fuck him and his Polly Toynbee piss weak Blair-lite politics.


Spot this? She charges 3 grand a talk. That and the guardian wage (and the inheritance) is how she sends her two kids to westminister school - 30 grand a year? Or is that a term?

(Now you might say fair play to her, fleecing the rich - but how are the rest of supposed to fleece them if all the places are already filled with the rich fleecing each other?)


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2013)




----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2013)

editor said:


>


 
Went to Bogdonor's Gresham's (I know ) lecture on Nye; very good. It was in his series about influential British politicians who never quite made it to the top...you know the sort of thing...the prime Ministers that never were etc. Howsomedever, during the talk that quote featured and Bogdonor went on to talk about the response from the tories. Typically, they revelled in the abuse and set up a whole 'grassroots' organisation called the Vermin club. Fatch was a member.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 15, 2013)

DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling

Lawyer for Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, who won court battle over unpaid work, condemns 'repugnant' emergency law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland

...

The ruling meant that hundreds of thousands of jobseekers who had been financially penalised for falling foul of half a dozen employment schemes, including the government's flagship Work Programme, would have been entitled to a full rebate if a final government appeal was rejected by the supreme court.

However, the government has instead published a seven-page jobseekers (back to work schemes) bill to head off a potential multimillion-pound payout and "protect the national economy".

*The Guardian understands that Labour will support the fast-tracked bill *


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 15, 2013)

ska invita said:


> DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling
> 
> Lawyer for Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, who won court battle over unpaid work, condemns 'repugnant' emergency law
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland
> ...


 
WTF? They have nothing to gain by supporting this. I don't understand.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2013)

Scum. Truly, they are scum.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> WTF? They have nothing to gain by supporting this. I don't understand.


 
Labout set the thing up; if it collapses, everyone will look bad.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> WTF? They have nothing to gain by supporting this. I don't understand.


Arent you impressed by their firm stand, fiscal responsibility, and ability to kick dole scum where it hurts? No? Then you're not their target voter


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 15, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Labout set the thing up; if it collapses, everyone will look bad.


 
I think the Tories set it up. The Work Programme began in 2011. Was this scheme in existence before that?



ska invita said:


> Arent you impressed by their firm stand, fiscal responsibility, and ability to kick dole scum where it hurts? No? Then you're not their target voter


 
I'm just trying to get my head around their reasoning. They have a chance to 'stand up' to the government here in a risk free environment: they won't have enough votes to strike down the law so the legislation gets passed anyway (their preferred outcome), but they also get to look like they're trying to do right by the poor, whilst not really alienating their target voters.

By siding with the Tories they get...what? Nothing (Unless Silas is right, and Labour brought this in).


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I think the Tories set it up. The Work Programme began in 2011. Was this scheme in existence before that?
> By siding with the Tories they get...what? Nothing (Unless Silas is right, and Labour brought this in).


 
Freud Review, Flexible New Deal etc were all conceived under Labour and the Work Programme is a logical development, if perhaps one with coalition hallmarks of incompetent roll-out.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 15, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Freud Review, Flexible New Deal etc were all conceived under Labour and the Work Programme is a logical development, if perhaps one with coalition hallmarks of incompetent roll-out.


 
Yeah, fair enough. It's all there from 2007.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Mar 16, 2013)

The nu-labour of the grinning spinning blair and gordon prudence brooon why should anyone loath them and NOT vote for them where do you start the questionably moral and even more questionably legal wars, the PPP/PFI scams, the bankster bailouts, being little more than the left wing of the tories, the trashing of the eviroment, getting in to bed with murdoch and the rest of the corporate scum, selling out trade union and employment rights, ID cards and the national DNA database behing ID cards etc etc etc why labour are scum the list is endless as to why labour are scu.......And the Torlibdem axis of evil under callmedave and his useful idiot cleggnocchio are no better time to take to the streets en-mass in our millions or we are gonna be well and truely screwed


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 16, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Freud Review, Flexible New Deal etc were all conceived under Labour and the Work Programme is a logical development, if perhaps one with coalition hallmarks of incompetent roll-out.



Spot on but you forgot employment zones and pathways to work. Other new labour schemes delivered by the private sector providers currently providing the work programme and workfare. Schemes imported from the US after being pioneered by new labour icon Bill Clinton.

As Silas suggests the only criticism possible for Labour is in respect of incompetence in delivery.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> WTF? They have nothing to gain by supporting this. I don't understand.


 
That's because you're obviously too kind-hearted to see Labour as the bunch of neoliberal fucks that they are. What they have to gain is existential satisfaction, knowing that a) they've postured in the correct direction to assure some of the "Daily Mail vote" come the election, and b) haven't deviated from the "neoliberal shit sandwich with a garnishing of finely-chopped cilantro" that they served up to us from 1997-2010. They may (and it's open to argument) have been "the party of the working class" once upon a time, but not in the last 20 years. They started a lot of the "welfare reform" programmes that the Coalition have dived into with so much relish. The question you should ask is "why *wouldn't* those fucks support this?".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Labout set the thing up; if it collapses, everyone will look bad.


 
And that would affect those post-parliamentary sinecures with "private sector providers" that so many of the denizens of the lower house fervently hope for.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> Scum. Truly, they are scum.


 
They are the scum that decent scum send to Coventry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Yeah, fair enough. It's all there from 2007.


 
It was "there" from the moment Blair made Frank Field a minister of state for social security and told that self-satisfied fuckpiece to "think the unthinkable", way back at the end of the last century. Field's proposals may not have been adopted, but mutations of them started to appear in policy research by Labour-connected thinktanks from about 2001-onward, and were pushed/promoted by many ultra-Blairites.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 6, 2013)

*In a further move to reward work rather than welfare, Byrne says Labour will allow councils to give priority when allocating housing "to those who work and contribute to their community".*http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/labour-plans-shift-welfare-payouts?commentpage=2


----------



## Greebo (Apr 6, 2013)

ska invita said:


> *In a further move to reward work rather than welfare, Byrne says Labour will allow councils to give priority when allocating housing "to those who work and contribute to their community".*http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/labour-plans-shift-welfare-payouts?commentpage=2


No surprise there. He's the same scumbag who did nothing beyond uttering a few fine-sounding generalities when he was minister for disability (and carers).


----------



## treelover (Apr 6, 2013)

Wasn't he going to fuck off if he had become Mayor of Birmingham, there's loyalty for you...


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2013)

Scanning the liberal papers, It's amazing how many articles there are in the Press by Demos and IPPR apparatchiks, they are often described as 'centre left', oh yeah...


----------



## ymu (Apr 7, 2013)

Is there no concept of people's circumstances changing through their lives, and of it maybe being a bit more likely that they can contribute when they're older if we give them a chance when they're younger? 

Mustn't house that care-leaver or that teenager escaping an abusive family. They haven't contributed! They must sleep on the streets until they have. 

I'm seeing tweets about Cruddas backing private social insurance too.


----------



## Wilson (Apr 7, 2013)

Labour Partys dead to me,
Hang them from a fuckin' tree.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

Wilson said:


> Labour Partys dead to me,
> Hang them from a fuckin' tree.


I favour the guillotine.


----------



## Wilson (Apr 7, 2013)

Pickman's likes the guillotine,
But really he just has not seen,
The pickaxe will realise his dream.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

Wilson said:


> Pickman's likes the guillotine,
> But really he just has not seen,
> The pickaxe will realise his dream.


I know the pickaxe works but it takes a lot more work to kill someone with one than it does to use a guillotine. It's also a lot less messy to use a guillotine, and more socially acceptable.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I favour the guillotine.


More efficient, but too kind.  Make them live in the same conditions they've had a hand in creating.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 7, 2013)

> The shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, writing in the _Observer_, commits Labour to a return to the "old principle of contribution" championed by William Beveridge after the second world war. "_*There are lots of people right now who feel they pay an awful lot more in than they ever get back,*_" Byrne writes. "_*That should change*_."
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/labour-plans-shift-welfare-payouts


 
That has all the logic of burning your own house down to get value for money from your insurance payments.


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 7, 2013)

Liam Byrne doesn't understand the concept of aging.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 7, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Liam Byrne doesn't understand the concept of aging.


 
Or of society.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 7, 2013)

*Working people feel "resentful" because some benefits claimants are "not pulling their weight" and are being "let off the hook", Harriet Harman has said in one of the clearest signals yet that Labour is prepared to tackle the benefits system.*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nefit-claimants-not-pulling-their-weight.html



> Miss Harman said one of Labour's key policies is that people should take jobs offered to them after two years on unemployment benefits. She said there were three key principles being examined by the party.
> 
> "One is that work should pay, secondly, there should be an obligation to take work, and thirdly that there should be support through a contributory principle for people putting into the system as we all as taking out," she said.
> 
> Opinion polls suggest that 67 per cent of voters back the Coalition's efforts to reform the welfare system.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2013)

Look at the way it's framed  -' prepared to tackle the beneift system.'

Hope you feel proud articul8. You twat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2013)

these cunts aren't even pretending to differ on policy anymore. Tories say something, labour agrees its an issue and follows.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2013)

This is what they've fed the guardian:



> Deputy Labour leader's comments come in wake of Philpott case as party plans radical shift over welfare state payouts


 
This shows they think their poll lead is soft and can be got at via this issue. They are wrong. That's what they spend union members dosh on.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 7, 2013)

i could be wrong but could they not also be framing this as an attempt to tackle the "yah boo" culture of the house of commons (ie labour and tories insulting "the right honourable gentlemen" over minutiae) ie a "new era of consensus politics" - its not new but oh well


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2013)

Odd reading fw!


----------



## J Ed (Apr 7, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i could be wrong but could they not also be framing this as an attempt to tackle the "yah boo" culture of the house of commons (ie labour and tories insulting "the right honourable gentlemen" over minutiae) ie a "new era of consensus politics" - its not new but oh well


 
I don't think so, Labour rely on that superficial public school boy oppositional atmosphere to differentiate themselves from the other parties with identical policies.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Odd reading fw!


 
yer im not saying it's the reason why they're doing it, but i remember they tried to talk about this a few years back!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> yer im not saying it's the reason why they're doing it, but i remember they tried to talk about this a few years back!


Consensus politics is just a phrase used to describe the post-war social-democratic deal up to the early 70s (i,e they both recognised what capital needed and were openly committed to helping it achieve those ends through the state playing a role in 'private' economics) - doesn't mean anything about how these twats talk to each other 'in the big house'. Thatcher was supposed to have ended this consensus politics. It's a nonsense basically.


----------



## elbows (Apr 7, 2013)

Articles about this sort of thing are mostly disgraceful or unsatisfactory. This one isn't any better, although there is one paragraph that I find slightly more interesting than usual.



> As one senior Labour figure puts it: "The welfare state has a legitimacy problem in Britain" because there are too few jobs and "too many crappy jobs" that pay too little and which have to be topped up by benefits. Labour has to go into the next election with a serious, costed and credible plan to boost and transform employment. It will mean spending money not just on getting people into any job, no matter how "crappy", but on training and delivering new skills, as well as regional banks that can funnel capital to new, local businesses.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/labour-draw-sting-welfare-or-lose-2015

The obvious problem with this is that impotent rhetoric about better jobs and skills has been worn out over precisely the same period that any 'welfare legitimacy' perception problem emerged. To seriously tackle this issue requires a different economic ideology, one that Labour are unlikely to embrace unless a different world is eventually born due to sustained failure and collapse of the existing system & ideologies. In some way we may have ended up better off if the financial crisis has featured larger implosions, for not enough of the dominant ideologies were destroyed by the acute crisis or the long decay that follows. And what fallout did occur has been channeled down a very narrow banker-hating route. Like nuclear waste it still sits there festering, and could be made use of politically at some point, but there are few signs of this really being made the most of at this point. Hopefully it will come back to haunt them one day, but dont ask me when that is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2013)

Wilson said:


> Labour Partys dead to me,
> Hang them from a fuckin' tree.


 
I'd rather not risk harming the tree.
I think I'll drill 'em through the knee.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I know the pickaxe works but it takes a lot more work to kill someone with one than it does to use a guillotine. It's also a lot less messy to use a guillotine, and more socially acceptable.


 
Not as educational as making them dance the lamp-post waltz or allowing them to repay their debt to society in the gulag, though.


----------



## Callum91 (Apr 7, 2013)

Labour's recent Tory agreement and brown nosing makes me glad I cancelled my membership. All their current focus on benefits is disgusting, all to win a few more votes. Scum, the lot of them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2013)

brogdale said:


> That has all the logic of burning your own house down to get value for money from your insurance payments.


 
Byrne also (unsurprisingly) is more caught up in perception ("people feel...") than in reason. We *know* that for more than half the population, over the course of an average life, the various health and social welfare we receive costs more than we put in, and to be perfectly frank, he's merely displaying new Labour's neoliberalism by worrying more about how a minority of people (the couple of hundred thousand swing voters who hold the key to Labour getting back in) perceive that they're not getting enough back. Someone should make it clear to these people that while their contributions allow the govt to keep supplying the bread and the circuses, they're safe. Take away those things, and they won't be safe for long.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2013)

Callum91 said:


> Labour's recent Tory agreement and brown nosing makes me glad I cancelled my membership. All their current focus on benefits is disgusting, all to win a few more votes. Scum, the lot of them.


 
Well quite. Policy formulation is nakedly fixed on appealing to and appeasing "swing voters", not the electorate as a whole. All they care about is power, and currently they believe they can best manouvre toward it by joining the pack of yelping right-wing curs whining about benefits spending.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Liam Byrne doesn't understand the concept of aging.


 
He doesn't understand or care about anything but power.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not as educational as making them dance the lamp-post waltz or allowing them to repay their debt to society in the gulag, though.


it's quite educational enough for anyone tempted to think like them to deduce that there is a link between the cause of their anti-social behaviour and the effect of their heads being severed from their bodies.


----------



## treelover (Apr 8, 2013)

> Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk said: “If you’re involved in politics and don’t know anyone who chooses to live on benefits instead of working, you need to get out more”.
> 
> A supporter of the Conservatives & ...gutter rag newspaper The Sun - he wrote: “The Left has to accept there are some people on the dole that don’t want to work, and we need to have a plan to get them into work.”


 
Labour MP Simon Danchuk, think he is in Progress


----------



## treelover (Apr 8, 2013)

> By SIMON DANCZUK, Labour MP
> 
> George Osborne says we need a welfare debate. I’ve got news for the Chancellor — it’s already happening.
> 
> ...


 


Article in full from The Sun


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 8, 2013)

treelover said:


> [QUOTEBy SIMON DANCZUK, Labour MP
> 
> George Osborne says we need a welfare debate. I’ve got news for the Chancellor — it’s already happening.
> 
> ...


 


Article in full from The Sun[/quote]

the punitive changes to the welfare system - reduction of in-work benefits, benefits being reduced once you're working a certain number of hours etc - those changes create the "welfare dependency" he's on about.

what a fucking prick


----------



## treelover (Apr 8, 2013)

contact his office and complain, others have, but very nasty people there though...


----------



## treelover (Apr 8, 2013)

btw, Progress is clearly a party within a party, like Militant was, so why haven't they been kicked out?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 8, 2013)

treelover said:


> btw, Progress is clearly a party within a party, like Militant was, so why haven't they been kicked out?


 
Militant was, large or small, a threat to profits of the 100 largest British firms or whatever it was. 
Progress is not and will never be. Labour as a capitalist party responds to capitalist signals. My guess is you know all this.


----------



## treelover (Apr 8, 2013)

> "Tom Harris, a shadow environment minister who represents a Glasgow constituency, said welfare dependency was “killing the city”.
> 
> He told The Telegraph: “We sometimes allow ourselves to be seen as the party of welfare when clearly we should be trying to be seen as the party of work. We are the Labour Party and not the Benefits Party.”
> ...
> ...


 
Another Blairite speaks out, note the virulence of the language, nothing about unemployment, disgraceful...


----------



## ska invita (Apr 16, 2013)

From the new Private Eye re job centres and their fuck you over quota - i typed this out properly once and accidentally deleted so cant be arsed to again, basically Labour are complaining that the Torys are introducing quotas to push people off benefits etc and demanding an investigation. Private Eye have done a freedom of Information request which found that the quotas were introduced in 2006 by Labour, and set at 6% of cases which should be sanctioned of which at least half must "result in decisions adverse to the customer". page 9 issue 1338. Incidentally the new Tory quota is 5%. Maybe the libdems will try and take credit for that reduction!


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

Cunts. Thanks for that ska.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2013)

treelover said:


> Another Blairite speaks out, note the virulence of the language, nothing about unemployment, disgraceful...


i don't see why, in the context of the labour party's history, you see it as disgraceful.


----------



## coley (Apr 17, 2013)

Where are all these mythical jobs that these disgraceful scroungers are allegedly refusing?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well quite. Policy formulation is nakedly fixed on appealing to and appeasing "swing voters", not the electorate as a whole. All they care about is power, and currently they believe they can best manouvre toward it by joining the pack of yelping right-wing curs whining about benefits spending.


if this was all an election ploy that would be one thing, but  labour have proved that even with a large majoirty in the house and no immediate pressure to act they still came up with these ideas and implemented them


----------



## ska invita (Apr 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> these cunts aren't even pretending to differ on policy anymore. Tories say something, labour agrees its an issue and follows.


With a lot of the stuff on this thread its a case of Labour think-tanking and implementing, Tories carrying on the policies to their logical conclusion and then Labour agreeing again.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2013)

Copied from another thread. Absolutely disgusting.


J Ed said:


> I spoke to Hillary Benn a few weeks ago when he came to Sheffield Uni, this timid response is a result of the fact that he is as ideologically committed to these cuts as the Tories. When I spoke to him he was shilling for 'One Nation Labour', which from the way he was promoting it just seemed to be The Big Society Lite. He was arguing that libraries should be privatised, I asked him how far he was willing to go with his new Big Society and whether he approved of the private sector being forced on to private schools and the police, he claimed to know nothing about the private sector role in schools or the police. Nasty piece of work.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 23, 2013)

*Why I, a Labour peer, am supporting a regulated market for NHS competition*

*Patients are best served by clinical commissioning groups replacing repeatedly underperforming NHS service providers*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/regulated-market-nhs-competition

selective quote


> It is a fantasy to believe that we can solve the NHS's problems without the help of many new providers with fresh ideas and better management techniques. Other countries facing the same problems are doing just this. To allow new entrants from the private, voluntary and social enterprise sectors to enter the NHS market a set of fair procurement rules are required and that is what the new regulations do.



must admit i find it hard to understand what is going on here exactly but i know its the not too thin end of a destructive wedge


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2013)

ska invita said:


> *Why I, a Labour peer, am supporting a regulated market for NHS competition*
> 
> *Patients are best served by clinical commissioning groups replacing repeatedly underperforming NHS service providers*
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/regulated-market-nhs-competition
> ...


 
What's going on is he has interests as advisor to these firms: PA Consulting, Perot Systems, Apax Partners and Byotrol. PA Consulting does advice for lobbying etc, all the rest supply the health industry and would stand to go gain if they formed part of a commissioning group.


----------



## Mr Smin (Apr 23, 2013)

> _fresh ideas and better management techniques_


 
srsly

There is a need to rid the NHS of some corrupt managers and crap clinicians. I can't see Capita, Humana et al doing that though.


----------



## treelover (Apr 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What's going on is he has interests as advisor to these firms: PA Consulting, Perot Systems, Apax Partners and Byotrol. PA Consulting does advice for lobbying etc, all the rest supply the health industry and would stand to go gain if they formed part of a commissioning group.


 
FFS, they don't even hide their connections anymore, very British corruption...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What's going on is he has interests as advisor to these firms: PA Consulting, Perot Systems, Apax Partners and Byotrol. PA Consulting does advice for lobbying etc, all the rest supply the health industry and would stand to go gain if they formed part of a commissioning group.


 
Perot Systems doesn't even exist any more - Dell bought and assimilated it four years ago - so that list is unlikely to be very current.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Apr 23, 2013)

I find James Purnell the most terrifying of the New Labour Party.

PPE, Oxford University
Research Analyst, IPPR
"Strategy Consultant"
Head of Corporate Planning, BBC
Secretary for Culture,
Secretary for Work and Pensions
Director of Strategy and Digital, BBC

I wonder how one becomes such a renowned 'strategist' with a desk job in a piss factory.

When I look over his CV, though, it is interesting that there is rarely talk of privatising Auntie Beeb. Thought that would be a top priority to free market individualists. Unfiltered programming that working people demand. Ain't that right James?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 23, 2013)

I despise Purnell. His was the name and face of the Labour Welfare Reforms way back in 2008 (year may be out a tad).


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Perot Systems doesn't even exist any more - Dell bought and assimilated it four years ago - so that list is unlikely to be very current.


 
You're right it's not current - but today's situation appears to be even worse. 

His Lords Register of Interests has him as director of _his own firm_ that gives lobbying and contract advice to private firms opening up the NHS simply represents a chance for greater business opportunities and personal enrichment:



> 1: Directorships
> Executive Director, Sage Advice Ltd (own private company engaged in advisory work, including public affairs advice - see category 3)
> 3: Clients
> Adviser to Transforming Systems Limited (software consultancy/supply)
> ...


 
I have the list as a summary from a Times article linked to in this 'Any surprise Lord Warner is defending NHS privatisation?' post 

Now paywalled - if anyone can post them it would help.
Obviously they won't kick him out - even though he is 100% opposing the leadership and Conference decisions.

His relationship with right-wing pro-privatisation of health and education and local government think tank Reform also looks quite dodgy: http://www.reform.co.uk/search?query=lord+warner must come into contact with all sorts of health private firms


----------



## treelover (Apr 24, 2013)

Guardian Cif is deleting loads of what are clearly references to his director ships and conflicts of interest, etc.

update, closed the thread...


----------



## zippyRN (Apr 28, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> <snip>
> 
> And as for Labour councils implementing the Tory cuts, er what else can they do?


 
 by cutting the numbers of political commissars  with their noses in the trough  by  sticking to a proper 'frontline first' policy ...  cutting  frontline services  while maintaining  none jobs and middle management is nothing more than the typical smear  campaigns of those who want to try and blame  the Coalition for everything despite the  gross mis-management  that 'prudence' Brown oversaw while 'abolishing boom and bust ' ... 

Just like the  NHS under Blair and Brown where 'record investment'   lead to none jobs and political commissars  and a whole raft of managers who exist  solely to manage the reporting of crowd pleasing but operationally meaningless  statistics to hit  these targets


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2013)

James Purnell is not in this photograph.


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2013)

> In a surprise move, shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne indicated his party now backed the introduction of the new universal credit system, designed to ensure it always pays for people on benefits to go back to work or accept extra hours.
> Labour voted against the scheme when it was debated by Parliament last year. But yesterday Mr Byrne said the universal credit system was a ‘fine idea’, albeit one with some details still to be ironed out.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316612/Universal-Credit-shake-make-sure-work-pays-gets-underway-Labour-finally-admits-sensible-idea.html#ixzz2S2gaOdOj


 
Labour back Universal Credit


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Copied from another thread. Absolutely disgusting.


 
bit surprised that this is tony benn's son,i suppose i shouldn't be really but i always thought tony benn was genuine if a bit naive.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

> he claimed to know nothing


at least one honest statement


----------



## ymu (May 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> bit surprised that this is tony benn's son,i suppose i shouldn't be really but i always thought tony benn was genuine if a bit naive.


Surprised? With two Miliband Jnrs around?

Hilary has always been a New Labour cock.


----------



## J Ed (May 17, 2013)

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-...s-minister-on-newcastle-visit-61634-33342604/



> THE shadow benefits minister has said Labour cannot promise now to repeal the Government’s controversial bedroom tax.
> 
> On a visit to Newcastle Liam Byrne said he could see the need for urgency but could not rush into making uncosted policy announcements for any future Labour Government.
> 
> Labour has repeatedly hit out at the Government’s decision to reduce housing benefits for those with a spare room but so far refused to make scrapping the so-called bedroom tax a party policy.


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-...s-minister-on-newcastle-visit-61634-33342604/


 
Aside from just how shite this is, (and what a huge twunt Byrne is), how on earth can he refer to a reversal of bedroom tax as 'uncosted'?

Surely, just look at what the Aristotwats are stealing from the poor, and that would pretty much be the cost of reversal? Then, if they had any bollocks at all, identify exactly which tax-evading scum mafiosa corporation's owed tax would 'pay' for the reversal.

Spineless scum.


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2013)

Just a little reminder of 'the people's party's' finest hour...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/22/uk-support-cia-rendition-flights



> The UK's support for the CIA's global rendition programme after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US was far more substantial than has previously been recognised, according to a new research project that draws on a vast number of publicly available data and documentation.
> Evidence gathered by The Rendition Project – an interactive website that maps thousands of rendition flights – highlight _*1,622 flights in and out of the UK by aircraft now known to have been involved in the agency's secret kidnap and detention programme.*_


 
The project's own website here.

Just for info:-


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2013)

Don't listen to this if you have blood pressure issues http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01sm2g0/Analysis_Labours_New_New_Jerusalem/


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2013)

> *Chuka Umunna* ‏@*ChukaUmunna*  1h
> We will have to make some tough decisions if elected in 2015 because of the mess we will inherit from Messrs Cameron, Osborne, Clegg & Cable


 

tough decisions.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 3, 2013)

killer b said:


> tough decisions.


 
How awful for them.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 3, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Don't listen to this if you have blood pressure issues http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01sm2g0/Analysis_Labours_New_New_Jerusalem/


 I heard it - it's very much like the big society in that it seeks to use the libertarian socialist language of democratic self-empowerment of communities as a tool to attack the model of the social democratic welfare state - but ultimately just means making more space for the market whatever the rhetoric.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 3, 2013)

Today's the last straw for me. The only way I'll vote Labour is if it gets close in the Blackpool South constituency to keep the Tories out. Even then, maybe I won't do that either.

I can live with being on the left of a centrist party which still has some social democratic principles. I can eat SOME shit. I can't take anymore James Purnells, Liam Byrnes or Shadow Chancellors pumping out pure Tory policy though.

"What took you so long?" I know, I know. I just hoped that we'd see some shift away from neo-liberalism under Miliband. It's not happening and Labour is lost to the right forever now.

So, can't vote for Labour, can't vote for SWP rape-cult. Maybe the Greens? I don't know.


----------



## savoloysam (Jun 3, 2013)

WTF Ed Balls just outed himself as cunt, right out of blue. Not that I had any doubts about his cuntidness


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 4, 2013)

Why Labour are scum? Dan Hodges.


----------



## ayatollah (Jun 4, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Today's the last straw for me. The only way I'll vote Labour is if it gets close in the Blackpool South constituency to keep the Tories out. Even then, maybe I won't do that either.
> 
> I can live with being on the left of a centrist party which still has some social democratic principles. I can eat SOME shit. I can't take anymore James Purnells, Liam Byrnes or Shadow Chancellors pumping out pure Tory policy though.
> 
> ...


 
Better check out the bullshitting Green's actual performance when in "office" in Brighton  - hacking away at local services to "responsibly" balance the ever diminishing budget just like the other neoliberal parties.Yep, the Green's are fake purely rhetorical "lefties" - really rather attracted to the whole  idea of "austerity"".

  Have a look at the Left Unity project's website , Favelado. Too early to say if it will just be a stillborn "nice idea", but it's intention is  to build a mass radical Left (not revolutionery "Leninist") democratic  party to directly challenge Labour by breaking out beyond the existing Far Left sects , and  to seriously fight the austerity offensive and its structural and political basis, and  is, IMO, the correct way to go. Anyway, have a decko and see what you think. Left Unity Branches already (but some VERY small) across the UK, but mainly England. Party founding conference planned for Autumn this year. It may fail, but, hey, nothing else believable on the cards at present is there - unless you want to waste your time falling for Owen Jones and co's invitation to "help push Labour Left"... AGAIN !  ?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 4, 2013)

I'm on Left Unity's mailing list already. It seems a bit nebulous at the moment but I'll sign up for any decent left of Labour alternative. Nice to hear some home truthes about the Greens too.


----------



## treelover (Jun 4, 2013)

> Rising star of the Labour Party Luciana Berger is driving me out of politics, says councillor
> 
> Jake Morrison, the youngest candidate ever elected to Liverpool City Council, accuses MP of making his life 'unbearable'
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-out-of-politics-says-councillor-8644571.html


 



> Here we have in Luciana, a privately educated MP from London, who has come to Liverpool and made my life unbearable.”


 
class war ,trouble In the party, parachuted MP Luciana Berger(very posh) accused of bullying local lad.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 5, 2013)

It looks as though the coalition agreement is coming on nicely...



> On Thursday, party leader Ed Miliband is due to say he supports capping the amount the next government will spend on welfare benefits.
> Earlier this week the party announced it would cut winter fuel payments for wealthier pensioners.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22777735


 
Whatever next? Maybe a pledge to hold a referendum on AV?


----------



## treelover (Jun 5, 2013)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/how-labour-can-offer-something-something-welfare

Demos are behind a lot of these ideas as is the IPPR, how these orgs can be called 'left of centre' is beyond me.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/how-labour-can-offer-something-something-welfare
> 
> Demos are behind a lot of these ideas as is the IPPR, how these orgs can be called 'left of centre' is beyond me.


 
A two-tier system for benefit claimants - we could call them the "deserving" and "undeserving poor" - good job there are such innovative thinkers around.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> class war ,trouble In the party, parachuted MP Luciana Berger(very posh) accused of bullying local lad.


 
He has absolutely no obligation to lliase with Berger's constituency office. MPs like councillors for wards in their constituency to do so, because it allows both parties to present a "united front", but it also facilitates the sort of "micro-management" of ward-level issues that can be detrimental to the electorate of the ward.
I'm not a fan of Berger. Some of her bullshit against the NUS (not a union I usually have any time for) was very obviously purely careerist (she accused the NUS NEC of being anti-Semitic), as was her stirring w/r/t SOAS.  She's someone who'll stick a knife in anyone to get ahead, this councillor included.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 5, 2013)

She used to be in my CLP - in the poshest most m/c part of the constituency obviously.   She is a total zionist shitbag.  What the fuck does she know about the lives of working class communities in Liverpool?  She didn't even know who Bill Shankly was when she got selected FFS.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Just a little reminder of 'the people's party's' finest hour...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/22/uk-support-cia-rendition-flights
> 
> ...


 
Jack Straw was and is awful. Never took rendition seriously.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jun 5, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Jack Straw was and is awful. Never took rendition seriously.


 
He's been quoted on that BBC trailer as blaming the french for the iraq war 

(i really don't think my blood pressure could watch the actual programme)


----------



## articul8 (Jun 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> She's someone who'll stick a knife in anyone to get ahead, this councillor included.


 He's just tweeted saying he's been suspended from the party


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 5, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Whatever next?


 

Lab-UKIP coalition.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He's just tweeted saying he's been suspended from the party


 

What are the details of what happened? What were the reasons for suspension?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jun 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He's just tweeted saying he's been suspended from the party


 
He can win her seat as an independent at the next election.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He's just tweeted saying he's been suspended from the party


 
Good, might be the making of the lad.


----------



## treelover (Jun 5, 2013)

Its a real shift to the right, ex minister Kitty Ussher was just on Newsnight trumpeting the cap, no discussion of what it would mean for millions of people, it was debated basically as political strategy to beat the Comdems.

I've come to the conclusion, Millipede is a weak leader


----------



## Favelado (Jun 5, 2013)

The assault on housing benefit is good if they genuinely can get stuck into private rent levels and build large amounts of housing. I don't like the contributory benefits idea, as it favours the rich and the South. The benefits cap is the worst part of all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> Its a real shift to the right, ex minister Kitty Ussher was just on Newsnight trumpeting the cap, no discussion of what it would mean for millions of people, it was debated basically as political strategy to beat the Comdems.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion, Millipede is a weak leader


 
he's a fucking weak follower too


----------



## agricola (Jun 5, 2013)

Favelado said:


> The assault on housing benefit is good if they genuinely can get stuck into private rent levels and build large amounts of housing. I don't like the contributory benefits idea, as it favours the rich and the South. The benefits cap is the worst part of all.


 
Well, they wont be doing that.


----------



## treelover (Jun 5, 2013)

> The assault on housing benefit is good if they genuinely can get stuck into private rent levels and build large amounts of housing


 

yes, but surely even if more social housing is built, PRS rents may come down, but people will still need HB?


----------



## treelover (Jun 5, 2013)

agricola said:


> Well, they wont be doing that.


 
won't be doing what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> won't be doing what?


 
that


----------



## agricola (Jun 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> won't be doing what?


 
You know, getting stuck into private rent levels, building large amounts of housing, that sort of thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> won't be doing what?


 
some people think you're lletsa but if you are you're a weak and feeble effete and ineffectual shadow of your former self. you've been posting drivel for some time now and i think it's time someone told you so.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> yes, but surely even if more social housing is built, PRS rents may come down, but people will still need HB?


 
Oh come on. This is easy.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 5, 2013)

He's not LLETSA.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> He's not LLETSA.


 
yeh that's what i thought. lletsa came out with some witty one-liners from time to time.


----------



## treelover (Jun 5, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Oh come on. This is easy.


 
no, explain?

fuck off pickmans, you are a really nasty piece of work, take your faux radicalism elsewhere.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> no, explain?
> 
> fuck off pickmans, you are a really nasty piece of work, take your faux radicalism elsewhere.


 
More supply, same amount of demand, price falls.


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)

Of course, what I meant was there still would be HB to pay for many of these S/H's, Bl are saying they will cap benefits, that means if it runs out, no more HB


----------



## Favelado (Jun 6, 2013)

Bloody hell.


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)

fuck me, is this meant to be a place for discussion, debate, questions, I don't know what you mean, P/P is dying because of all this superiority shit, just explain.


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)




----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> he's a fucking weak follower too


 
The little boy who broke his father's heart.


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-new-welfare-cap-and-brands-labour-party-work


Labour is now officially 'The Party Of Work'

in a country where millions are unemployed, on zero hours contracts, work for nothing/corvee, etc.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 6, 2013)

well, the party of (temporary, low-paid, compulsory) work strikes again.   Overdue if hopelessly vague promise to do stuff on rent, but then a whole shitheap of stuff about giving young or long-term unemployed lower benefits than people who have "paid in"


----------



## J Ed (Jun 6, 2013)

Party of Workfare


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)

No mention in Ed's speech of people committing suicide because of the welfare reforms, no mentions of people under threat of eviction from the bedroom tax, no mentions the 'public largely have a downer on benefits because Nl helped create the public mood in the first place with its tabloid leaks, poster campaigns, etc.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2013)

treelover said:


> no mentions the 'public largely have a downer on benefits because Nl helped create the public mood in the first place with its tabloid leaks, poster campaigns, etc.


a shocking omission by the leader of the labour party there.


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)

it was rhetorical


can you make a positive contribution instead of constant snide remarks


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2013)

i'll not have lectures on positivity from you, thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2013)

treelover said:


> Its a real shift to the right, ex minister Kitty Ussher was just on Newsnight trumpeting the cap, no discussion of what it would mean for millions of people, it was debated basically as political strategy to beat the Comdems.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion, Millipede is a weak leader


 
Whoever had won the "battle" for the Labour leadership would be pulling *exactly* the same shit. This isn't about weak leadership, it's about not wishing to step beyond the bounds of neoliberal economics, so while we get all this _faux_-socialist rhetoric from Ed Miliband, all we'd have got from his brother, or Cruddas or any of the other creeping zombies of neoliberal Labour would have been the same shit, just served up in a slightly different arrangement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2013)

Favelado said:


> The assault on housing benefit is good if they genuinely can get stuck into private rent levels and build large amounts of housing. I don't like the contributory benefits idea, as it favours the rich and the South. The benefits cap is the worst part of all.


 
It's highly (going on vanishingly) unlikely that Labour in power will do anything meaningful about high rental prices, and as for large amounts of housing being built, supply will continue to lag behind demand while that benefits the large construction companies.
Basically, of everything Labour have trumpeted, the only stuff that will be acted on is what penalises the poor.  To believe any different is to play right into their greasy neoliberal paws.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2013)

Favelado said:


> More supply, same amount of demand, price falls.


 
The fly in the ointment being that demand proceeds apace through most of the south and parts of the north. The population continues to expand, and the development of new housing does not even keep up with the annual volume rise in households.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2013)

articul8 said:


> well, the party of (temporary, low-paid, compulsory) work strikes again. Overdue if hopelessly vague promise to do stuff on rent, but then a whole shitheap of stuff about giving young or long-term unemployed lower benefits than people who have "paid in"


and once again you identify yourself, indeed you pay to identify yourself, with politicks you affect to despise.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 6, 2013)

This is all starting to look a bit like 1920's Russia with all the different factions fighting over the same tiny scrap of political ground. Except somehow this level of homogeneity has been achieved without the threat of dissenters being murdered in their beds or exiled to Siberia.

Anyone would think that standing up in the HoC and saying, 'the benefits bill is too high because wages are too low and rents are uncontrolled' was a capital offence. And as for ending the 'something for nothing' culture by giving employers full time staff for...nothing, is there really nobody in politics who sees the hole in that logic, and is willing to publically say so?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 6, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is all starting to look a bit like 1920's Russia with all the different factions fighting over the same tiny scrap of political ground. Except somehow this level of homogeneity has been achieved without the threat of dissenters being murdered in their beds or exiled to Siberia.
> 
> Anyone would think that standing up in the HoC and saying, 'the benefits bill is too high because wages are too low and rents are uncontrolled' was a capital offence. And as for ending the 'something for nothing' culture by giving employers full time staff for...nothing, is there really nobody in politics who sees the hole in that logic, and is willing to publically say so?


by 'in politicks' you presumably mean a paid politician.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's highly (going on vanishingly) unlikely that Labour in power will do anything meaningful about high rental prices, and as for large amounts of housing being built, supply will continue to lag behind demand while that benefits the large construction companies.
> Basically, of everything Labour have trumpeted, the only stuff that will be acted on is what penalises the poor. To believe any different is to play right into their greasy neoliberal paws.


 
It's true isn't it? The amount of political willpower required to make a change so great that private rents tumble across the board just won't be there when it comes to the crunch. You can already foresee the gradual scaling back of a grand concept into a handful of schemes that will touch a couple of hundred thousand people at best. The persistent chipping away at a good intention.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 6, 2013)

Favelado said:


> It's true isn't it? The amount of political willpower required to make a change so great that private rents tumble across the board just won't be there when it comes to the crunch. You can already foresee the gradual scaling back of a grand concept into a handful of schemes that will touch a couple of hundred thousand people at best. The persistent chipping away at a good intention.


 
I don't think there's any good intention invlolved, only a desire to appear to have good intentions. If they really had good intentions, they'd follow through with them every once in a while.

People with good intentions don't support workfare.


----------



## treelover (Jun 7, 2013)




----------



## treelover (Jun 8, 2013)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/miliband-has-given-labour-welfare-message-it-can-sell


Dreadful article in the Statesman endorsing Millipede's welfare speech and plans


----------



## Quartz (Jun 8, 2013)

Sounds like people should vote UKIP: halt immigration, expel those pesky foreigners who are stealing our jobs. The population goes down easing the property rental sector, and there are more jobs available, thereby reducing unemployment. Job done!   

Ducks rapidly.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 9, 2013)

Ed Balls wants to cap state pensions http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ion-if-it-returned-to-government-8651196.html


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 9, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Sounds like people should vote UKIP: halt immigration, expel those pesky foreigners who are stealing our jobs. The population goes down easing the property rental sector, and there are more jobs available, thereby reducing unemployment. Job done!
> 
> Ducks rapidly.


Well it would certainly cut NHS expenditure as there would be hardly any staff left to pay. I fancy having a go at a bit of amateur surgery myself, it can't be that difficult. I dissected a frog once. If everyone rallied round we could plug the enormous gaps it would leave in the heath service. The unemployed could be put on courses lasting a month to get them up to speed with being anaesthetists and radiographers and the other existing shortage skills.


----------



## treelover (Jun 13, 2013)

Just heard NL are to support the Tories with the sinister Communications Bill/snoopers charter


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> Just heard NL are to support the Tories with the sinister Communications Bill/snoopers charter


So who is surprised at this SNAFU.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> Just heard NL are to support the Tories with the sinister Communications Bill/snoopers charter


 Now they know that you know.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 26, 2013)

Ed Balls supports Osborne's new measure that people will need to speak English to claim benefits http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...view-2013-live#block-51caf46ae4b027c0045a8ab4


----------



## treelover (Jul 1, 2013)

> He added: “There are many people within the trade union movement who feel ‘Listen, if we pay the piper we’re going to try and call the tune.’ And it’s the politics of Labour – it’s always been there.”
> “That’s absolutely crazy. He (Miliband) has got to face up to it, because this threatens the whole reputation of the Labour Party. The Labour Party has got be seen to be above special interest politics.”
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-by-former-minister-kim-howells-8680517.html


 
Former radical Hornsey School Of Art occupier in 68 and NUM official Kim Howells warns Miiliband that he must tackle union influence...


----------



## articul8 (Jul 1, 2013)

he's been a cunt for ages though - it's not news


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> Former radical Hornsey School Of Art occupier in 68 and NUM official Kim Howells warns Miiliband that he must tackle union influence...


 
That's *Doctor* Howells, to the likes of us, although he should be better known as "that grass cunt".


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2013)

Labour MP compares Labour left to BNP 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Labours-militant-left-no-better-than-BNP.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2013)

> Their views are certainly grounded in the politics of envy, firmly opposed to wealth creation,


 
made it that far


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/09/tony-blair-ed-miliband-labour-union-reform



> Ed Miliband's plans to reform the union-Labour link have been embraced by Tony Blair, who described them as a "bold and strong" move.
> 
> Speaking on Sky News, the former prime minister said: "I think this is a defining moment. It's bold and it's strong. It's real leadership, this. I think it's important not only in its own terms, because he's carrying through a process of reform in the Labour party that is long overdue and, frankly, probably I should have done it when I was leader.
> 
> ...


----------



## caleb (Jul 9, 2013)

It would be hilarious if they did cut union ties, what would Owen Jones et al do then? They couldn't rattle off the old "Labour is tied to workers through the unions" line.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2013)

They'd argue that they have to democratically win votes in the unions and labour branches to re-instate the ties. That the hullabaloo over falkirk was actually an _indication of the success_ of their plans and that the party tops are shitting it (Leaving aside their crass identification of union membership and funds being controlled by a handful of people as being inherently left-wing or a good). articul8 has already argued this on here in the last few days. In short, they would not do anything other than what they currently do.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 16, 2013)

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...es-tack-to-say-benefit-cap-isnt-tough-enough/



> Liam Byrne’s attack on the workless benefit cap this morning is interesting, because he’s trying to position himself as tougher than the Conservatives on out-of-work benefits. Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary said:
> 
> ‘The benefit cap is a good idea in principle but it’s already fallen apart in practice. Ministers have bodged the rules so the cap won’t affect Britain’s 4,000 largest families and it does nothing to stop people living a life on welfare. The government needs to go back to the drawing board, design a cap without holes and put a two-year limit on the time you can spend on the dole, like Labour’s compulsory jobs guarantee.’


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2013)

> on the x-factor thing, you are bang on the money.
> i saw the living proof of it the other week at a nomination meeting, for the rossendale and darwen seat for 2015.
> wee willy straw has put himself forward. never worked here, never lived here, no intention of living here, but they were falling over themselves to fawn over the feckless but well connected scion of jack. pathetic and depressing in equal measure.


 

Will Straw's selection, posted on CIF


----------



## caleb (Aug 10, 2013)

"Left-wing" Labour students who fawn over senior Labour figures, and have socials where they re-watch the 1997 general election. The ex-SWP/ISN are good pals with them, too.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2013)

Is he  - straw jr - still pushing dromey jr for a safe seat?


----------



## agricola (Aug 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is he - straw jr - still pushing dromey jr for a safe seat?


 
Are you suggesting they wouldnt be given one each?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> Will Straw's selection, posted on CIF


 
Ten Quid Draw has been selected for a seat?
Fuck me, back to the old days of families in parliament, and not the fucking Tories, either!


----------



## agricola (Aug 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ten Quid Draw has been selected for a seat?
> Fuck me, back to the old days of families in parliament, and not the fucking Tories, either!


 
The selection meeting is next month, apparently.  Can we expect more high-quality journalism as the contest enters its final stage?

ps:  those who suffer from nausea, who have delicate stomachs or who are just about to have their tea should not click on that link


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2013)

agricola said:


> The selection meeting is next month, apparently. Can we expect more high-quality journalism as the contest enters its final stage?
> 
> ps: those who suffer from nausea, who have delicate stomachs or who are just about to have their tea should not click on that link


 
A fair few scions of the teaching professions, I see.
Wonder if Euan Blair is still noodling around the constituencies too?
As for Dromey Jr, does he have no shame?  What sort of twat wants to work at the same place as both parents?


----------



## where to (Aug 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> What sort of twat wants to work at the same place as both parents?



One whose parent's are minted, maybe


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2013)

where to said:


> One whose parent's are minted, maybe


 
one whose parents are the bosses


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2013)

> he has mellowed since his drum ’n’ bass promoter days but he is still at the heart of every party (outshone only by his dynamic Texan wife Claire).


 
How many events did he promote?

btw, what a shower, if this is the future of the LP...


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/10/ed-miliband-fourth-reshuffle-shadow-cabinet


reshuffle ahoy,

Hope Liam Byrne gets the boot...


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2013)

> And you know this how? You know what a socialist is? You know how the country thinks?
> Last week my husband had a strange experience that both chuffed and heartened him. He was sitting on the bus chatting to some stranger when a "posh" type plonked himself down in their section (It's the season so we expect riffraff). Suddenly this newcomer started telling the bus how wonderful the Tories were, and my husband rose to the bait to answer him point for point. So far, so more or less ordinary.
> But when my beloved rose to go, the other passengers burst into spontaneous applause...................now that was extraordinary! And I think the incident speaks of a substantial section of the population that have been made voiceless by both the media and the polity.
> No, this is not a fictional anecdote of convenience, it really happened. And Cornwall is not a hotbed of radical socialism.


 
Interesting anecdote on Guardian CIF


----------



## isvicthere? (Aug 11, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Blair and labour bear ultimate responsibility because of the lies they told the rest of the country.
> 
> Labour were in another way worse than the tories - they are supposed to be the part of the workers and when they got in after 18 years they turned out just as bad. The tories are the party of the rich and greedy but labour betrayed the people they are supposed to represent.


 
Also: long after the Iraq War is forgotten, Blair will be remembered as the PM who got rid of _habeas corpus_ after nearly 800 years.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 11, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/10/ed-miliband-fourth-reshuffle-shadow-cabinet
> 
> 
> reshuffle ahoy,
> ...


So what if he does? The core is rotten and Milibland is a total waste of space.

Labour are finished. They won't in 2015. I doubt even Milibland wants to win. He has no fight, no spine, and no clue. He's just a product of the political class and happy to wallow in the mire it's become.

It will be another hung parliament in 2015 and the libdems will, inexplicably, garner enough votes to collude with another tory minority government because both of them know they are now inextricably connected.

Fuck the lot of them. Even John McDonnell isn't doing enough. He should quit and take Meacher with him. 

There's fuck all hope in this country. We are descending into division because the only way people can vent their anger and frustration is by taking it out on those less fortunate than even themselves. The People's Assembly is a talking shop that has done absolutely fuck all. Their big meeting consisted of saying "let's all go away and have a think about what to do and then meet up next year to talk about that". The unions won't vote for a general strike; if they haven't already i can't see them ever doing it. They are as wedded to the political system as MerelyBland.

The only answer is mass civil disobedience, wildcat strikes, solidarity and revolution.


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2013)

no hope then...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2013)

Hard job, what with him being dead and all.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 11, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Labour MP compares Labour left to BNP
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Labours-militant-left-no-better-than-BNP.html


 


> . I had my own run ins with Unite when I stood to become Labour MP in Rochdale


 


> Their views are certainly grounded in the politics of envy,


 
The Chair of a residents association of a Council estate recently invited me to a meeting about housing in my area ( Brixton its a big issue there) held through Unite Community.

It was a good meeting. A cross section of local people involved in housing issues.From the homeless to Council tenants.

It was grass roots organising. Bringing people together who have common concerns about what is happening to affordable housing and the lack of it.

The kind of thing the Labour party should organise.



> Blinded by dogma, there’s no reasoning with these people.
> But Labour is under no illusion of the road that these dinosaurs would commit Britain to.


 
At the meeting the views that were expressed were based on knowledge of the social housing/ affordable sector.

I cannot see the picture that this MP paints as being at all accurate.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2013)

Labour MPs who didn't vote against the privatisation of the NHS in 2011.



> Alexander, Heidi
> Allen, Graham
> Betts, Clive
> Brown, Gordon
> ...


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2013)

Not surprised to see Meg Munn there, surprised to see Clive Betts


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> So what if he does? The core is rotten and Milibland is a total waste of space.
> 
> Labour are finished. They won't in 2015. I doubt even Milibland wants to win. He has no fight, no spine, and no clue. He's just a product of the political class and happy to wallow in the mire it's become.
> 
> ...


 
Meacher - paternalist _rentier_.  His heart may be in the right place at the moment, but he's part of the problem, not part of any solution.

As for McDonnell, he's got nowhere to go, outside of Labour, and he's totally sold on being a "voice in the wilderness" in among the other half dozen or so actual socialists in the Parliamentary Labour Party.



> There's fuck all hope in this country. We are descending into division because the only way people can vent their anger and frustration is by taking it out on those less fortunate than even themselves. The People's Assembly is a talking shop that has done absolutely fuck all. Their big meeting consisted of saying "let's all go away and have a think about what to do and then meet up next year to talk about that". The unions won't vote for a general strike; if they haven't already i can't see them ever doing it. They are as wedded to the political system as MerelyBland.
> 
> The only answer is mass civil disobedience, wildcat strikes, solidarity and revolution.


 
The unions (or rather the "management" of the unions) not only won't vote for a general strike, but they'll suppress any elements inside their unions that agitate to extend action beyond the pitiful legally-sanctioned balloted one-day strikes, and know to expect a legal challenge from employers or govt even then.  They're so locked into defending union assets and their own sinecures that they'll disown any trade union member that wildcats, and decry any non-unionised worker who does so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/10/ed-miliband-fourth-reshuffle-shadow-cabinet
> 
> 
> reshuffle ahoy,
> ...


 
Booting Byrne would send a message Miliband doesn't want to send, so at best he'll move him to another shadow ministry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2013)

isvicthere? said:


> Also: long after the Iraq War is forgotten, Blair will be remembered as the PM who got rid of _habeas corpus_ after nearly 800 years.


 
He didn't get rid of it, he removed it for certain categories of detainee.
He is, however, the first PM to do so in *peacetime*, as other abrogations of _habeas corpus_ have generally been in wartime, and to do with internees.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The Chair of a residents association of a Council estate recently invited me to a meeting about housing in my area ( Brixton its a big issue there) held through Unite Community.
> 
> It was a good meeting. A cross section of local people involved in housing issues.From the homeless to Council tenants.
> 
> ...


 
It's Danczuk,. He's a Blairite, neolib who thinks "blue Labour" is dangerously leftwing.  He's tribally Labour, but politically as right as they come.  I wouldn't gob on him if he were burning, He's nothing to do with any politics I'd want to be part of, and his anti-union smear tactics are the rankest hypocrisy from someone who benefitted from so much support from the unions on his ascent up the greasy pole.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Meacher - paternalist _rentier_. His heart may be in the right place at the moment, but he's part of the problem, not part of any solution.


 
His heart's in his property portfolio.




> As for McDonnell, he's got nowhere to go, outside of Labour, and he's totally sold on being a "voice in the wilderness" in among the other half dozen or so actual socialists in the Parliamentary Labour Party.


 
Maybe, but what about joining Left Unity?



> The unions (or rather the "management" of the unions) not only won't vote for a general strike, but they'll suppress any elements inside their unions that agitate to extend action beyond the pitiful legally-sanctioned balloted one-day strikes, and know to expect a legal challenge from employers or govt even then. They're so locked into defending union assets and their own sinecures that they'll disown any trade union member that wildcats, and decry any non-unionised worker who does so.


 
When union leaders are happy to be knighted you know which side they are on.

When the PCS is led by a cunt that won't call on his members to stop sanctioning benefit claimants for things like turning up five minutes late.

You know which side their bread is buttered.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> His heart's in his property portfolio.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Why would he? He'd just be shifting his alliegance from one party mostly made up of the centre left, to another. Left Unity have said *nothing* that makes me assume they'll do anything more than New Labour did about neoliberalism and its effects.




> When union leaders are happy to be knighted you know which side they are on.
> 
> When the PCS is led by a cunt that won't call on his members to stop sanctioning benefit claimants for things like turning up five minutes late.


 
Again, that's another example of guarding the union assets against sequestration.  If a trade union sanctions large-scale unofficial action (beyond walk-out), it leaves itself open to legal chllenge, and the financial and legal weight of the state being thrown at it.




> You know which side their bread is buttered.


 
As with any established organisation whose existence is (however grudgingly) accepted by The Establishment, they're on the side of "lets be civilised about this", not quite grasping that The establishment is manipulating them, and that being civilised doesn't put bread on the table, or coal on the fire.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 12, 2013)

Why indeed. Left Unity are irrelevant anyway, this close to the election. Despite the fact they won't win in FPTP and despite the fact that their councillors, in places like Brighton, are colluding with government austerity, I think the Greens are the most credible choice for change. Labour seem to be acting as if they believe they have it in the bag and that people will vote for them in 2015 regarldess. They won't reverse fuck all from this lost generation, least of all workfare and the welfare reforms.

I've been told that the reason the PCS won't come down on the side of claimants and stop this vile sanction and punishment regime is of course they will be replaced by even more hardline robots. But I don't see how things can really be any worse: if PCS staff are sanctioning people, for any reason really, nevermind trivial nonsense that breaks no rules, then that is the line in the sand surely. Unfortunately, for all his grandstanding, Serwotka does fuck all. Maybe he thinks that he can talk it up and others will back it up. But we're coming up to the third 'hot' autumn in a row that will fizzle out come next spring.

Something sooner or later has to give and I fear that people will take their frustrations out on the less well off (than even they) and those least able to defend themselves. This is already happening, with the rise in disability hate crime. Society is sick and getting sicker.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 12, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...es-tack-to-say-benefit-cap-isnt-tough-enough/


Byrne and IDS were separated at birth. To protect them from the Emperor.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2013)




----------



## RedDragon (Aug 12, 2013)

Poor love, caught with his pants down (again)

The pregnant journalist should've asked him when his reshuffle is due.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Aug 13, 2013)

If anyone thinks that voting for ed milipede's nu-labour MK2 will bring any real change from the Torlibdem axis of evil is suffering frm major delusions and should study the years of blair and brown's nu-labour MK1 to realise that the MK2 nu-labour of Ed milipede will be no different


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

Stop staying stuff like that.


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2013)

agricola said:


> The selection meeting is next month, apparently.  Can we expect more high-quality journalism as the contest enters its final stage?
> 
> ps:  those who suffer from nausea, who have delicate stomachs or who are just about to have their tea should not click on that link


Deserves a much stronger warning!


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2013)

> Ed Miliband will on Wednesday attempt to galvanise Labour by stepping up his attack on the government over the "cost of living crisis", as the coalition basks in signs that the economy is experiencing a summer mini-boom.
> After a series of criticisms from backbenchers who have questioned Labour's relative silence as economic data has steadily improved, Miliband will tour a market in Elephant and Castle, south London – his first public engagement in a fortnight – telling voters: "David Cameron is out of touch; you are out of pocket."
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/13/ed-miliband-attack-coalition-cost-living-crisis


 


As though he has any intention of leading his party to do anything about that.....


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

coley said:


> Deserves a much stronger warning!


 

Agreed. That really was stomach-churning.

It raises an interesting question for me, which concerns the demographic of these aspiring MPs. Their backgrounds and experience, their already cultivated place within the political establishment, etc. To what extent is this something new within Labour? Is this a long run process or something that's always been the way? It just appears to me that there are definite currents that tend to see politics as a game -- an extension of student union politics I guess, or debating clubs -- and a career. Is this due to progressive withdrawal of power from constituencies in selection? Or something else? Or am I being naive and this has much longer been the way of things?


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2013)

benedict said:


> Agreed. That really was stomach-churning.
> 
> It raises an interesting question for me, which concerns the demographic of these aspiring MPs. Their backgrounds and experience, their already cultivated place within the political establishment, etc. To what extent is this something new within Labour? Is this a long run process or something that's always been the way? It just appears to me that there are definite currents that tend to see politics as a game -- an extension of student union politics I guess, or debating clubs -- and a career. Is this due to progressive withdrawal of power from constituencies in selection? Or something else? Or am I being naive and this has much longer been the way of things?


It's been the way of things for long enough in labour, the dinosaurs (read labour MPs with working class roots) being replaced with thrusting new players who have never done a days graft in their pampered lives but know the Westminster game inside out. A generalisation I admit, but a fairly accurate portrayal of Blairs legacy IMO.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

The party was a barristers playground well before Blair (as if changing individuals life experience would change how capital works).


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The party was a barristers playground well before Blair (as if changing individuals life experience would change how capital works).


 
Of course not, but it could be expected to change how the Labour Party works, which is what I was wondering about.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

benedict said:


> Of course not, but it could be expected to change how the Labour Party works, which is what I was wondering about.


 
I think what used to happen was that people from manual or serial work backgrounds could push upwards and squash party debate - they made it around their interests/needs/concerns (all within a pretty tight set of options though) and this took place through a range of ways - you could do it union wise, build up a local base in the council etc right up until yours 30s. The Blair people just turned this on its head, they used the internal blockages that the party has built up, that w/c CLP's had established to defend themselves, to just say well we're here now - there's been no functioning local-->national level stuff for years, that's how you wanted it - now this is the reason why we're taking over. And we're also shifting to a heavily executive lead party. (This mirrored the way thatin the 80s and 90s flexibility was turned back on those looking to work less).


----------



## elbows (Aug 14, 2013)

> *Rowena Mason* ‏@rowenamason9m​Just got caught in cross fire of ed miliband getting egged. The egg thrower dean porter says labour same as Tories and on side of rich


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2013)

NL II do seem to have the "reverse Midas-touch" at the moment.


----------



## treelover (Sep 22, 2013)

> Ed Miliband does a spontaneous Q&A for the public, from a table in New Road Brighton (21/09/13) - what a load of rubbish!!! …. New Road was closed all morning, a stage had been erected, and TV camera's and the Press informed … before he arrived I sat at a cafe and listened to a TV producer scripting questions for the "CHOSEN FEW" to ask - when he arrived I was front row centre stage waiting to ask him .. (1) what was Labour going to do to help all the disabled people that had had their DLA, ESA and PIP reduced, removed or sanctioned.. (2) what was Labours definition of a bedroom (clarification need for the bedroom tax) ... despite being directly in front of Mr Miliband, he avoided all eye contact, and refused to acknowledge me (for over 20 minutes) preferring only to answer questions from the allegedly "RANDOM" members of the public, who had questions supporting the Labour Parties policies … British Politics at its best, bullsh*ting the general public in order to get votes


 


Interesting post on FB from someone in Brighton


----------



## treelover (Sep 22, 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/labour-welfare-cap?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Btw, how do the IPPR get away with being identified as "left leaning"

and what happened to 'CLASS'?


btw2, just read that the Joseph Rowntree Trust is funding IPPR projects, wtf!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> Interesting post on FB from someone in Brighton



Hardly surprising, though.  Our political parties have been "stage-managing" purportedly spontaneous major "events" for decades, and micro-managing community events like this one since at least Thatcher's reign (where she got caught out by Joe Public often enough that Ingham and his assorted cunts decided to micro-manage her appearances).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/labour-welfare-cap?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
> 
> Btw, how do the IPPR get away with being identified as "left leaning"



In current parliamentary political discourse (and it's important to remember that bodies like the IPPR are only about policy formation, and therefore about *parliamentary* rather than community-level politics) their piss-weak nods to socialism *can* be described as "left-leaning".  That doesn't make them *meaningfully* socialist, but in comparison to the rightward-hovering centrism of the parliamentary Labour Party, they're a little bit left.



> and what happened to 'CLASS'?



Class no longer matters.

At least according to the mostly middle-class commentariat, who've barely ever experienced the effects of class.



> btw2, just read that the Joseph Rowntree Trust is funding IPPR projects, wtf!



Not really news. If the IPPR go to the JRT and say "we would like funding to research blah blah blah" and the trustees see utility in the research, then they'll fund it. That doesn't m,ean they agree with the premises, necessarily. It *could* mean that they see any data collected as useful to support entirely different research questions.


----------



## treelover (Sep 22, 2013)

"Class no longer matters."

Sorry, I meant the 'left wing' think tank supported by the TUC, Owen Jones, etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2013)

treelover said:


> "Class no longer matters."
> 
> Sorry, I meant the 'left wing' think tank supported by the TUC, Owen Jones, etc.



That's my point. Class no longer matters to these people whose engagement with the negative *effects* of class is glancing at best (which is also why any vaguely "real left" union leaders get sidelined and mocked by those same people).  All that matters to such people is perpetuation of their ideologies, and if that requires them masking their centrist neoliberalism in a cloak of vaguely left-ish rhetoric, then they're happy to do it - hey, it worked for Tony!


----------



## treelover (Sep 24, 2013)

Have to say there is some good stuff being announced at Conference, though of course the detail and whether it would be implemented is the key.


----------



## treelover (Sep 24, 2013)

> Liam Byrne fights for his job with crowd-pleasing speech
> After months of rumours that he's set for the chop, the shadow work and pensions secretary threw blow after blow at the Tories.
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/liam-byrne-fights-his-job-crowd-pleasing-speech


 
Someone wants the odious creep to stay...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> Someone wants the odious creep to stay...



Serco, A4E, G4S and other assorted corporate leech cunts, for starters!


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 24, 2013)

Has Ted Moribund stopped chelpin yet?
Daren't turn TV on cos of chance of high blood pressure spike.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> Have to say there is some good stuff being announced at Conference, though of course the detail and whether it would be implemented is the key.


 
To an extent - but beneath it all: cuts to 2017 at least, public sector wage freeze, "compulsory jobs guarantee" (Workfare lite),.... > we can do better than this!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 24, 2013)

Liam fucking Byrne. He's too right-wing to even be a Fabian.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 24, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Liam fucking Byrne. He's too right-wing to even be a Fabian.



Pretty sure he's to the right of some Tories tbh


----------



## ska invita (Sep 24, 2013)

So the big headline policy is freezing energy prices for two years (15-17 im guessing)  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/24/ed-miliband-labour-freeze-prices-2017
pissing in the wind
ive only just paid off last years gas bill, and prices are set to rise 10% in the next month. what fucking difference does a prize freeze in 2016 make?
gutless and pathetic. Nationalise them, force them to cut prices, tax the living shit out of them, do something meaningful, not some half arsed price freeze once the bills are already sky high. if they are trying to appeal to voters who are hurting from utility bills this is meaningless

i wonder if ed will ever reuse the S word after the other day


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 24, 2013)

Fuck all about tax dodgers then.

Fuck Labour.


----------



## Gingerman (Sep 24, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24223744
Christonafuckingbike !!!!!!


----------



## gosub (Sep 25, 2013)

Eddie Mair trying to Douglas Alexander say the word socialist on pm today was quite entertaining


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 25, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24223744
> Christonafuckingbike !!!!!!





> Former Home Secretary David Blunkett has called for internet providers to block pornography, warning against a descent into "Sodom and Gomorrah".
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...



Pixelated boobs -> Genocide.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 25, 2013)

Those Jews and gays only had themselves to blame for the rise of the Nazis. What a fucking idiot Blunkett is. Lunatic fringe indeed.


----------



## RedDragon (Sep 25, 2013)

I remember when Blunkett complained about the dance company DV8 -  



> This early performance work really found its power and place in Charnock's now-legendary partnership with Lloyd Newson, with whom he co-founded DV8 Physical Theatre. Their duet My Sex, Our Dance was the first of a number of seminal works with the company, which also included Dead Dreams of Monochrome Men and Strange Fish. Both these later works were made into acclaimed television films, with the premiere of Dead Dreams... on The South Bank Show making the front page of the Sunday Mirror, with the headline "GAY SEX ORGY ON TV". David Blunkett denounced it as "vulgar and tasteless for Sunday night viewing".
> Independent


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24223744
> Christonafuckingbike !!!!!!



Great, having a bloke who can't see pornography lecturing people on the evils of it! 
What we see in that article is Blunkett's ravings about what he *imagines* pornography is, so obviously the cunt has a pretty sick mind.  No wonder all his guide dogs die young!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2013)

ska invita said:


> So the big headline policy is freezing energy prices for two years (15-17 im guessing)  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/24/ed-miliband-labour-freeze-prices-2017
> pissing in the wind
> ive only just paid off last years gas bill, and prices are set to rise 10% in the next month. what fucking difference does a prize freeze in 2016 make?



Very little, given that people can't afford *current* prices.



> gutless and pathetic. Nationalise them, force them to cut prices, tax the living shit out of them, do something meaningful, not some half arsed price freeze once the bills are already sky high. if they are trying to appeal to voters who are hurting from utility bills this is meaningless



Gas prices in the UK look set to remain very unstable too, given that Centrica just withdrew from 2 storage projects (which would have increased our gas-holding ability from 2 weeks-worth to around 6 weeks-worth) because the government have been shilly-shallying about their contribution.



> i wonder if ed will ever reuse the S word after the other day



What do you think?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 25, 2013)

The utility companies must be re-rationalised. There is no other way.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Sep 25, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> The utility companies must be re-rationalised. There is no other way.



With the three major parties in this country renationalisation of the utilities is as likely as me getting the pope's job


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 25, 2013)

SikhWarrioR said:


> With the three major parties in this country renationalisation of the utilities is as likely as me getting the pope's job


Quite. It's going to take a revolution.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Sep 25, 2013)

i wonder if ed will ever reuse the S word after the other day

And i wonder if ed will ever use the "Re-nationalisation" word in regard to things like gas and leccy co's and the railways ????


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2013)

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1Dpi1JW-8pU?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


"Real Britain - those affected by welfare cuts meet Ed Miliband"

Ed meets the people, Daily Mirror fringe meeting,


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 25, 2013)

treelover said:


> <iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1Dpi1JW-8pU?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
> 
> 
> "Real Britain - those affected by welfare cuts meet Ed Miliband"
> ...



Abott and Costello meet the Wolfman.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 25, 2013)

The only viable way to meet the energy needs of the nation is for the nation to take ownership, running and maintaining the energy supplies.
For too long money raised by the sale of energy has drifted away often overseas to profit demanding investors. Where what should occur is the re investment of profits to maintain the system.
Only through state ownership can the funds be made available for the re building of the failing utilities, they realised that in the 1940s, but only did half a job.
Plus the country needs educating that the fabric and welfare of a nation and it's citizens come before private profit.
Whilst ever the puddings in this land keep reading and accepting the garbage spewed by the papers the population will follow the capitalists ploy.
We could do with a long blackout to wake the fuckers up, three day week? doddle!


----------



## ska invita (Sep 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What do you think?


i think he might whisper it again next year, especially when socialism seems to amount to upholding extortionate energy prices


----------



## Favelado (Sep 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Great, having a bloke who can't see pornography lecturing people on the evils of it!
> What we see in that article is Blunkett's ravings about what he *imagines* pornography is, so obviously the cunt has a pretty sick mind.  No wonder all his guide dogs die young!



That is harsh man!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2013)

If blunkett despises weimar decadence so much why doesn't he stop fucking his 'guide' dog.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2013)

beaten to the gutter by VP, for fucks sake


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2013)

Sprocket. said:


> Whilst ever the puddings in this land keep reading and accepting the garbage spewed by the papers the population will follow the capitalists ploy.
> WE could do with a long blackout to wake the fuckers up, three day week? doddle!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2013)

Just spotted this fresh insanity:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ng-military-personnel-a-criminal-offence.html



> Labour is tabling amendments to the Defence Reform Bill in a bid to increase the punishments given to anyone who commits a crime against service personnel.
> 
> It would put members of the Armed Forces in the same bracket as disabled, gay, transgender and ethnic minority crime victims.



And this bit is just completely beyond satire:



> A poll of troops last year found that nearly one in 20 members of the Armed Forces said they had experienced violence or threats of violence.



We can't have soldiers being exposed to violence. This is right up there with, 'you can't fight in here, this is the war room!'


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2013)

christ these people live in such an echo chamber. They deliberately stir up and foster soldier-worship and Our Boys stuff in collusion with the press and the MoD (help for heroes saves them on PTSD treatment costs after all) then when the echo bounces off the wall and back at them they think its the voice of the common man and they should pander to him in a meaningless yet zietgiesty way. Total delusions.


----------



## Humberto (Sep 25, 2013)

Daily Mail reckons Labour 'will plunge Britain into darkness' for trying to cap energy bills for a bit. Reckons 'Red Ed' is a bonkers lefty for that and wanting to boost min. wage. Same paper is always moaning about energy bills though.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 25, 2013)

Next week, a cap on energy bills may cause cancer.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 25, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Next week, a cap on energy bills may cause cancer.


 
As well as acting like a magnet for shivering Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Next week, a cap on energy bills may cause cancer.




cancer affects house prices while energy caps are peado headgear that Diana hated


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> christ these people live in such an echo chamber. They deliberately stir up and foster soldier-worship and Our Boys stuff in collusion with the press and the MoD (help for heroes saves them on PTSD treatment costs after all) then when the echo bounces off the wall and back at them they think its the voice of the common man and they should pander to him in a meaningless yet zietgiesty way. Total delusions.



Looks a bit like a late attempt to gain some mileage from Lee Rigby's death to me. This puts Miliband in the same classiness bracket as the EDL.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Looks a bit like a late attempt to gain some mileage from Lee Rigby's death to me. This puts Miliband in the same classiness bracket as the EDL.




the same thought occurred, but its the edge on a big wedge of this jingoistic crap.

thing is the Labour Party is so bereft of policies that distinguish them from their bedfellows they actually have to resort to warrior worship bullshit and vague noises about making energy companies behave. It's almost as picayune and stupid as Clegg and his plastic fucking bag tax


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 25, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> > A poll of troops last year found that nearly one in 20 members of the Armed Forces said they had experienced violence or threats of violence.
> 
> 
> We can't have soldiers being exposed to violence. This is right up there with, 'you can't fight in here, this is the war room!'



The politicians have clearly taken a walk through Colchester on a Saturday night. Innocent squadies minding their own business, with meanie students and scary goths starting fights on them for no good reason. #ProtectOurTroops


----------



## Humberto (Sep 25, 2013)

Labour are part of the establishment and want to remain so. But they would be a better alternative at least than any other realistic alternative. If they are the only available means to destroy the Tories then I will likely support them. Two years to go and hopefully the Tories can be obliterated. The Tories... who actually fucking likes them or votes for them? 

Hopefully the next government isn't so militaristic and so ready to throw their weight around at every opportunity to start bombing places.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2013)

Humberto said:


> Labour are part of the establishment and want to remain so. But they would be a better alternative at least than any other realistic alternative. If they are the only available means to destroy the Tories then I will likely support them. Two years to go and hopefully the Tories can be obliterated. The Tories... who actually fucking likes them or votes for them?
> 
> Hopefully the next government isn't so militaristic and so ready to throw their weight around at every opportunity to start bombing places.



Vain hope, in my opinion.  Military intervention has been and is part of the foreign policy armoury for several centuries, and the "humanitarian military intervention" narrative has a lot of mileage left in it for our neoliberal neo-imperialists.


----------



## shifting gears (Sep 26, 2013)

Humberto said:


> Labour are part of the establishment and want to remain so. But they would be a better alternative at least than any other realistic alternative. If they are the only available means to destroy the Tories then I will likely support them. Two years to go and hopefully the Tories can be obliterated. The Tories... who actually fucking likes them or votes for them?
> 
> Hopefully the next government isn't so militaristic and so ready to throw their weight around at every opportunity to start bombing places.



How will the Tories be obliterated? They'll lose one election, most likely, and will have a decent chance at the next one, once Labour fail to address any of the major issues facing the country in any meaningful way. Think of all the shit the Tories have done, all the lives they've ruined, and they're still one of the 2 dominant forces in British politics. Who votes for them/likes them? History says a huge chunk of the electorate, which tells us there's one hell of a lot of vapid, greedy, self-serving, ignorant and all-round horrible cunts out there.


----------



## bob420 (Sep 26, 2013)

sometimes i feel a tiny bit guilty
in 1913 a lady apparently killed herself with the aid of a horse
in protest of women not being allowed to vote

and i have never registered or voted
i have yet to find a political movement that i consider to be trust worthy
maybe they were trust worthy in 1913, or maybe she died for nothing
it all seems such a sorry business


----------



## Humberto (Sep 26, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> How will the Tories be obliterated? They'll lose one election, most likely, and will have a decent chance at the next one, once Labour fail to address any of the major issues facing the country in any meaningful way. Think of all the shit the Tories have done, all the lives they've ruined, and they're still one of the 2 dominant forces in British politics. Who votes for them/likes them? History says a huge chunk of the electorate, which tells us there's one hell of a lot of vapid, greedy, self-serving, ignorant and all-round horrible cunts out there.



Maybe there are just too many 'horrible cunts' who will elect them for the Tories to fade into obscurity, I don't know. But after three Labour victories, unpopular wars and an economic crisis etc the Tories still only managed to win the election through a coalition agreement. I may be wrong but the Tories will hopefully do rather badly.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Sep 27, 2013)

Humberto said:


> Maybe there are just too many 'horrible cunts' who will elect them for the Tories to fade into obscurity, I don't know. But after three Labour victories, unpopular wars and an economic crisis etc the Tories still only managed to win the election through a coalition agreement. I may be wrong but the Tories will hopefully do rather badly.



It would be interesting to see just how ,many tories are going to jump ship to UKIP not that UKIP would be any better than the tories


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2013)

SikhWarrioR said:


> It would be interesting to see just how ,many tories are going to jump ship to UKIP not that UKIP would be any better than the tories



It would, however, help seperate those who are willing to wear their cuntishness on their sleeve, from those who are not.


----------



## Sue (Sep 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It would, however, help seperate those who are willing to wear their cuntishness on their sleeve, from those who are not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2013)

Sue said:


>



UKIP don't have quite the degree of worry about the image they project that the Tories do.  That may change if/when they edge closer to power, but at the mo it's part of their appeal to some Tories, the wearing of their cuntishness on their sleeve - the whole "we don't give a fuck about anyone except UK PLC, and those who sail in her" _schtick_.


----------



## Sue (Sep 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> UKIP don't have quite the degree of worry about the image they project that the Tories do.  That may change if/when they edge closer to power, but at the mo it's part of their appeal to some Tories, the wearing of their cuntishness on their sleeve - the whole "we don't give a fuck about anyone except UK PLC, and those who sail in her" _schtick_.


 
Though many of the Tories are already doing a very good job of it, if with an extremely thin veneer of doing it for people's own *good*. (IDS and Gove spring to mind. Alas.)


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Sep 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> UKIP don't have quite the degree of worry about the image they project that the Tories do.  That may change if/when they edge closer to power, but at the mo it's part of their appeal to some Tories, the wearing of their cuntishness on their sleeve - the whole "we don't give a fuck about anyone except UK PLC, and those who sail in her" _schtick_.




"we dont give a fuck about anyone except UK PLC and those who sail in her".............DING, DING, DING, What do you see? Iceberg right ahead


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2013)

SikhWarrioR said:


> "we dont give a fuck about anyone except UK PLC and those who sail in her".............DING, DING, DING, What do you see? Iceberg right ahead



"RAMMING SPEED, Captain Falange!!!"


----------



## Superdupastupor (Sep 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "RAMMING SPEED, Captain Falange!!!"



a tv docu i saw said the titanic wouldnt have sunk if it struck the berg head(prow?) on. i don't know where that leaves this analogy....


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Sep 27, 2013)

Superdupastupor said:


> a tv docu i saw said the titanic wouldnt have sunk if it struck the berg head(prow?) on. i don't know where that leaves this analogy....



True if Titanic had hit the berg head on it would have survived this has been proved before and since Titanic see a ship called SS Arizona which hit an iceberg head on damaging its bows but the watertight bulkheads behind did their job and she not only remained afloat but made it to port [slowly] under her own power. The bad helm orders [and the lookouts lack of binoculars] on the Titanic's bridge presenting her side to the berg in trying to avoid the berg opened up several watertight compartments and doomed her


----------



## FNG (Sep 27, 2013)

bob420 said:


> sometimes i feel a tiny bit guilty
> in 1913 a lady apparently killed herself with the aid of a horse
> in protest of women not being allowed to vote
> 
> ...




you might not be getting the wealth of difference between being denied the vote and exercising your right not to vote


----------



## Quartz (Sep 29, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> We can't have soldiers being exposed to violence. This is right up there with, 'you can't fight in here, this is the war room!'



Do you not think that this is more to protect non-soldiers? I have worked with a number of ex front-line military and they all told me tales of having to rein in their training despite provocation. These are, after all, people trained to be aggressive and to kill. A friend, a Royal Marine, was drinking in a pub with another RM and was advised that he was going to be attacked once they left the pub. Sure enough there was a gang waiting for them so they started screaming, "We're just back from Iraq and we're going to f*** you up!" They then chased the would-be assailants up the high street. But he told me that it was really hard to not actually attack them. And they would have been dead meat.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 29, 2013)

bob420 said:


> and i have never registered or voted
> i have yet to find a political movement that i consider to be trust worthy
> maybe they were trust worthy in 1913, or maybe she died for nothing
> it all seems such a sorry business



But you now have that choice, do you not?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 29, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Do you not think that this is more to protect non-soldiers? I have worked with a number of ex front-line military and they all told me tales of having to rein in their training despite provocation. These are, after all, people trained to be aggressive and to kill. A friend, a Royal Marine, was drinking in a pub with another RM and was advised that he was going to be attacked once they left the pub. Sure enough there was a gang waiting for them so they started screaming, "We're just back from Iraq and we're going to f*** you up!" They then chased the would-be assailants up the high street. But he told me that it was really hard to not actually attack them. And they would have been dead meat.



I suspect this may not be a very common occurrence. My experience of growing up in a town full of marines was that you stayed the fuck away from them because they would beat the shit out of anyone they took a dislike to. I saw what they, or their 'training' did to people. I didn't care what the backstory was to these fights, I just saw drunken mindless savagery.

So if we want to protect non-soldiers then IMO we should throw all the servicemen in this country in a fucking zoo where they belong.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 29, 2013)

Chuka pretty much rules out re-nationalisation of Royal Mail (what a surprise):
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/29/labour-stamp-prices-royal-mail


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 29, 2013)

SikhWarrioR said:


> True if Titanic had hit the berg head on it would have survived this has been proved before and since Titanic see a ship called SS Arizona which hit an iceberg head on damaging its bows but the watertight bulkheads behind did their job and she not only remained afloat but made it to port [slowly] under her own power. The bad helm orders [and the lookouts lack of binoculars] on the Titanic's bridge presenting her side to the berg in trying to avoid the berg opened up several watertight compartments and doomed her


BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ANALOGY?!


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 30, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ANALOGY?!



The only analogy I see is with the iceberg likened to UKIP's membership and policies, that 8/9ths are out of sight and bob along below the surface scraping the lower parts of the Tory party into a mushy tangled froth, hopefully sinking them without trace.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2013)

steph said:


> Chuka pretty much rules out re-nationalisation of Royal Mail (what a surprise):
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/29/labour-stamp-prices-royal-mail


Leopards and spots. Typical Labour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2013)

steph said:


> Chuka pretty much rules out re-nationalisation of Royal Mail (what a surprise):
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/29/labour-stamp-prices-royal-mail



Chuka would boil his mum in a vat of piss if it got him a step nearer to the party leadership, so his playing along with neoliberalism isn't surprising.  
Of course, if he could make political brownie points from his colleagues off of a re-nationalised Royal Mail, he'd be on it like a shot.  The careerist cunt.


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 4, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> With Labour seemingly being the only game in town I think we need a thread illustrating why anybody with any sense wouldn't touch them with a bargepole and exactly what Labour members are supporting.
> 
> So here are two stories to kick it off.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-rachel-reeves-welfare?guni=Keyword:news-grid main-1 Main trailblock:Editable trailblock - newsosition4


Rachel Reeves, new Shadow DWP Secretary, "We will be tougher than the Tories on welfare"

so, no change, in fact she may be worse than Byrne, at least he was calling it Social Security

Oh, and Tristam Hunt, "Labour will support free schools"

Why do they not just join the Tories?, its clear they got rid of the Blairites' in the reshuffle, not because they were, but because they were under-performing, now they have the people they need to sell 'reform'


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2013)

Btw, Reeves is 34 and an economist, 34 ffs, how long was she an economist.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-rachel-reeves-welfare?guni=Keyword:news-grid main-1 Main trailblock:Editable trailblock - newsosition4
> 
> 
> 
> ...






> _*We have to clear up this question which has dogged Labour education policy since we entered opposition and since Michael Gove began his reforms, as to what we'd do. We just want to say, 'You are setting up these schools, we are behind you'.*_"



Something about that surname...


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> Btw, Reeves is 34 and an economist, 34 ffs, how long was she an economist.


Er, since she was 6? [gets coat]


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2013)

Already around the social media sites, people are 'warming' to Reeves and think her 'offer' is much better than the Tories and not as brutal


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2013)

> 110,000 people applied for 100 minimum wage jobs at an opening supermarket in Yorkshire..


 

Wonder why Reeves doesn't mention this?

It's clear now Milliband wanted 'reformers' in place, N/S bloggers, as much as I hate them were right when they predicted this.


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2013)

why cant you be a 34 year old economist?  Is it something only old blokes can lay claim to?  Bizarre comment


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2013)

I meant the most experience she could have is ten years and very little of how ordinary people live their lives, as i'm sure you know.


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2013)

so no 34 year olds should be appointed?  fuck young people!  

i have as little idea about what you think as you do


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2013)

To a senior political position which if she became DWP Sec would affect millions, no I don't think they should be appointed, remember Jim Murphy, another ruthless blairite


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2013)

had fuck all to do with his age.  Its about their _politics_


Karl Marx was 30 when he wrote the Communist Manifesto, so it must have been shit, what could he know by that age?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 13, 2013)

Leave no traces.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> I meant the most experience she could have is ten years and very little of how ordinary people live their lives, as i'm sure you know.


So what? What's a pathetic criticism of her. She should be slated cos she's a Labour scumbag not because she's "only" had X years of experience as a economist.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> Already around the social media sites, people are 'warming' to Reeves and think her 'offer' is much better than the Tories and not as brutal


There is nothing new in this policy,35 hours at minimum wage but could get in trouble as they back the living wage


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

Blimey! Bryan Gould, Kinnock's wingman, comes out of hiding and attacks Labour (or rather Rachel Reeves's) idea of being tougher on benefit claimants than the Tories.


> So, immigration, supposed benefit “scroungers”, trade unions bent on strike action, all attract headlines as part of a deliberate attempt to raise the salience of issues that suggest that our deep-seated problems are caused by failing to rein in the nefarious activities of ordinary people and are in no way the responsibility of the powerful people who run our economy and take most of its benefits.
> 
> It is an important part of this well-proven strategy that Labour should be lured into contesting such issues so that public attention is focused on them. I recall that, in the run-up to the 1992 general election, the Tory press provided the “oxygen of publicity” to fears that a new Labour government would raise income taxes.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Oct 18, 2013)

Wasn't Gould a proto-blairite, has he changed?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

Maybe he's mellowed with age? But then, by the same token, Kinnock was also a proto-Blairite. I will always blame Kinnock for foisting Blair on us.


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 18, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Maybe he's mellowed with age? But then, by the same token, Kinnock was also a proto-Blairite. I will always blame Kinnock for foisting Blair on us.



Hi everyone, I don't know a great deal about politics parsay, I'll be the first to admit that what I do know is only what I read in the papers, tv and the web. what I do remember when younger is being proud of my dad who was a union man for first the Miner's and then for the Dairies, He used to have many a meeting with Dennis Healey. He, my mum and my six siblings and myself were brought up on a really nice council estate where everyone took pride in their homes even though we never had the luxuries of today, when dad was a faceworker at the Mines he was entitled to a lorry load of coal so many times a year and when the lorry tipped it on the road outside the house, dad would make sure that the nineteen out of the twenty houses in our cul=de-sac all brought a wheelbarrow to take a load of coal home before getting my brothers to load the remainder into our coalhouse. That to me was the Labour Party of years ago.working-class people sharing and helping each other. Never in a million years would anyone in our family vote Tory, And then came Tony Blair - the biggest shyster in history and here was the biggest fool who voted not once but twice for him. What did I receive in return from the party that was created to look after the wellbeing of working class people? a dictatorship !! all of a sudden, I was terrified of putting the wrong thing in my bin in case I got fined, there were the constant threats of camera's being put into the bins to monitor me, I couldn't have a cigarette at the bus-stop whilst I waited for the bus to take me to and from work, I couldn't open my mouth to say how worried I was about the open-door immigration policy without being labelled a Racist, the well-being of minority groups and immigrants took precedence over those of us whom had paid into the system for years. those like me and my families needs, wants, well-being were discarded all in the name of multiculturism and selling us out to Europe. After that treason by the party that betrayed every labour voter in this country, never again will I ever trust a Labour politician as long as I live, I will not vote Tory, I will vote for UKIP even though I know it is a wasted vote here in Shropshire as the Tories have it sewn up. May Labour rot in hell for the lies, the death's of our brave troops in a false war in Iraq and for changing the social fabric of this country which I love.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 18, 2013)




----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)




----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Hi everyone, I don't know a great deal about politics parsay, I'll be the first to admit that what I do know is only what I read in the papers, tv and the web. what I do remember when younger is being proud of my dad who was a union man for first the Miner's and then for the Dairies, He used to have many a meeting with Dennis Healey. He, my mum and my six siblings and myself were brought up on a really nice council estate where everyone took pride in their homes even though we never had the luxuries of today, when dad was a faceworker at the Mines he was entitled to a lorry load of coal so many times a year and when the lorry tipped it on the road outside the house, dad would make sure that the nineteen out of the twenty houses in our cul=de-sac all brought a wheelbarrow to take a load of coal home before getting my brothers to load the remainder into our coalhouse. That to me was the Labour Party of years ago.working-class people sharing and helping each other. Never in a million years would anyone in our family vote Tory, And then came Tony Blair - the biggest shyster in history and here was the biggest fool who voted not once but twice for him. What did I receive in return from the party that was created to look after the wellbeing of working class people? a dictatorship !! all of a sudden, I was terrified of putting the wrong thing in my bin in case I got fined, there were the constant threats of camera's being put into the bins to monitor me, I couldn't have a cigarette at the bus-stop whilst I waited for the bus to take me to and from work, I couldn't open my mouth to say how worried I was about the open-door immigration policy without being labelled a Racist, the well-being of minority groups and immigrants took precedence over those of us whom had paid into the system for years. those like me and my families needs, wants, well-being were discarded all in the name of multiculturism and selling us out to Europe. After that treason by the party that betrayed every labour voter in this country, never again will I ever trust a Labour politician as long as I live, I will not vote Tory, I will vote for UKIP even though I know it is a wasted vote here in Shropshire as the Tories have it sewn up. May Labour rot in hell for the lies, the death's of our brave troops in a false war in Iraq and for changing the social fabric of this country which I love.


It's political correctness gawn mad I tells ya! 

On yer bike, sunshine.


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 18, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> It's political correctness gawn mad I tells ya!
> 
> On yer bike, sunshine.



ha, sorry, too old to ride a bike now nino, probably give me piles !!


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

Bikes don't 'give' you piles.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2013)

lol kippers


----------



## Onket (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Hi everyone, I don't know a great deal about politics parsay, I'll be the first to admit that what I do know is only what I read in the papers, tv and the web. what I do remember when younger is being proud of my dad who was a union man for first the Miner's and then for the Dairies, He used to have many a meeting with Dennis Healey. He, my mum and my six siblings and myself were brought up on a really nice council estate where everyone took pride in their homes even though we never had the luxuries of today, when dad was a faceworker at the Mines he was entitled to a lorry load of coal so many times a year and when the lorry tipped it on the road outside the house, dad would make sure that the nineteen out of the twenty houses in our cul=de-sac all brought a wheelbarrow to take a load of coal home before getting my brothers to load the remainder into our coalhouse. That to me was the Labour Party of years ago.working-class people sharing and helping each other. Never in a million years would anyone in our family vote Tory, And then came Tony Blair - the biggest shyster in history and here was the biggest fool who voted not once but twice for him. What did I receive in return from the party that was created to look after the wellbeing of working class people? a dictatorship !!


 
Did quite well until this point.



rostabeef said:


> all of a sudden, I was terrified of putting the wrong thing in my bin in case I got fined, there were the constant threats of camera's being put into the bins to monitor me, I couldn't have a cigarette at the bus-stop whilst I waited for the bus to take me to and from work, I couldn't open my mouth to say how worried I was about the open-door immigration policy without being labelled a Racist, the well-being of minority groups and immigrants took precedence over those of us whom had paid into the system for years. those like me and my families needs, wants, well-being were discarded all in the name of multiculturism and selling us out to Europe. After that treason by the party that betrayed every labour voter in this country, never again will I ever trust a Labour politician as long as I live, I will not vote Tory, I will vote for UKIP even though I know it is a wasted vote here in Shropshire as the Tories have it sewn up. May Labour rot in hell for the lies, the death's of our brave troops in a false war in Iraq and for changing the social fabric of this country which I love.


 
And they say people get more right-wing as they get older? Nah!


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 18, 2013)

Just more paranoia-ridden maybe?


----------



## Onket (Oct 18, 2013)

I think the important issue here is the right of the working class to put their litter in whichever bin they want.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 18, 2013)

*Burning* issue, that. Very top of the priority list


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2013)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/man-fined-75-for-dumping-his-rubbish--in-a-litter-bin-6682642.html

best bit:


Mr Richards, who runs the Apostrophe Protection Society to promote the correct use of the punctuation mark,


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 18, 2013)

I bet he's also in that group that campaigns to ban musak, and that other group that campaigns to remove in-vision idents from TV channels.


----------



## Onket (Oct 18, 2013)

King Biscuit Time said:


> that other group that campaigns to remove in-vision idents from TV channels.


 
Where can I sign up to that one?


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 18, 2013)

Onket said:


> I think the important issue here is the right of the working class to put their litter in whichever bin they want.



Onket, I like to think I am like everyone else and do my bit for the environment by putting the correct items into the many bins/containers that I have, however, what I did object to was being threatened and bullied by a government over what would happen to me if I dared to make a mistake and put a piece of paper into the wrong bin or if I dared to put the bin out with the lid slightly ajar due to it being full because of the fortnightly collections and I was especially disgusted when we were informed that camera's were going to be installed in everyone's bin. What !  New Labour ended up running this country like a nazi state and I thanked god when that idiot Brown followed that traitor Blair out of the door. I personally have no truck with any political party, they are all lying, devious,up-my-own-backside shysters who care nothing for the people they are meant to represent, so if that makes me right-wing as I get older so be it.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Onket, I like to think I am like everyone else and do my bit for the environment by putting the correct items into the many bins/containers that I have, however, what I did object to was being threatened and bullied by a government over what would happen to me if I dared to make a mistake and put a piece of paper into the wrong bin or if I dared to put the bin out with the lid slightly ajar due to it being full because of the fortnightly collections and I was especially disgusted when we were informed that camera's were going to be installed in everyone's bin. What !  New Labour ended up running this country like a nazi state and I thanked god when that idiot Brown followed that traitor Blair out of the door. I personally have no truck with any political party, they are all lying, devious,up-my-own-backside shysters who care nothing for the people they are meant to represent, so if that makes me right-wing as I get older so be it.



What the fuck are you on about you loon?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Onket, I like to think I am like everyone else and do my bit for the environment by putting the correct items into the many bins/containers that I have, however, what I did object to was being threatened and bullied by a government over what would happen to me if I dared to make a mistake and put a piece of paper into the wrong bin or if I dared to put the bin out with the lid slightly ajar due to it being full because of the fortnightly collections and I was especially disgusted when we were informed that camera's were going to be installed in everyone's bin. What !  New Labour ended up running this country like a nazi state and I thanked god when that idiot Brown followed that traitor Blair out of the door. I personally have no truck with any political party, they are all lying, devious,up-my-own-backside shysters who care nothing for the people they are meant to represent, so if that makes me right-wing as I get older so be it.


i like to think  i'm nothing like you


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 18, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> What the fuck are you on about you loon?



typical left-wing reply. Very apt.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

This is a classic


> New Labour ended up running this country like a nazi state



Now I hate Nu Labour as much as anyone, but this is barking...or Upney or somewhere...


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> typical left-wing reply. Very apt.


What? Not part of a 'left-wing agenda'?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 18, 2013)

In general, refuse collection is not a matter of central government policy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> typical left-wing reply. Very apt.


i'm getting the feeling you'd quite like living in a nazi state.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Onket, I like to think I am like everyone else and do my bit for the environment by putting the correct items into the many bins/containers that I have, however, what I did object to was being threatened and bullied by a government over what would happen to me if I dared to make a mistake and put a piece of paper into the wrong bin or if I dared to put the bin out with the lid slightly ajar due to it being full because of the fortnightly collections...



What, you mean the council sending you a letter asking you to take more care?  How terribly oppressive!



> ...and I was especially disgusted when we were informed that camera's were going to be installed in everyone's bin.



You mean when you read in the_Mail_ or the _Express_ that cameras were going to be installed.  
Guess what?  It was never going to happen, it was tabloid scare-story bollocks meant to sucker people.



> What !  New Labour ended up running this country like a nazi state...



If they'd run the state like a Nazi state, people like me would be dead, and people like you would be keeping _schtumm_ and kissing the arse of the local commissar, you poor, hard-done-by idiot!



> ...and I thanked god when that idiot Brown followed that traitor Blair out of the door. I personally have no truck with any political party, they are all lying, devious,up-my-own-backside shysters who care nothing for the people they are meant to represent, so if that makes me right-wing as I get older so be it.



And yet, even though you have no truck with any political party, you're announcing your intention to vote for UKIP.

You're an idiot, and worse, you're not even a consistent idiot, you're a self-contradicting idiot!


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm getting the feeling you'd quite like living in a nazi state.



Couldn't care less what you are feeling, just give me back the country where sanity once reigned.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Couldn't care less what you are feeling, just give me back the country where sanity once reigned.


if you mean the uk then surely it's the country when insanity once reigned


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> typical left-wing reply. Very apt.



More idiocy.  There is no "typical left wing reply", just like there's no "typical right-wing reply". There are just replies, and idiots who label things "left" or "right" so that they can dismiss them.

Do you have to practice hard to achieve your degree of witlessness, or does it come naturally?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what country's that then?




Narnia


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> In general, refuse collection is not a matter of central government policy.



I suspect that such distinctions might be lost on our new(?) arrival.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Couldn't care less what you are feeling, just give me back the country where sanity once reigned.


A country where _what_ once "reigned"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Narnia



Fuckspudlia.
It's near Finland.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> Wasn't Gould a proto-blairite



Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> More idiocy.  There is no "typical left wing reply", just like there's no "typical right-wing reply". There are just replies, and idiots who label things "left" or "right" so that they can dismiss them.
> 
> Do you have to practice hard to achieve your degree of witlessness, or does it come naturally?


Careful, you may get accused of having a 'left-wing agenda'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Couldn't care less what you are feeling, just give me back the country where sanity once reigned.



Yes, let's go back to the good old days where poofs were given a kicking in the cells before being sent to a loony bin to be "rehabilitated".  Let's go back to the days when the nignogs and the Pakis knew their place, and it was okay to give the reds a slap, because the Old Bill wouldn't pay any attention.  lets go back to Pounds, Shillings and Pence, and imperial measurements.
And to really put the cherry on the cake, lets go back to people dying from diptheria, smallpox and polio too, eh?

Idiot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if you mean the uk then surely it's the country when insanity once reigned



Surely it's only "insanity" when it's the lower orders that are afflicted, and when it's a nob that's afflicted, it's eccentricity or, if really bad, syphilis (always to be referred to, btw, as "the French Disease")?


----------



## treelover (Oct 18, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Don't be ridiculous.


 

Do expand?


----------



## ffsear (Oct 18, 2013)

Yuppies Out!


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, you mean the council sending you a letter asking you to take more care?  How terribly oppressive!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Feel better? get it off your chest there's a good boy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

I think you have a right-wing agenda.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Careful, you may get accused of having a 'left-wing agenda'.



Such an accusation would only serve to lend weight to my thesis with regard to the poster's idiocy, so bring it on!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Feel better? get it off your chest there's a good boy.



Ah, I see, you're one of those people who spew a load of shit, but can't deal with criticism, and try and get around it by being patronising.
In other words, you're a wanker.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> I think you have a right-wing agenda.



A (Nigel) Falangist, perhaps?


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, you mean the council sending you a letter asking you to take more care?  How terribly oppressive!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> ...I was especially disgusted when we were informed that camera's were going to be installed in everyone's bin.





rostabeef said:


> ...sanity...


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A (Nigel) Falangist, perhaps?


For sure. It's the "give me back my country/political correctness gawn maaad" schtick" that's much loved of Kippers everywhere.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect that such distinctions might be lost on our new(?) arrival.


I'm not even sure why I bothered posting that tbh. I think starting off from a position that Gordon Brown puts cameras in wheelie bins to stop you putting darkies in them should have let me know something.


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 18, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> For sure. It's the "give me back my country/political correctness gawn maaad" schtick" that's much loved of Kippers everywhere.



Yawn !


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Yawn !



I agree. The world constructed by your imagination in which there are cameras in every bin is far more interesting.


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 18, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I agree. The world constructed by your imagination in which there are cameras in every bin is far more interesting.



Double Yawn !


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Double Yawn !



Well that's that then.


----------



## Corax (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Couldn't care less what you are feeling, just give me back *the country where sanity once reigned.*


Could you expand upon this please?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> Could you expand upon this please?



Don't expect an answer. He's flounced off in a huff because we had the audacity to ask him to back up his bizarre claims.


----------



## Onket (Oct 18, 2013)

[quote="ViolentPanda, post: 12634823, member: ]Ah, I see, you're one of those people who spew a load of shit, but can't deal with criticism, and try and get around it by being patronising.
In other words, you're a wanker.[/quote]

Whereas you resort to name calling. Come on, you're better than that.


----------



## coley (Oct 18, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Double Yawn !


Just curious, we used to get the free coal from the old NCB, now 8 cwt divided between 19 houses wouldn't leave your generous Da much to put in his coal hoose? Would it?


----------



## Corax (Oct 18, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Don't expect an answer. He's flounced off in a huff because we had the audacity to ask him to back up his bizarre claims.


I'm genuinely curious.  I'd love to know about this country/era.

I'm stumped tbh.  I was going to guess Vuanatu in the last century maybe - but even that I suspect is largely mythology.  Costa Rica seems a possible by some metrics, but I don't know enough about it really.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> New Labour - Crap
> Conservatives - Crap
> Libs - What a joke
> Greens - Put a grenade under them
> ...



Not a leftie, so your retort about "usual leftie insults" is pretty stupid.
Just like someone who assumes that anyone arguing against them is a "leftie", looks pretty stupid.

Idiot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm not even sure why I bothered posting that tbh. I think starting off from a position that Gordon Brown puts cameras in wheelie bins to stop you putting darkies in them should have let me know something.



Something *besides* that they're a fruitcake who believes every "euro-scare" story that the right-wing red-tops publish?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2013)

Onket said:


> Whereas you resort to name calling. Come on, you're better than that.



He got 3 polite replies before I called him a wanker - 3 opportunities to back up his claims.  I reckon I was pretty forbearing.


----------



## Onket (Oct 19, 2013)

I bet you had to check, though.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 19, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Yawn !


Insightful stuff from Urban's new resident clown.


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He got 3 polite replies before I called him a wanker - 3 opportunities to back up his claims.  I reckon I was pretty forbearing.



Well violent panda, first may I please correct your assumption that I am a he and therefore a Wanker! I am a 65 year old mum to  six sons and foster mum to two. No doubt we will have the female version of wanker and the ageism insults to come but I have broad shoulders. When I said sanity to be returned to this country not once did  I mention Race, Gender, Old illnesses or any other nastiness from the past, what I want is for politicians of ALL parties, all councillors and all other jobsworths to remember that it is the electorate who put them into office to do good for the people. We, and I especially mean me, plead guilty to being gullible enough to have been fooled in the past by the many promises made by lying, cheating, fraudulant careerists who lie through their teeth in order to be elected, only once they are in, to not give a toss any more to what they promised during electioneering. If that justifies the insults for trying to get this across I despair for this country even more.

Oh by the way, to the poster who implied I was telling lies about my late dad asking all 19 houses in the cul-de-sac to fill their wheelbarrow with delivered coal. I didn't say they all took the offer up only that he offered it.They actually did share things back then so please don't be so quick to judge.


----------



## JimW (Oct 19, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> ... We, and I especially mean me, plead guilty to being gullible enough to have been fooled in the past by the many promises made by lying, cheating, fraudulant careerists who lie through their teeth in order to be elected, only once they are in, to not give a toss any more to what they promised during electioneering. If that justifies the insults for trying to get this across I despair for this country even more.....


I reckon if UKIP ever get near a sniff of power you'll find they disappoint you same as the rest. Quite apart from the leadership coming from the same political class, the way institutions and so on reproduce themselves in the UK means they'll compromise or not ever get the chance.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2013)

whats this mythical time when those that exercised the franchise were listened to? possibly when it was only extended to white male property owners aged over 25 and of a certain income?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Well violent panda, first may I please correct your assumption that I am a he and therefore a Wanker!



Women wank too, you know.



> I am a 65 year old mum to  six sons and foster mum to two. No doubt we will have the female version of wanker and the ageism insults to come but I have broad shoulders.



That's nice.  Means you wouldn't have needed to wear shoulder pads in the '80s.



> When I said sanity to be returned to this country not once did  I mention Race, Gender, Old illnesses or any other nastiness from the past, what I want is for politicians of ALL parties, all councillors and all other jobsworths to remember that it is the electorate who put them into office to do good for the people.



But we didn't elect them to office to "do good for the people".  The reality is that we elect them because that's the choice we're offered.  There's *nothing* in UK law that compels local authority councillors, MPs or even Parish councillors to represent their consituents or "do good for the people", which is one of the reasons *why* they can get away with the crap they get away with.
Change the system (i.e. agitate for CONSTITUTIONAL change), and we might actually have a properly representative democracy to live in, but without that, just voting for one set of arseholes over another gets nobody anything, except another bunch of arseholes in power.



> We, and I especially mean me, plead guilty to being gullible enough to have been fooled in the past by the many promises made by lying, cheating, fraudulant careerists who lie through their teeth in order to be elected, only once they are in, to not give a toss any more to what they promised during electioneering. If that justifies the insults for trying to get this across I despair for this country even more.



The majority of politicians (local, regional or national) for the last 100 years, and arguably before that too, have been "lying, cheating, fraudulent careerists", they just used to cover up their sins a bit better, and/or not be so greedy.  It's not really about being gullible, it's about expecting honourable behaviour, and then finding out that what most of them prefer is dishonourable behaviour.  Expecting someone like Farage to behave any differently, when he's cut from exactly the same public school cloth as the majority of our politicians, well *that* is being gullible!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> whats this mythical time when those that exercised the franchise were listened to? possibly when it was only extended to white male property owners aged over 25 and of a certain income?



Not even to all of them, just to the ones who had the "right" connections.


----------



## rostabeef (Oct 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> whats this mythical time when those that exercised the franchise were listened to? possibly when it was only extended to white male property owners aged over 25 and of a certain income?





DotCommunist said:


> whats this mythical time when those that exercised the franchise were listened to? possibly when it was only extended to white male property owners aged over 25 and of a certain income?



Your probably right, but what is the alternative? This Labour Party is not the Party that was first formed to look after the working people,unless of course you are working in the public sector and belong to a Union. They couldn't care less about the rest of us.  I honestly cannot tell the difference between them and the Tories, where are the politicians who have actually worked in the real world and really understand the hardship ordinary people are going through? I cannot even contemplate voting for Clegg and his pie-in-the-sky ideas, the Green Party? they won't be happy until we are all back wearing animal fur and riding around by donkey and cart, so what does that leave? UKIP. I have to admit Nigel Farrage is something of a joke but rather than waste my vote they at least do have some policies I agree with, such as getting us out of Europe and closing our borders to any more mass immigration until we manage to get our economy and our services, which are straining at the seams, back in order. I don't for a moment imagine they will get into office so my vote, even though likely to be a wasted vote, will be going for them. Stupid? probably, but this biddy has seen too many politicians crap on us and UKIP is at present the best of a bad bunch.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 19, 2013)

> Your probably right, but what is the alternative?



It isn't UKIP.



> UKIP is at present the best of a bad bunch.



This is the feeblest of justifications for voting UKIP, a party that would take us back to the 14th century in a heartbeat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2013)

> unless of course you are working in the public sector and belong to a Union



this simply isn't true. Assaults on pub/sec wages and conditions continued unabated during the 15 years of nulab rule- even now they attack the unions and refuse to back any strike whatsoever. This idea that labour loves unions is simply not true. They might like the funding but thats it. Throughout its history the labour party has actively hampered its union funding base.


----------



## coley (Oct 19, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> Well violent panda, first may I please correct your assumption that I am a he and therefore a Wanker! I am a 65 year old mum to  six sons and foster mum to two. No doubt we will have the female version of wanker and the ageism insults to come but I have broad shoulders. When I said sanity to be returned to this country not once did  I mention Race, Gender, Old illnesses or any other nastiness from the past, what I want is for politicians of ALL parties, all councillors and all other jobsworths to remember that it is the electorate who put them into office to do good for the people. We, and I especially mean me, plead guilty to being gullible enough to have been fooled in the past by the many promises made by lying, cheating, fraudulant careerists who lie through their teeth in order to be elected, only once they are in, to not give a toss any more to what they promised during electioneering. If that justifies the insults for trying to get this across I despair for this country even more.
> 
> Oh by the way, to the poster who implied I was telling lies about my late dad asking all 19 houses in the cul-de-sac to fill their wheelbarrow with delivered coal. I didn't say they all took the offer up only that he offered it.They actually did share things back then so please don't be so quick to judge.



Didn't imply nowt, just queried your maths, I used to hoy coal in for two bob a load as a  young'n and was often asked to take a couple of buckets to auld so and so,s hoose as they were a bit short, so I am more than familiar with WC community spirit.
Note buckets, we were too poor to afford wheelbarrows


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2013)

coley said:


> Didn't imply nowt, just queried your maths, I used to hoy coal in for two bob a load as a  young'n and was often asked to take a couple of buckets to auld so and so,s hoose as they were a bit short, so I am more than familiar with WC community spirit.
> Note buckets, we were too poor to afford wheelbarrows



I thought it was because you only got the wheel that far northward about 30 years ago?


----------



## coley (Oct 19, 2013)

Wheels, who needs em? apart from softie southerners?

Hope house prices are even more delayed


----------



## Maggot (Oct 19, 2013)

rostabeef said:


> No doubt we will have the female version of wanker and the ageism insults to come but I have broad shoulders.





ViolentPanda said:


> That's nice.  Means you wouldn't have needed to wear shoulder pads in the '80s.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 23, 2013)

Labour backs Theresa May's Immigration Bill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24613222

I presume that's a bad thing


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2013)

(misread something, nevermind ).


----------



## treelover (Nov 7, 2013)

There is a 'consensus' between Labour and the Condems on Universal Credit, according to the media, just debate over its implementation, so that's all right then..


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 7, 2013)

treelover said:


> Wasn't Gould a proto-blairite, has he changed?



You may be thinking of Philip Gould, a market research bod who introduced Nulabor to the delights of focus groups.

Bryan Gould was always a straight-down-the-line soft left man - but not a Nulaborist, as a look at his blog would show.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2013)

Yes, the other one is now dead I think.


----------



## rioted (Nov 7, 2013)

coley said:


> Just curious, we used to get the free coal from the old NCB, now 8 cwt divided between 19 houses wouldn't leave your generous Da much to put in his coal hoose? Would it?


I was a miner for 15 years. Coming home from a shift to find a ton of coal piled in the front yard was a joy. 10 times a year. We weren't supposed to sell it on, give it away or share it out. We could sell it back to the NCB, a figure of £4.86 a ton sticks in my mind. Having a fire with back boiler burning 24/7 even in summer provided more than enough heat and water and made hardly a dent on the allowance. I broke three of the kids buggies wheeling it round to friends and neighbours.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 8, 2013)

Labour Party fundraiser makes donation to Tories 
http://www.northlondon-today.co.uk/...our Party fundraiser makes donation to Tories


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2013)

ska invita said:


> Labour Party fundraiser makes donation to Tories
> http://www.northlondon-today.co.uk/News.cfm?id=37751&headline=Labour Party fundraiser makes donation to Tories



One definition of a hedge fund?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 12, 2013)




----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 13, 2013)

I'm sick of this use of the word responsibility in respect of the social security system. What good does it do to be lectured by tax dodging expenses abusing toffs when you have nothing noone and nowhere to go? These people seem to think life is some grand public school experience and that benefit claimants are billy bunter helping himself to an unmerited amount of sweets from the tuck shop.

Describing the WCA as 'tough but fair' is equally bizarre. It isn't tough, it's useless and it's administered by people who could have absolutely no understanding of your problems. There is no need for ATOS to assign your case to a specialist as would happen in proper health care. We all know they work to targets as well, provising the grounds for the DWP decision maker to say you can work. That's just as unhelpful as the government minister in the example above.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2013)

We all know they work to targets even though they lied about them working to targets. All this government does is lie and steal, they are sociopaths.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 13, 2013)

And yet Labour just sit there, behind Miliband's consumptive joyless rictus, and compete for the same votes over the same policies. Reeves might well repeal the BT (or so she claims), but the's also promised to be tougher on welfare than the tories. If that's even possible! I don't get why people lik John McDonell and Jeremy Corbyn even bother.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2013)

I wonder if they only voted against the bedroom tax because they knew that the vote to abolish it wouldn't actually pass.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 13, 2013)

what's the point of voting against it then? Last night's vote was hardly surprising, but just as disappointing. Clegg abstained ffs! What's the point of him? Literally his existence is meaningless; an evolutionary political cul de sac.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I wonder if they only voted against the bedroom tax because they knew that the vote to abolish it wouldn't actually pass.



Yes, they knew precisely that.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Clegg abstained ffs!



Co-incidentally I'd abstain as well........from pissing on him if he were on fire.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2013)

*Labour made a 'spectacular mistake' on immigration, admits Jack Straw*

**


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> And yet Labour just sit there, behind Miliband's consumptive joyless rictus, and compete for the same votes over the same policies. Reeves might well repeal the BT (or so she claims), but the's also promised to be tougher on welfare than the tories. If that's even possible! I don't get why people lik John McDonell and Jeremy Corbyn even bother.


What do you want?


----------



## rosecore (Nov 13, 2013)

Labour now hiding behind the informal agreement of 'pairing', which is only ever used for non-essential votes. http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/pairing/

I guess they did not deem the vote of real importance despite it being a policy pledge in 2015. They are a bunch of cowards.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

rosecore said:


> Labour now hiding behind the informal agreement of 'pairing', which is only ever used for non-essential votes. http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/pairing/
> 
> I guess they did not deem the vote of real importance despite it being a policy pledge in 2015. They are a bunch of cowards.


What do you mean by 'a policy pledge'?


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2013)

rosecore said:


> which is only ever used for non-essential votes. http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/pairing/


It isnt. It's absolutely standard, used for all sorts of votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> It isnt. It's absolutely standard, used for all sorts of votes.


It's a weird point for rose to pick up on. As you say, it's bog standard. The only one who doesn't is Skinner.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's a weird point for rose to pick up on. As you say, it's bog standard. The only one who doesn't is Skinner.


Yup. very occasionally one side will announce pairing is suspended, but only on things where they think they could actually bring the oppo down.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> Yup. very occasionally one side will announce pairing is suspended, but only on things where they think they could actually bring the oppo down.



Yep, as in 1979.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 13, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep, as in 1979.



AFAIAA votes of Confidence are never paired.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2013)

Quartz said:


> AFAIAA votes of Confidence are never paired.



Think they were....otherwise James Graham's play would have been pretty pointless.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

Quartz said:


> AFAIAA votes of Confidence are never paired.


Sort of like what he said.


----------



## rioted (Nov 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What do you want?


LOL

You're obsessed with political polling; what do YOU want?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

Get over it. You lost.


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2013)

It's all informal, there are no set rules. They tried to tighten them up aftr Callaghans govt collapsed, but then...

Pairing in the British House of Commons was later ended by a decision of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Chief Whips, Donald Dewar and Archy Kirkwood on 17 December 1996, following an incident when they claimed to find the Conservative government cheating in a vote by pairing the same three Conservative MPs with three absent Labour MPs as well as three absent Liberal Democrat MPs. The decision came into effect on 13 January 1997.[2]

It is now back on tho


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

rioted said:


> LOL
> 
> You're obsessed with political polling; what do YOU want?



Ta for the reminder:

LAB 42
CON 32
UKIP 10
LD 8


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> We all know they work to targets even though they lied about them working to targets. All this government does is lie and steal, they are sociopaths.



It's not a problem confined to "this government", it's the result of a political culture of entitlement, populated by people only a minority of whom have any understanding or experience of what life is like for the working class.  it's an issue about the institution of government itself.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> populated by people only a minority of whom have any understanding or experience of what life is like for the working class.  it's an issue about the institution of government itself.



Absolutely, but I wonder if it's even worse than that? Too many politicians these days have lived and breathed politics since childhood. Just look at Hague, Miliband, and Cameron. And they've not stepped outside politics their entire lives, or at best only briefly. It's as if there's a new incipient divide: the political class vs the non-political class; work and wealth don't factor.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Absolutely, but I wonder if it's even worse than that? Too many politicians these days have lived and breathed politics since childhood. Just look at Hague, Miliband, and Cameron. And they've not stepped outside politics their entire lives, or at best only briefly. It's as if there's a new incipient divide: the political class vs the non-political class; work and wealth don't factor.


Of course work and wealth factor.  Do  you think the people that you listed are there by dint of ambition alone?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 13, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Absolutely, but I wonder if it's even worse than that? Too many politicians these days have lived and breathed politics since childhood. Just look at Hague, Miliband, and Cameron. And they've not stepped outside politics their entire lives, or at best only briefly. It's as if there's a new incipient divide: the political class vs the non-political class; work and wealth don't factor.



Wealth and what it can buy (including appropriate "work") or facilitate (access to networks) is a *predominant* factor in entry into the political class.  it's always been the case that it was *a* factor, but now is the main driver for entry.  Parliament itself is as much of an exclusive club for the monied classes as it ever was, even 150 years ago. Hague, Milliband and Cameron wouldn't have had the leisure to pursue politics as a career without wealth and what it buys.


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> what's the point of voting against it then? Last night's vote was hardly surprising, but just as disappointing. Clegg abstained ffs! *What's the point of him? Literally his existence is meaningless; an evolutionary political cul de sac*.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wealth and what it can buy (including appropriate "work") or facilitate (access to networks) is a *predominant* factor in entry into the political class.  it's always been the case that it was *a* factor, but now is the main driver for entry.  Parliament itself is as much of an exclusive club for the monied classes as it ever was, even 150 years ago. Hague, Milliband and Cameron wouldn't have had the leisure to pursue politics as a career without wealth and what it buys.



Yes indeed. But I think you've missed my point - I wasn't attacking that aspect - so perhaps I better expand: it doesn't matter how wealthy you are if you're not part of the political class. And if you are wealthy and want to remain so, you better bribe the political class. From backhanders at a local level to non-executive directorships to 'fact-finding tours' to grossly inflated payments for column pieces, they're all bribes. And if you're poor, well, you don't really matter as a group. Conversely, even a poor member of the political class is found some sinecure, some membership of a policy group, some membership of a qango or something from which they can exert influence. And a powerful member of the political class is almost by definition rich.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

How do you get in the political class? By wealth. Is this really so hard to understand? And what about white history month eh~?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 13, 2013)

Just read that Labour lost by 26 votes last night and 47 Labour MPs didn't even bother to turn up. Right, so instead of actually doing something to help the most vulnerable people in society affected by an extremely vicious social policy they don't bother and actually sink their own motion.  That is why Labour are scum.


----------



## campanula (Nov 13, 2013)

How do you get in the political class?
Well it surely is not through talent or even basic intelligence.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 13, 2013)

The excuse is 'oh but we have a pairing system' which is nothing legally set in stone so who cares? So they talk the talk of 'we would repeal it if we get elected' the talk of 'people are suffering, the government should repeal this tax NOW' and yet when they're actually presented with opportunity to repeal it NOW they don't. Absolutely fucking pathetic and spineless.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 13, 2013)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Just read that Labour lost by 26 votes last night and 47 Labour MPs didn't even bother to turn up. Right, so instead of actually doing something to help the most vulnerable people in society affected by an extremely vicious social policy they don't bother and actually sink their own motion.  That is why Labour are scum.


That simply beggars belief. It was THEIR policy. But then when Labour councils are among those at the sharp edge of cutting services, it's hardly news. Name and shame.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Just read that Labour lost by 26 votes last night and 47 Labour MPs didn't even bother to turn up. Right, so instead of actually doing something to help the most vulnerable people in society affected by an extremely vicious social policy they don't bother and actually sink their own motion.  That is why Labour are scum.


What did they lose on?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2013)

Sheffield Central MP paying 3 quid an hour on the apprenticeship scheme to get around paying minimum wage


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

I reckon we could get some applications pronto.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What did they lose on?



Yeah I get what you're saying but it's still worth a mention in this thread I think. 



> "But I am afraid that's what you get with the Liberal Democrats. They say one thing at their conference and when they are out on the doorsteps, but they vote another way in here when it really counts.
> 
> "When they could make a difference, they turn the other way."
> 
> "I say shame on him and shame on his party," Ms Reeves told MPs.



Kettles, pots etc


----------



## ska invita (Nov 15, 2013)

I'm reading NHS SOS at the moment... havent got far but basically re the NHS, as with seemingly every other Tory policy, Labour started the process off and drove the wedge in thats allowing the deepening privatisation of the service. Its an infuriating read.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 16, 2013)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 16, 2013)

ska invita said:


> I'm reading NHS SOS at the moment... havent got far but basically re the NHS, as with seemingly every other Tory policy, Labour started the process off and drove the wedge in thats allowing the deepening privatisation of the service. Its an infuriating read.



In at least some cases nuLabour simply continued stuff that had been kicked off in the Thatcher / Major years.

For example Peter Lilly started sucking vile US insurance company Unum's corporate cock over health insurance and this led via nuLabour to ATOS disability assessments.

nuLabour didn't miss a beat when they took office and worked with  exactly the same lobbyists and well-rewarded crank academics to make these horrible policies a reality.

See e.g.

http://dpac.uk.net/2012/04/a-tale-o...rnment-and-disability-charities-debbie-jolly/


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 17, 2013)

I seem to be on a labour emailing list. Not sure how.

Got an email this morning asking for £10 donation to help win th enext election on the back of the scrap the bedroom tax! These people are unbelievable!


----------



## ska invita (Nov 17, 2013)

its hard and expensive work undoing just 1 tory policy


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 17, 2013)

or lying about your intent to do so


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 17, 2013)

They know that the only choice in 2015 will be Labour, because even though they are categorically shite, the tories/coalition are _worse._

Total complacency.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Not sure that can be called complacency - where is it wrong/naive for example?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 17, 2013)

eatmorecheese said:


>




How many of those were paired?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 17, 2013)

I bet Frank Field wasn't paired. I bet a hundred pounds that I don't have.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 17, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> How many of those were paired?



Who gives a shit? Is the bedroom tax a trivial enough issue to play parliamentary games?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 17, 2013)

what does 'paired' mean?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 17, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> what does 'paired' mean?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_(parliamentary_convention)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Posters do realise that winning this vote would not have got rid of the bedroom tax don't they?

edit: 24 of them were paired, the vote was lost by 26


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Who gives a shit? Is the bedroom tax a trivial enough issue to play parliamentary games?



Turning up to vote and missing worthwhile commitments just so a Tory could vote for the other side, would be "playing parliamentary games".


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> edit: 24 of them were paired, the vote was lost by 26



The list includes two deputy speakers, who can't vote. And one who was on paternity leave.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_(parliamentary_convention)


Thanks.

So 47 labour wankers chose to abstain out of some bizare sense of 'honour' or propriety against a policy as vile and evil as the bedroom tax?

FFS!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> The list includes two deputy speakers, who can't vote. And one who was on paternity leave.


Deputy speakers can vote.

edit: no, it appears that is only the Lords deputy speakers.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I bet Frank Field wasn't paired. I bet a hundred pounds that I don't have.



Wouldn't be surprised at all. If instead of complaining about all 47 the thing had said "shame on turncoat wretch Frank Field", the room to argue would have been limited.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Deputy speakers can vote.



You're thinking of the Lords (less charitably, that was as far as you got on Wikipedia). The chairman of ways and means (Hoyle) certainly doesn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> You're thinking of the Lords (les charitably, that was as far as you got on Wikipedia). The chairman of ways and means (Hoyle) certainly doesn't.


I didn't look at wikipedia - please don't judge everyone by your own inclinations (or talk to les when you're talking to me). I looked first  at Parliaments own page then my own past posting on the matter.


----------



## Onket (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Posters do realise that winning this vote would not have got rid of the bedroom tax don't they?



See thread title.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Onket said:


> See thread title.


Only if you promise to have a think why me pointing out that this vote was a cynical PR exercise and not intended to get rid of the bedroom tax is highlighting a way in which labour are scum.


----------



## Onket (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Only if you promise to have a think why me pointing out that this vote was a cynical PR exercise and not intended to get rid of the bedroom tax is highlighting a way in which labour are scum.



I was commenting on your post.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Only if you promise to have a think why me pointing out that this vote was a cynical PR exercise and not intended to get rid of the bedroom tax is highlighting a way in which labour are scum.



I'll have a stab at this. Is it because the bedroom tax is tied up in the welfare reform act and changing one aspect of an act is not possible because it would require the whole act to be changed. This would then require another vote on a re written act meaning that the coalition would win because their majority? Therefore it's cynical Labour PR.

That and (this is more IMO) the bedroom tax is just one aspect of a shit soup that gets focused on too much whilst ignoring the rest of the coalition's attacks like local housing allowance for all under 35s, benefit sanctions etc. None of which Labour will reverse come the next election.


----------



## mr steev (Nov 17, 2013)

Is there a way to find out whose vote was paired?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'll have a stab at this. Is it because the bedroom tax is tied up in the welfare reform act and changing one aspect of an act is not possible because it would require the whole act to be changed. This would then require another vote on a re written act meaning that the coalition would win because their majority? Therefore it's cynical Labour PR.


It's because this was just a vote on a debate, on a motion put to the house, it is irrelevant and non-binding in terms of legislation - even if it was won by 600+ votes. It's like say us on here  having a formal debate then a vote on it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 17, 2013)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'll have a stab at this. Is it because the bedroom tax is tied up in the welfare reform act and changing one aspect of an act is not possible because it would require the whole act to be changed. This would then require another vote on a re written act meaning that the coalition would win because their majority? Therefore it's cynical Labour PR.
> 
> That and (this is more IMO) the bedroom tax is just one aspect of a shit soup that gets focused on too much whilst ignoring the rest of the coalition's attacks like local housing allowance for all under 35s, benefit sanctions etc. None of which Labour will reverse come the next election.


But won't they have to change the whole act anyway, if they plain to repeal the tax in 2015? Obviously they'll have more power if they become government, but wouldn't there still have to be a vote?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> But won't they have to change the whole act anyway, if they plain to repeal the tax in 2015? Obviously they'll have more power if they become government, but wouldn't there still have to be a vote?



That would be problematic for them; many of the other 'reforms' would actually cost to reverse.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> But won't they have to change the whole act anyway, if they plain to repeal the tax in 2015? Obviously they'll have more power if they become government, but wouldn't there still have to be a vote?


Aspects of legislation are amended all the time by a variety of methods. Including voting. A labour majority govt would have no problem changing the legislation if it wanted to.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's because this was just a vote on a debate, on a motion put to the house, it is irrelevant and non-binding in terms of legislation - even if it was won by 600+ votes. It's like say us on here  having a formal debate then a vote on it.



Oh is that all it was? That's quite common isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Oh is that all it was? That's quite common isn't it?


Opposition debate days, yep.


----------



## treelover (Nov 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Sheffield Central MP paying 3 quid an hour on the apprenticeship scheme to get around paying minimum wage



Good spot, thought he was alright.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2013)

Ms Pryce really does pick 'em, doesn't she?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/18/denis-macshane-pleads-guilty-expenses-fraud



> Asked to enter a plea to the charge in a hearing at the Old Bailey, MacShane replied: "Guilty."
> 
> Sentencing was adjourned until December 19, and he was granted unconditional bail


----------



## J Ed (Dec 28, 2013)

David Blunkett calls for satirical TV shows such as Mock the Week to face tighter regulation


----------



## Awesome Wells (Dec 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> David Blunkett calls for satirical TV shows such as Mock the Week to face tighter regulation


Maybe he could pay a lobby group called Action For Entertainment. We could call them A4E for short...that's got a nice ring


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 29, 2013)

editor said:


> However bad labour are, they'll always be a million times better than the fucking Tories.



Not so. The current welfare reforms were started by the previous government. There is now no 'Labour Party', NL and the Conservatives are only a few degrees apart. 

The de facto conjunction in terms of policy, between the Conservatives and NL in their sycophancy towards big business, has in effect disenfranchised millions of people. If there is no real choice, there is little point in voting.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2013)

while i agree there's little to choose between the labour party and the tory vermin, for people on the edge - and that's a huge number of people - those 'few degrees' were all that kept them from tumbling over.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2013)

nb. this is not any kind of endorsement of the labour party.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 29, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> This has always been the mantra right across the Left - even from those with no patience with the consistent pro capitalist status quo record ofall previous  Labour Governments . Defenders of this position rightly point to the very real gains made for the working classs by some previous Labour Governments, the post WWII Welfare state obviously being the biggie.  TODAY  though does New Labour really have any residual connection or loyalty to its traditional working class base ? One only has to look at the social background of the current Parliamentary Labour Party, the money they got/ get from snake-eyed capitalist firms, the penetration of their ranks by "advisors" seconded by Price waterhouse, etc, and the pro-banker, pro capitalist  policies of the blair/Brown  era, to see that the old mantra is now wildly outdated.  The likes of scum like Alan Johnson, entirely dependant on his trades union career for his current status and lifestyle, feels perfectly comfortable , just the other day, to verbally piss on trades unionism yet again !   New Labour have morphed qualitatively over the last 30 years or so, from a generally collaborationist  but nevertheless mass reformist party of organised labour and the working class, to a purely pro-capitalist party, competing only on the fine policy detail of the shared neoloberal economic/political/social agenda. If New Labour were in office today they would be implementing pretty much the IDENTICAL austerity policies of the Coalition. They might be doing it more gradually, and with crocodile tears, but implement them they would. Unlike the class hate-filled Tories, Labour has always understood the need to "boil the (working class) frog ... sloooooowwwly" in case we get too angry, see clearly what's going on, and leap out of the societal  boiling pan and rip their fucking throats out !
> 
> With the Trot Left apparently entering long overdue final organisational and doctrinal meltdown, and New Labour utterly lost to any progressive pro-working class role, we all collectively have to seriously start thinking about a building a new mass party of radical left resistance - even if its initially a rag-bag alliance of everyone who simply wants to resist - on the Syriza model. It obviously wouldn't survive forever as a radical route forward - but might at least organise meaningful mass resistance in the medium term. Unfortunately, the chaos on the Trot Left also seems to have given comfort to even more reactionery pseudo-socialist forces - like the neo-stalinist apologists across the blogosphere who currently are salivating at the collapse of the SWP, those who run the "Socialist Unity" blog for instance - cynically masquerading as  proponents  of openness and free debate , in contrast to the cultishness of the SWP - whilst constantly denying the monstrous crimes of stalinism. One things for sure , if the broad Left are ever to attract masses of normal working class people to their ranks they'll/we'll  have to rid themselves/ourselves  of an awful lot of ideological baggage and organisational habits -- and stop suggesting, a la that epochal  world class philosopher and sage, Owen Jones , that we now need to  prioritise "getting  a real socialist movement together to get Labour elected !"		 .



Excellent post.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 29, 2013)

J Ed said:


> David Blunkett calls for satirical TV shows such as Mock the Week to face tighter regulation


That link does not work - perhaps http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-reclassified-as-current-affairs-9027372.html would be better.

It _is_ a bit much to make jokes about Blunkett being blind, rather than, say, a reactionary authoritarian bastard.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 30, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That link does not work - perhaps http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-reclassified-as-current-affairs-9027372.html would be better.
> 
> It _is_ a bit much to make jokes about Blunkett being blind, rather than, say, a reactionary authoritarian bastard.



I think he needs to see a shrink.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 30, 2013)

Gordon Brown open mike incident possibly alienated supporters sitting on the fence? From wiki:

"GB: That was a disaster. Sue should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?
JF: I don't know, I didn't see her.
GB: Sue's I think [Brown's gatekeeper]. Just ridiculous ...
JF: What did she say?
GB: Everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour. I mean, it's just ridiculous. Sue pushed her up towards me."[45]
Brown's remarks were recorded by a Sky News microphone he was still wearing, and widely broadcast. Soon after the incident, Brown talked to Jeremy Vine live on BBC Radio 2 where he publicly apologised to Mrs Duffy. Subsequently Brown visited her house for 43 minutes in order to apologise in person. Upon emerging, he described himself as a "penitent sinner",[46] while Duffy refused to speak to the press and would not shake hands with him in front of the cameras. She said the incident had left her feeling more sad than angry and that she would not be voting for Labour or any other party.[47] The incident subsequently has been dubbed as "Bigotgate".

Then she sold the story to the Daily Mail(?) . Anyway just about sums them all up as that brief encounter highlighted for me what they really think of there supporters.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Dec 30, 2013)

Maybe, but it wouldn't be natural not to have an opinion about someone you've just spoken to, particularly if they were as ignorant as she was. Gettuing caught out was unfortunate and stupid. 

This sort of situation is exactly what's wrong with the media these days.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 30, 2013)

stowpirate said:


> Gordon Brown open mike incident possibly alienated supporters sitting on the fence? From wiki:
> 
> "GB: That was a disaster. Sue should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?
> JF: I don't know, I didn't see her.
> ...



In the context of 'bigotgate' and its impact (a week before the election) do you remember the leaks appearing a decade earlier in the Murdoch press featuring memos from nuLabour's (deceased) chief pollster Philip "politics of grievance" Gould?


> In the frank memo Mr Gould, who conducts focus groups for Tony Blair, warns that the government could have its parliamentary majority slashed at the next election, and that it risked being seen as ineffective in tackling key issues. <snip>
> 
> This latest leak follows last week's revelation - also on the front pages of The Sun and The Times - of Mr Blair's memo to close allies expressing fears that his government was regarded as "out of touch" on issues such as crime and asylum seekers. <snip>
> 
> ...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/840440.stm

See also:


> Gould's analysis still dominates political thinking in the Labour Party and beyond — the idea that electoral political narratives should be driven by ‘the politics of grievance’ where working people, particularly the ‘white working class’ instinctively blame ‘the immigrant’ for their economic and social exploitation and marginalisation. <snip>
> 
> "A call for fairness has become a cry of grievance, resentment and anger, expressing the view that my life is bad because others are unfairly benefitting. Clearly this is fertile ground not just for the right but for the far right … every voice should be heard: we should listen to opinions that we may not like … The politics of grievance can be harsh … a start was made (by New Labour) in dealing with immigration."


 http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-grayson/welcome-to-britain-go-home-or-face-arrest


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 30, 2013)

The link below has excerpts (I don't know what's been edited out) from the 2000 memo mentioned above. One has to wonder to what extent they're still being driven by concerns that they'll be 'outflanked' on (to a considerable degree) reactionary right-wing dog-whistle issues?


> We are outflanked on patriotism and crime; we are suffering from disconnection; we have been assailed for spin and broken promises.
> 
> We are not believed to have delivered; we are believed by a huge margin to be slowing down rather than speeding up; we are disliked on the left wing for being right wing, on the right wing for being politically correct.


 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/840548.stm


----------



## brogdale (Jan 9, 2014)

Quote from Balls in the NS, musing on the propects of a Lab-Lib pact retaining Clegg as LD leader/DPM emphasises the complete inter-changability between the 3 largest* parties. They're not even pretending to differ over aspects of the 'shallow state' these days...



> I think what you always have to do is deal with politics as you find it. We’re fighting hard for a majority, who knows how things will turn out, I think, look, very many Labour Party members, voters, supporters, would find that very difficult and some Liberal Democrat voters would find that very difficult as well, but we’ll deal with the situation as we find it. I saw that subsequently he (Clegg) made a further statement to one of the newspapers that these things weren’t about personalities, and I think he’s right about that.



Christ-on-a-bike 

* @ 2010 GE


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2014)

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.ph...nst-free-school-meals-for-primary-school-kids


----------



## J Ed (Jan 9, 2014)

NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH LIL SHIRKERS


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH LIL SHIRKERS




Getting kids into decent dietary habits would save them and the State money in the long term


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 10, 2014)

Not sure what to think of universal free school meals - on the one hand it means every kid gets 5 decent (hopefully) meals a week, on the other if everyone gets free school meals you're gonna really struggle to sell yer dinner tickets to buy fags - I'd never have made it through the 4th year!


----------



## Balbi (Jan 10, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25686208

Out Gove'ing Gove.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2014)

Balbi said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25686208
> 
> Out Gove'ing Gove.



...and another cohort of "expensive" experienced staff make for the doors.

Job done.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 11, 2014)

Balbi said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25686208
> 
> Out Gove'ing Gove.


It's as if society doesn't want to educate children.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 11, 2014)

Balbi said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25686208
> 
> Out Gove'ing Gove.



To get on teacher training courses you already needs to sit patronising maths and English tests now. Imagine if all the money spent on gimmicks, bullshit and fancy buildings was spent on smaller class sizes. Smaller class sizes are just for private school poshos though


----------



## brogdale (Jan 11, 2014)

J Ed said:


> To get on teacher training courses you already needs to sit patronising maths and English tests now. Imagine if all the money spent on gimmicks, bullshit and fancy buildings was spent on smaller class sizes. Smaller class sizes are just for private school poshos though



Quite.

The Guradian actually hits the nail on the head...


> In a sign of how Labour _*hopes to outflank education secretary Michael Gove*_ on teaching standards, Hunt is to revive a plan the last government abandoned on the eve of the 2010 general election.



This is, of course, crude politiking that has fuck all to do with children's experience in the classroom.

Many of us know that, in practice, this would amount to another, enhanced opportunity for HTs and their henchmen to undertake bullying and vindictive, partial assessments against overly proscriptive criteria against any teachers who may question the state driven orthodoxy handed down to these tin-pot martinets.

Awful. 

And this party expects teachers to continue to support them?


----------



## Balbi (Jan 15, 2014)

And now Discipline Tsar for each school, exclusively revealed to The Sun.

Fuckery upon fuckery.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2014)

they fucking love their tsars don't they


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> they fucking love their tsars don't they



Yeah, who'd have thought that they'd be instinctively drawn to a title given to absolute autocrats convinced of their divine rights.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2014)

> Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mr Miliband said the economic essentials that once drove and sustained the middle classes had all been undermined.
> 
> Their children's prospects must also be urgently addressed, Mr Miliband added.



vote labour


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

....back to Tristram 'sounds-like'...if more evidence of cluelessness were needed:-



> Under Labour there would be new career routes for teachers allowing them _*to specialise in a certain subject or in teaching skills,*_ and more chances for professional development.





Yeah, 'cause you'd really want your kid to be taught by someone _*qualified in one of those areas*_, wouldn't you?

FS

The clowns just can't leave education alone.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 15, 2014)

Balbi said:


> And now Discipline Tsar for each school, exclusively revealed to The Sun.



The irony of the fucking Sun being involved in anything related to education...


----------



## Balbi (Jan 15, 2014)

The Tsar thing chimes with this horrible thought I had the other week.

http://thoughtsfromtheline.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/goves-education-casualisation-casualties/

NQT's are notoriously a bit scared of disciplining and behaviour management, you learn that as you go a lot of the time.

Having a discipline tsar means they don't have to, they can just kick it upstairs to them.

So it goes.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ....back to Tristram 'sounds-like'...if more evidence of cluelessness were needed:-



Jesus Christ, how do you get to saying something like that? He's a private school kid, but in private schools I assume most of the teachers do specialised PGCEs... even if that wasn't the case surely a cursory google might help? Fucking moron.


----------



## gosub (Jan 15, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Jesus Christ, how do you get to saying something like that? He's a private school kid, but in private schools I assume most of the teachers do specialised PGCEs... even if that wasn't the case surely a cursory google might help? Fucking moron.



When I was at private school,30-25 years ago, all the teachers needed was a degree, and we had some very good teachers


----------



## J Ed (Jan 15, 2014)

Clearly not good enough in young master Tristam's case


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

gosub said:


> When I was at private school,30-25 years ago, all the teachers needed was a degree, and we had some very good teachers


 I'm sure you did, but I'd wager that none of them would have claimed to have specialised in their subject *or *teaching skills.


----------



## gosub (Jan 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I'm sure you did, but I'd wager that none of them would have claimed to have specialised in their subject *or *teaching skills.


I'd say they probably were though, presumably the one that were on or heading exam boards had education related qualifications as well, so leave them out of the mix, but in the main they stuck to one subject some overlap between physics and maths but only because class had got too far ahead and maths dept lacked staff, oh and economics and  geography cos there weren't enough people doing economics.  We had two teachers who left to do non related things a head of history who started his own poetry publishing company and a head of maths who left to be one of the coaches at Newcastle Falcons (arriving at the same time as the schools old fly half). - I suppose that argues your point - beyond the academic there was the pastoral care  and other activitiesthat kept kids occupied 16 hours a day. But i always percieved them in terms of what they taught me


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2014)

Balbi said:


> And now Discipline Tsar for each school, exclusively revealed to The Sun.
> 
> Fuckery upon fuckery.



Waste of a wage that could be used for teaching.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> they fucking love their tsars don't they



What's needed is to drag the tsars and their families out into the snow and liquidate them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ....back to Tristram 'sounds-like'...if more evidence of cluelessness were needed:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can *sort of* see the point in maybe having a "teaching skills" specialist at each school if it gave teachers who were having a hard time getting part of their job down-pat someone to go to for help and advice, but otherwise...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can *sort of* see the point in maybe having a "teaching skills" specialist at each school if it gave teachers who were having a hard time getting part of their job down-pat someone to go to for help and advice, but otherwise...



Yep, bit like offering a surgeon the chance to qualify in understanding anatomy _*or*_ using surgical instruments. You'd really want that, wouldn't you?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 15, 2014)

I'm just trying to understand what the equivalent would be of young master Tristam's ignorance about initial teacher training in a 'normal' job. Given that understanding education policy is his fucking job it's a bit like working behind a bar and being asked for a pint of Guinness and then going behind the bar to write a proposal for someone to brew a stout.


----------



## gosub (Jan 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yep, bit like offering a surgeon the chance to qualify in understanding anatomy _*or*_ using surgical instruments. You'd really want that, wouldn't you?


But the breakthrough techniques and the really useful tools were pioneered by the ground breaking  surgeons out in the field that's what made them good.  The problem will come as in so many top down regulated systems is that its bound to be audited, and the question of how many new surgical tools have you invented in the last year? is a daft one let alone all the testing it will require by the other surgeons who in the main were getting on fine with the existing tools.


----------



## Lurcio (Jan 15, 2014)

People really are desperate to escape the 'lesser of two evils' mental straightjacket that props up a discredited and failing system.

Give people genuine choices in the political process (even if some of them are unpleasant) and they will become enthused and want to participate ... but the current situation is just a charade.  Russell Brand was tapping into a rich vein of despondency and cynicism in his interview with _Paxo_ on Newsnight (last year).

The established political class (LAB-Tory-LibDem) are still wedded to the failed _neo-liberal_ paradigm and any differences between them will be argued on the head of a pin.  
Ofcourse, for Britain's middle classes, this establishment represents SAFETY ... something familiar ... and this is, perhaps, the the trump card for the status quo.

But a few more years of collapsing living standards, low down wages & a ballooning debt overhang ... well, who knows ...

Even worms turn.  And there are plenty of those in the Home Counties.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Jan 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can *sort of* see the point in maybe having a "teaching skills" specialist at each school if it gave teachers who were having a hard time getting part of their job down-pat someone to go to for help and advice, but otherwise...


If this tsar was _really_ an expert who could not only _give _advice but demonstrate them in front of a class of disaffected, disinterested and disruptive 16 year olds, then fair play. But it won't. It will be another jumped up careerist chasing the extra pay and trying desperately to keep out of the class room. Another layer of target setting bullies who spend all their time assessing, observing and denigrating hard working stressed teachers.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can *sort of* see the point in maybe having a "teaching skills" specialist at each school if it gave teachers who were having a hard time getting part of their job down-pat someone to go to for help and advice, but otherwise...



Didn't we used to call these people 'colleagues'?


----------



## Balbi (Jan 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can *sort of* see the point in maybe having a "teaching skills" specialist at each school if it gave teachers who were having a hard time getting part of their job down-pat someone to go to for help and advice, but otherwise...



Yeah, they're called mentors, performance managers and colleagues - we all work to help each other. We don't need a tsar, we need Hunt to fuck off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2014)

Balbi said:


> Yeah, they're called mentors, performance managers and colleagues - we all work to help each other. We don't need a tsar, we need Hunt to fuck off.



No you don't.

You need him liquidating.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Jan 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No you don't.
> 
> You need him liquidating.



Hunt along with clegg and cameron and the rest of this unwanted conservative/lib-democrat axis of evil....................................Terminate with extreme prejudice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2014)

SikhWarrioR said:


> Hunt along with clegg and cameron and the rest of this unwanted conservative/lib-democrat axis of evil....................................Terminate with extreme prejudice



No, not prejudice, compassion.

After all, you don't feel prejudice against a mad dog when you euthanise it, do you?


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2014)

> *Charities can help Labour to fulfil its new mission*
> The voluntary sector is critical to enabling citizens to design and deliver their own services, writes shadow charities' minister
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/18/charities-voluntary-sector-labour-power-people




Apparently, more of the same in terms of social policy, big society, charities replacing public services or is it genuinely about empowering the individual, setting own personal care budgets, etc?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 24, 2014)

If it was about the state genuinely acting as facilitator for these kind of initiatives - with proper resourcing, genuine oversight and inspection etc that could be important and useful.  As it is - given the austerity context and neoliberal attempt to hive off the public services - this is just warm words that actually help to drive a wedge into the idea of collective provision and become the "diversity of providers" cloak for rampant privatisation - especially as the procurement process usually involves contracts for larger than most small charities and voluntary organisations could ever cope with.  So, if they don't come forward who's left?  Crapita, Serco, G4S...


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 24, 2014)

gosub said:


> When I was at private school,30-25 years ago, all the teachers needed was a degree, and we had some very good teachers


Time was when all you needed was a degree to teach in a state school. (Of course you didn't have to have a university degree if you did the teacher training diploma).


----------



## Balbi (Feb 25, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/25/labour-chris-leslie-service-cuts-user-friendly



CUT FOR EFFICIENCY!


----------



## treelover (Feb 25, 2014)

Balbi said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/25/labour-chris-leslie-service-cuts-user-friendly
> 
> 
> 
> CUT FOR EFFICIENCY!


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Feb 25, 2014)

Britain doesn't have political parties anymore, we just have politicians, and you cannot tell any of them apart.  
Except perhaps for Caroline Lucas and George Galloway, who are at least different.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 2, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26404168
When that cunt returns from thatchers crypt you know they have reached the very bottom of the barrel.
( though that doesn't mean they can't go lower)


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 2, 2014)

Labour says it will keep Gove school reforms

AND more maths and English for 18 year olds.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 2, 2014)

Tristram Hunt, what a proper Jeremy Hunt.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 2, 2014)

There was an awful lot of blue in the Labour conference backdrop and now Dr Death (David Owen) has congratulated Miliband and bunged the party some wedge.


> More than 30 years after walking out of the Labour party over its then failure to reform, Lord Owen praised Mr Miliband for his “brave and bold” decision to change union influence in leadership elections. The former Foreign Secretary announced he was donating £7,500 to Labour and gave his backing to Mr Miliband’s bid to become Prime Minister, warning that the NHS would be “completely destroyed” by 2020 unless there was a change of Government.
> 
> At a special conference in east London to approve Labour’s sweeping changes, which saw the abolition of the electoral college and the introduction a true one member one vote system, Mr Miliband won a strong mandate for reform, with 86 per cent of delegates in support.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-owen-as-labour-approves-reforms-9162835.html



Naturally, Labourlist isn't happy. Mr Ed said:


> *“Lord Owen’s support today is welcome. It is 33 years since he left our party and much has happened since. In our many conversations over the past few years, I have come to value his friendship and insight into politics. I value his support and respect his decision to remain an independent member of the House of Lords.”*
> 
> http://labourlist.org/2014/03/milib...aign=Feed:+LabourListLatestPosts+(LabourList)


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 2, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> AND more maths and English for 18 year olds.



Good. More work for maths and English teachers.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Good. More work for maths and English teachers.


Will nobody think of the children?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 2, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> Will nobody think of the children?



Literacy and numeracy rates are appalling in the UK. This gives students an extra couple of years to acquire some pretty vital life skills.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Literacy and numeracy rates are appalling in the UK. This gives students an extra couple of years to acquire some pretty vital life skills.


16 year olds have had getting on for 13 years of numeracy and literacy. Those whose numeracy and literacy levels are low will already had years of intervention, of extra reading and writing. You want to spend another two years of forcing square pegs into round holes by continuing hitting them with hammers. Why not try teaching them some ACTUAL life skills instead? Or recognising that clause analysis and calculus are not needed for very many jobs?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 2, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> Why not try teaching them some ACTUAL life skills instead? Or recognising that clause analysis and calculus are not needed for very many jobs?



Reading, writing and being able to deal with financial information are ACTUAL life skills. There are many different reasons why people may not have picked them up sooner. It's only fair to give them another chance in FE.


----------



## classicdish (Mar 2, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> Or recognising that clause analysis and calculus are not needed for very many jobs?


What kind of skills do you recommend so that we don't end up losing high value employment/sectors to other countries? (what kind of jobs *don't* need numeracy and literacy?)


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 2, 2014)

classicdish said:


> What kind of skills do you recommend so that we don't end up losing high value employment/sectors to other countries? (what kind of jobs *don't* need numeracy and literacy?)


You're missing the point. You don't lose high value employment and highly skilled technicians by not bullying low achieving 16 year olds into more of the same stuff that gets them disaffected, disillusioned and disruptive.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 2, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/feb/28/primary-school-teachers-work-60-hour-week

Teachers work 60 hour weeks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26405714

Hunt refuses to change Gove's 'reforms'.


----------



## classicdish (Mar 2, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> You're missing the point. You don't lose high value employment and highly skilled technicians by not bullying low achieving 16 year olds into more of the same stuff that gets them disaffected, disillusioned and disruptive.


But its going to be for *all* 16 to 18 year olds isn't it? Even if a minority are still 'failed/failing' the average standard will rise won't it? Which will put the UK in a better position vis-a-vis other countries surely?


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 2, 2014)

Better off putting the money into adult education and letting people do things when they actually want to? But no, more bossiness.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 2, 2014)

I don't like this Tristram Hunt at all, even if it would be ridiculous for him to outright say 'yes we will fire all these people instantly and immediately'. It's Andrew Shill interviewing him after all.


----------



## treelover (Mar 2, 2014)

Balbi said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/feb/28/primary-school-teachers-work-60-hour-week
> 
> Teachers work 60 hour weeks.
> 
> ...



A Labour Govt, if there is to be one, isn't going to have much of a honeymoon this time.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Mar 2, 2014)

I liked this chap...


----------



## isvicthere? (Mar 2, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> 16 year olds have had getting on for 13 years of numeracy and literacy. Those whose numeracy and literacy levels are low will already had years of intervention, of extra reading and writing. You want to spend another two years of forcing square pegs into round holes by continuing hitting them with hammers. Why not try teaching them some ACTUAL life skills instead? Or recognising that clause analysis and calculus are not needed for very many jobs?



Literacy is not an "actual" life skill?


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 2, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> Literacy is not an "actual" life skill?


Keep flogging the dead horse, then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Tristram Hunt, what a proper Jeremy Hunt.



He's not just a Jeremy Hunt, he's a James Blunt too.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 3, 2014)

Fortunately (though perhaps not) there wont' be a Labour candidate locally next year; it's always been between Tory and LibDem.

Unfortunately it's always been between Tory and Libdem


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 3, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Literacy and numeracy rates are appalling in the UK. This gives students an extra couple of years to acquire some pretty vital life skills.



Statistics do not tell you anything about the needs or abilities of individual children. Standardised testing, of the sort that gives us so many wonderful statistics in the first place, is actively detrimental to children's learning because it creates arbitrary cut off points by which teachers have to cram a certain amount of stuff into every kid by fair means or foul.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2014)




----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2014)

Balbi said:


>



tell you what, let's strip former members of parliament of their civil rights for a year. and bar them from speaking in public ever again.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 12, 2014)

Ooh ooh! Can I play?

I say bar them for _seven _months!

Call it motherfucker!

Jesus it's the race to the bottom. Sad thing is, it won't matter how desperately Milibland attempts to curry the right wing media favour, they will alwyas regard Labour as the party that 'opened te floodgates'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Ooh ooh! Can I play?
> 
> I say bar them for _seven _months!
> 
> ...


good point. tie miliband to a post on the somerset levels then.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2014)

There's a definite irony in Miliband trying to curry the UKIP vote, seeing as how most of them want to eat the curry as long as all the forrens aren't around.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2014)




----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2014)

Balbi said:


> There's a definite irony in Miliband trying to curry the UKIP vote, seeing as how most of them want to eat the curry as long as all the forrens aren't around.


the worst curry i ever had was in a curry house in killarney with nary an indian in sight.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 12, 2014)

Balbi said:


>




The more they fuck unemployed people, the more effective the reserve pool of labour becomes in allowing them to fuck the rest of us by downward pressure on pay and conditions. And this is sold as something that will benefit working people. The opportunistic politics of spite and resentment. Divide and rule. Squeezing out political (and economic) capital though the exploitation of xenophobia (and workers).

[/obvious, pissed-off rant at the fucking obvious.] Wankers!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Balbi said:


>




For some strange reason, I'm fairly certain that such a barrier is currently in place anyway, except with those EU states we have reciprocal agreements with.  If he's talking about unilaterally breaking those reciprocal agreements, then he's also talking about being hauled over the euro-coals for breach of contract.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Innit. Blatant kipper fishing.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 12, 2014)

And all the expats living in their Costa Del Enclaves, they never use the local hospitals or doctors nor enjoy a British pension.

This is all that's being discussed: immigration/Eu bollocks. yesterday's hospital debacle, doesn't get a look in.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 13, 2014)

From Sheffield Uni:







"Thanks to Liam Byrne MP for getting involved in our international selfie campaign. You can still submit a selfie with a friend of a different nationality to help us show that friendships have no barriers#WeAreInternational #StandByMe http://goo.gl/0l1K1h "


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> And all the expats living in their Costa Del Enclaves, they never use the local hospitals or doctors nor enjoy a British pension.
> 
> This is all that's being discussed: immigration/Eu bollocks. yesterday's hospital debacle, doesn't get a look in.




that seems to be the entire agenda for all of them. immigrants, benefits, foreign adventures. God fobid someone should mention anything like housing, corruption, police cover ups etc


----------



## TrickyDicky (Mar 13, 2014)

When will working class people realize that the Labour Movement fouded by the unions to improve the status and welbeing of manual workers has been infiltrated by Ramsey McDonald clones. It is their CLASS interest to make sure that Labour never comes to power hence the latest anouncement on NO referendum on EU membership.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 19, 2014)

*Labour to vote for Osborne's welfare cap next week*


----------



## treelover (Mar 19, 2014)

What are the implications of a cap?, as usual the media is reporting it as an abstraction, would it mean that for instance when the HB budget is spent, there would be no more housing benefit that year, or even JSA, that would lead to chaos and misery. have the L/P thought this through.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 19, 2014)

Depends - rent controls would help bring HB bill down and meet cap.  Doubt that is what they have in mind though


----------



## treelover (Mar 25, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/25/labour-mps-rebel-cap-welfare-spending


Looks like New New Labour are set to vote for the welfare cap

with a few rebels


----------



## tony.c (Mar 26, 2014)

There was some New Labour shadow minister on Radio 4 this morning saying that Milliband had been calling for a cap on welfare benefits last year, before the Tories.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Mar 26, 2014)

So we can now no longer see where Blue conservatives end and Red conservatives begin added to Yellow conservatives and UKIP conservatives just who to we vote for at the 2015 general election for real change and social justice


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 26, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Depends - rent controls would help bring HB bill down and meet cap.  Doubt that is what they have in mind though



I hear they're also going to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, ban zero hour contracts, outlaw letting agency fees and cancel all private sector work program contracts with immediate effect.

Either that or they're going to make no effort at all to tackle the causes of rising welfare costs, and simply place an arbitrary and unworkable cap on total spending to appease reactionary morons.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 26, 2014)

The fucking scum Tory-alike Labour Party has voted for the cap.  

Only 22 MPs voted against.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 26, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The fucking scum Tory-alike Labour Party has voted for the cap.
> 
> Only 22 MPs voted against.



FFS.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Mar 26, 2014)

"Tough Choices"


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 26, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The fucking scum Tory-alike Labour Party has voted for the cap.
> 
> Only 22 MPs voted against.


And only 13 were Labour according to the NS.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/labour-welfare-cap-rebels-full-list


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 26, 2014)

SikhWarrioR said:


> So we can now no longer see where Blue conservatives end and Red conservatives begin added to Yellow conservatives and UKIP conservatives just who to we vote for at the 2015 general election for real change and social justice





> *The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.*


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 26, 2014)

The Labour Party: more useless than a chocolate teapot.


----------



## geminisnake (Mar 27, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The fucking scum Tory-alike Labour Party has voted for the cap.
> 
> Only 22 MPs voted against.



Aye, and some of them would be those nasty/evil SNP ones


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2014)

> "Rachel said - correctly - she would be tougher than the Tories on welfare. We are the Labour Party not the Dole Party."




Ex Blair adviser John McTernan Tweet


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 28, 2014)

treelover said:


> Ex Blair adviser John McTernan Tweet


Paging Kate Green MP...


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2014)

> *Labour opinion poll support falls to lowest level since 2010 election*
> Labour's two-point fall in Opinium/Observer poll leaves it just one point ahead of the Tories, with Ukip up to 15%
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lls-lowest-2010-observer-opinium-opinion-poll



What do urban psephologists  think of this?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> What do urban psephologists  think of this?



would, as usual with polls, be interested to know how much the 'don't know' or 'balls to the lot of them' party has done.

as i've said before, there doesn't seem to be an answer.  a good poll and new labour takes it as validation for having moved further right, a bad poll and they take it as a sign they haven't moved far enough right.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> What do urban psephologists  think of this?



Still a year to go. Can Labour actually get any worse? Possibly. They should be miles ahead with this bunch of cunts in power.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> What do urban psephologists  think of this?



I dunno, perhaps there's some kind of political polling thread you could've asked on...

In all seriousness I'd take the Guardian's reportage of these things a little bit cautiously. They aren't too keep on showing it when Labour are doing well, they've spent the best part of the last 3 years trying to oust Ed Miliband, pushing for a Lib-Lab coalition, backing David Miliband and Progess and remember who it was they backed in the Gen Election last time round? The Liberal fucking Democrats. 

Don't ever look at one poll in isolation look at the trend.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 29, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> Don't ever look at one poll in isolation look at the trend.


Most post budget polls have shown a narrowing of Labours lead.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 29, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Most post budget polls have shown a narrowing of Labours lead.



true enough but this one seems a bit away from the trend and so shouldn't be compared to other polling companies, which use different methologies and so on. 

Labour's average is what 36 in most polls? That's within the margin of error of the 37/38 that they've had for the last 2 years and is more than enough to win them the GE. The narrowing of the gap has been due to the Tory's polls creeping up, mainy at UKIP's expense, rather than any sort of collapse in Labour numbers. 

But now we get a poll that says Labour have dropped 4 points to 33, and Tories (unlike every other poll in the country) haven't increased at all from the 32 they've been getting for ages, which goes against the trend we're seeing in all the other polling data. So even though the poll says "1 point lead" it's actually saying something very different to the rest of the polls, but that isn't being reported. I suspect this poll is an outlier, that Labour is actually steady on 37 or something, and that the Tories have crept up a bit over the last few months, which is what most of the other polls are saying.


----------



## DairyQueen (Mar 30, 2014)

It could all just be the euro election effect.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 8, 2014)

I heard about the proposed £10 a month payment to access the NHS and presumed it was a Tory initiative to create a thin-end-of-the-wedge culture of paying for health... just found out it came from a Labour Lord. The shock has worn off...


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2014)

Just like to ask why posters think(if they do) that labour has been such a poor opposition?, with the exceptions of bruisers like John Mann and campaigners like Tom Harris, they have been ineffectual, is this because they basically share the same policies, just a poor shadow front bench, is it that oppositions barely oppose these days, Cameron didn't, in the past one can remember Robin Cook making mincemeat of his opposite number, etc.


----------



## Nylock (Apr 30, 2014)

Because they are shit </delroy>


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Apr 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I heard about the proposed £10 a month payment to access the NHS and presumed it was a Tory initiative to create a thin-end-of-the-wedge culture of paying for health... just found out it came from a Labour Lord. The shock has worn off...





This Singh got disillusioned with kinnock after he sat on his arse during the miners strike but it was the arrival of blair, brown, mandelson and the rest of the proto-tory third way neo-labour crowd that finally finished labour of for me 1997 blair gets elected 1997 I not only cancel my labour party membership but stopped voting for them as well


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

From the Guardian live feed...



> 9.45am BST
> 
> _*Ed Miliband will visit Thurrock* *tomorrow*_. Labour expected to win Thurrock council last week – it didn't, losing the council to no overall control after Ukip took an extra five seats (two from Labour, three from the Tories) to add to the one it held already. Ukip won 39% of the vote there.



LOL


----------



## Dogsauce (May 26, 2014)

I herad someone after the locals saying that the party would now project a firmer message on immigration or some such bollocks.

How about a firmer message on ending rail privatisation, standing up for the NHS and stuff like that?

Going on about immigration just plays up to an agenda that they can never win on, and one that is less important with voters than the BBC etc. might have you think.


----------



## Flanflinger (May 26, 2014)

SikhWarrioR said:


> This Singh got disillusioned with kinnock after he sat on his arse during the miners strike but it was the arrival of blair, brown, mandelson and the rest of the proto-tory third way neo-labour crowd that finally finished labour of for me 1997 blair gets elected 1997* I not only cancel my labour party membership but stopped voting for them as well*


 
Doesn't look like they've missed you.


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2014)

At the Thurrock meeting, Milliband says the DWP will have to change, while Cruddas is citing the voluntary sector as a key driver of change,

I suspect they are planning to cut public services and hive off more to the V/S, volunteers, families, etc, this is already happening at council level.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-expose-ukip-politics-live-blog?commentpage=4

btw, look at the Guardian politics update, all the Blairites to a man or woman support Blair's position on mass immigration. Hutton for instance was instrumental in bringing in the brutal welfare reforms, not much compassion there, so his support must be on economic grounds.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 27, 2014)

http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2014/01/100-labour-party-policies-ed-milibands.html

Whether they keep all 100 is another matter of course.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 13, 2014)

Got to say, as an example of how out of touch Milliband is, that picture of him posing with a copy of the Sun takes some beating. 

What the fuck was he thinking? 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jun/13/edmiliband-sun


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 13, 2014)

election next year


----------



## brogdale (Jun 13, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Got to say, as an example of how out of touch Milliband is, that picture of him posing with a copy of the Sun takes some beating.
> 
> What the fuck was he thinking?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jun/13/edmiliband-sun





> *Miliband apologised to the MPs*


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 13, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> election next year



You mean that all three parties thought they required the support of the notorious criminal organisation which owns the Sun, to stand a chance?

Not going to do him much good on Merseyside, but I guess that's not where he's looking to grab votes off the Con-Dems ...


----------



## treelover (Jun 13, 2014)

Don't 4m people read The Sun?, that's a lot of votes to be had.

I use the term 'read' loosely


----------



## ska invita (Jun 13, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What the fuck was he thinking?


He was thinking it shared his One Nation line


----------



## quiquaquo (Jun 13, 2014)

Used my copy to put under the cat's food bowl. She came upstairs at half five this morning and threw up right by the bed and is off to the vet later. Bastard Murdoch poisoning our moggies.


----------



## treelover (Jun 15, 2014)

> *Labour needs to be candid about the painful cuts it will have to make*
> Behind the scenes, Labour's Treasury team has begun to identify how it would squeeze spending to balance the books if the party were to win power
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...st-be-candid-about-painful-cuts-it-would-make



If Labour get in people are going to get disillusioned very rapidly.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 15, 2014)

treelover said:


> If Labour get in people are going to get disillusioned very rapidly.


Very probably.

But they won't be the tories.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 16, 2014)

So it's ok to get buttfucked by the powers that be provided they ain't tory?

dear lord....


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 16, 2014)

Nylock said:


> So it's ok to get buttfucked by the powers that be provided they ain't tory?
> 
> dear lord....


Is that what I said?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2014)

It's a reasonable interpretation of what you said. Such was your ambiguity that he was forced to _ask _you to clarify - which you have failed to do.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 16, 2014)

Either vote TOry and get more of the same which noone wants.

Or vote Labour and hope, maybe foolishly, that just maybe they deliver on something.

Because those are the only choices we have next year. I fully accept this is hobson's choice, but that's the reality given that the Green's aren't going to win, we don't want Ukip, and the unions won't strike. So we're left with a hung parliament and the remnant of libdems going back into government with the coalition, which they will. 

Labour are, sadly, the only choice, and yes that means a useless robot leader, a puffed up ignorant twat of a chancellors and the rest of the hopeless capitalist toadies. 

But they aren't the tories and we all know it will be social armageddon if they win. Just think what IDS will do if they get a mandate! The welfare state, what's lesft of it now, will be gone in a year. The NHS likewise. 

There's a possibility that won't happen under Labour, if only postponed.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 17, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> There's a possibility that won't happen under Labour, if only postponed.



From the people that brought us the wonders of PFI and the extension of Thatcherite policies? Labour have effectively promised 'more of the same' if they were to get in. Where's the commitments to repeal some of the worst that has been enacted by this government? Where's the offering of a genuine alternative to this slow-motion neoliberal car crash we are all part of? Nowhere, that's where. At least not from Labour. Because they are effectively the different arsehole from which the same shit dumps down upon us. 

It's hard to think of what's more tragic: the possibility of a Tory government returning to power and giving us more of the same, but more viciously; the possibility of Labour government being elected to power and giving us more of the same, but more insidiously; or that treacherous bunch of fuckwits and sock-puppets from the libdems entering coalition with one of the other two and offering more of the same, but with added tears and incompetence. The whole damn merry go round is a fucking joke -except it's the political classes and their paymasters that are having all the laughs. At our expense.

/rant.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 17, 2014)

I literally have no idea what advantages Labour offer in reality.

They haven't, won't and cannot apologise for Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, PFI, NHS privatisation, persecution of the unemployed and disabled, the bedroom tax (proposing and voting for it), tuition fees, racist immigration policies, not repealing anti-labour legislation, kowtowing to News International, attacks on civil liberties, academies, faith schools, the 'Blue Labour' bullshit, cash for peerages, Giddens, GCHQ, the socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor of the bank bailouts, continued integration and federalisation of Europe against the consent of the peoples of Europe...

I'm terrified of these people having a mandate, almost as terrified as the blue and yellow Tories ever being near power again.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 17, 2014)

Nylock said:


> From the people that brought us the wonders of PFI and the extension of Thatcherite policies? Labour have effectively promised 'more of the same' if they were to get in. Where's the commitments to repeal some of the worst that has been enacted by this government? Where's the offering of a genuine alternative to this slow-motion neoliberal car crash we are all part of? Nowhere, that's where. At least not from Labour. Because they are effectively the different arsehole from which the same shit dumps down upon us.
> 
> It's hard to think of what's more tragic: the possibility of a Tory government returning to power and giving us more of the same, but more viciously; the possibility of Labour government being elected to power and giving us more of the same, but more insidiously; or that treacherous bunch of fuckwits and sock-puppets from the libdems entering coalition with one of the other two and offering more of the same, but with added tears and incompetence. The whole damn merry go round is a fucking joke -except it's the political classes and their paymasters that are having all the laughs. At our expense.
> 
> /rant.



I'm not disagreeing with any of this, I'm just trying to look at this practically.  What we really need we just aren't going to get: a completely new system. But I don't see that happening in2015. In my estimation, the only choice that will be available in2015 is, deplorably, is labour. I agree with all of the accusations levelled at their feet, but what else do we do that won't put either the tortures or this coalition back into power.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 17, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Either vote TOry and get more of the same which noone wants.
> 
> Or vote Labour and hope, maybe foolishly, that just maybe they deliver on something.
> 
> ...


Who do you think started this crap? Jesus.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 17, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> Who do you think started this crap? Jesus.


What's the alternative then?

This is how shit things have become: either we get more of the same or we hope, however naively, that maybe, just maybe, might, miliblsnd might take the pressure of if only slightly. 

The problem is that if you don't vote then you we as well be voting Tory because the only people that will be left voting are Tory supporters.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2014)

So The Scum says that Balls has employed 4 people on Zero hours contracts. His response is fucking lame in an 'only following orders' sort of way...



> *“On the advice of IPSA we use their casual contracts solely to allow us to pay the living wage to interns and students on temporary placements. Labour’s policy is to tackle the exploitative use of zero-hours contracts, for example by ensuring that employees who have worked regular hours over a year automatically get a fixed hours contract.”*



Also, since when has it been made illegal to pay people a living wage on a proper contract?

Ball's hypocrisy draws this mocking from the capitalist scum of the IoD...



> _“The fact that so many students and young people are employed by Labour MPs in this way further undermines the calls from the far left to ban such contracts all together. Thankfully, cooler heads have prevailed and the Labour policy on Zero Hours Contracts is now pretty sensible. Just don’t tell Oxfam…”_



ffs


----------



## treelover (Jun 17, 2014)

Milliband is going to make a major policy speech later this week based on a report by that well known left wing think tank the IPPR, Cruddas is said to be elated.

oh, its on the day of the England Vs Uruguay game, just who is advising him?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> Milliband is going to make a major policy speech later this week based on a report by that well known left wing think tank the IPPR, Cruddas is said to be elated.
> 
> oh, its on the day of the England Vs Uruguay game, just who is advising him?


Murdoch by the sounds of things.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> So The Scum says that Balls has employed 4 people on Zero hours contracts. His response is fucking lame in an 'only following orders' sort of way...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who are the IoD? Also, 'far-left' Oxfam?


----------



## treelover (Jun 17, 2014)

> Looking at shadow health secretary Andy Burnham and his man-of-the-people, football-loving, one-of-the-lads-drinking-bitter patter, he hardly screams Riviera chic. His wife, however, can be found tweeting about hosting drinks ‘on our boat in Cannes harbour’.



http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator-life/spectator-life-life/9022871/socialist-climbing/


Just found this article, from the Spectator but even with knowing already about Ed's wealth, etc, the extent of the rest of the top ranks moolah is revealing.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Who are the IoD? Also, 'far-left' Oxfam?



These are they.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Jun 17, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Who are the IoD? Also, 'far-left' Oxfam?


IoD Institute of Directors the fattest of fatcats


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

Nylock said:


> So it's ok to get buttfucked by the powers that be provided they ain't tory?
> 
> dear lord....



Is this buttfucking with or without lube?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Either vote TOry and get more of the same which noone wants.
> 
> Or vote Labour and hope, maybe foolishly, that just maybe they deliver on something.
> 
> ...




And that, your final line, is *exactly* what Mili-twat's strategy planners are hoping people think.  After all, it'd buy them a win, without them having to do anything messy like making manifesto pledges and then honouring them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

Nylock said:


> From the people that brought us the wonders of PFI and the extension of Thatcherite policies? Labour have effectively promised 'more of the same' if they were to get in. Where's the commitments to repeal some of the worst that has been enacted by this government? Where's the offering of a genuine alternative to this slow-motion neoliberal car crash we are all part of? Nowhere, that's where. At least not from Labour. Because they are effectively the different arsehole from which the same shit dumps down upon us.
> 
> It's hard to think of what's more tragic: the possibility of a Tory government returning to power and giving us more of the same, but more viciously; the possibility of Labour government being elected to power and giving us more of the same, but more insidiously; or that treacherous bunch of fuckwits and sock-puppets from the libdems entering coalition with one of the other two and offering more of the same, but with added tears and incompetence. The whole damn merry go round is a fucking joke -except it's the political classes and their paymasters that are having all the laughs. At our expense.
> 
> /rant.



Cool rant, Bro!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I literally have no idea what advantages Labour offer in reality.
> 
> They haven't, won't and cannot apologise for Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, PFI, NHS privatisation, persecution of the unemployed and disabled, the bedroom tax (proposing and voting for it), tuition fees, racist immigration policies, not repealing anti-labour legislation, kowtowing to News International, attacks on civil liberties, academies, faith schools, the 'Blue Labour' bullshit, cash for peerages, Giddens, GCHQ, the socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor of the bank bailouts, continued integration and federalisation of Europe against the consent of the peoples of Europe...
> 
> I'm terrified of these people having a mandate, almost as terrified as the blue and yellow Tories ever being near power again.



In reality, they offer no advantages, just the same neolib policies, but with a few bits of ameliorationist PR thrown in.  Same shit, different arseholes.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And that, your final line, is *exactly* what Mili-twat's strategy planners are hoping people think.  After all, it'd buy them a win, without them having to do anything messy like making manifesto pledges and then honouring them.


Super.

So that's the tories in power then for another 5 years. 

What's your alternative?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> Who do you think started this crap? Jesus.



No, definitely *wasn't* Jesus.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Super.
> 
> So that's the tories in power then for another 5 years.
> 
> What's your alternative?



You don't get it, do you?
*There isn't any meaningful alternative*.  All three mainstream parties (and just about every minor party) are signed up to the neoliberal agenda. All that varies is how those policies get sold to the public.  Vote Labour and what comes to pass will be the same, in substance, as what would/will/has happened under the coalition, just with different window-dressing.
I challenge anyone who doesn't agree with this to find me a single *substantive* policy (i.e. not a minor addition or addendum to a policy to mildly ameliorate it) from Labour or the Lib-Dims that goes against the neoliberal line.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

It's you that doesn't get it.

The tories think labour are socialist lefties. Voting the tories out sends them a message. It makes them think. It makes them pick useless leaders like Hague, Howard and IDS, while they sit in the wilderness.

If all things are completely equal, and they are not, then this alone is better than the current situation which is the best case scenario if you refuse to vote next year.

You keep missing the point: it isn't about whether or not Labour are wonderful and lovely. It's about the fact they are NOT the tories. 

It's about getting this current lot, including the likes of IDS, out. Noone comes close to this guy for sheer bloody minded almost religious zealotry. if we manage to get him out then that alone is enough of a victory. 

At the very least they have more wright of expectation than any other government if they get in. They have promised a repeal of the Bedroom Tax, whether or not you believe they will follow through, that's still more than you will get from the tories, which is who will win othereiwse. 

Like it or not, Labour are the ONLY choice next year. The electoral system isn't going to change and while it might be a self fulfilling prophecy to say so, the Greens are too much of a gamble, even though i'd happily give them a chance.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> The tories think labour are socialist lefties.


No they don't. They just say that. It's a "bit" they do. The harder of thinking ex army officers who read the Telegraph might really believe it, but the Tories know very well what Labour's about.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 18, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> No they don't. They just say that. It's a "bit" they do. The harder of thinking ex army officers who read the Telegraph might really believe it, but the Tories know very well what Labour's about.



They're playing to their half of the punch & judy show basically innit....


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 18, 2014)

Nylock said:


> They're playing to their half of the punch & judy show basically innit....


Exactly.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> No they don't. They just say that. It's a "bit" they do. The harder of thinking ex army officers who read the Telegraph might really believe it, but the Tories know very well what Labour's about.


Well assuming that's true, so what?

Either we continue with a nasty self entitled bully called Iain, or we get Rachel Reeves who, for all her silly claims about being tougher than the tories on the benefit bill (whatever that means), hasnt' given me any reason to make me think a) she'll be worse (if that's actually possible) and b) that she'll even be the same.

I would much rather have her in charge quite frankly than this disgusting hardline bully at the moment. That's the choice, that's the only choice. I grant it's not much of one, but it's the only one and even the slightest chance of the slightest imprvement is reason enough IMO.

Where we go from there, after 2015, is another question. I'm all for campaigning for a complete change of system, but that, if it ever happens, isn't going to happen in the next 12 months.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Well assuming that's true, so what?


So voting for Labour wouldn't send the Tories the message you initially said it would.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2014)

the soul of the labour party was poisoned from inception.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> So voting for Labour wouldn't send the Tories the message you initially said it would.


It would because they'd be out and their opponents would be in.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> It would because they'd be out and their opponents would be in.


Two factions of the business party.  

They're figures on the Trumpton Town Clock.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 18, 2014)

"Here is the clock, the Trumpton clock. Telling the time, steadily, sensibly; never too quickly, never too slowly. Telling the time for Trumpton".


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 18, 2014)

Dunno if this is has been mentioned, but what the fuck?

Labour gonna refuse JSA to those without qualifications. just on BBC news, to be announced tomorrow.


----------



## treelover (Jun 18, 2014)

Yes, Milliband major announcement speech tomorrow: JSA abolished for under 21, must do training, a new means tested benefit to be instigated

so, even less independence for the young, one milllion now unemployed, zero hours contracts, hassle from the DWP, etc, how much more can they tolerate?

what will happen to young on ESA under 21?


btw, these policies have come from the IPPR who also led the charge to abolish IB


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 18, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Dunno if this is has been mentioned, but what the fuck?
> 
> Labour gonna refuse JSA to those without qualifications. just on BBC news, to be announced tomorrow.


And so the journey begun by Callaghan concludes.  Education is now officially not about inquiring minds or the health of the community, but is purely a "vocational" tool, especially - for that's the point - if you're at the bottom of the pile. On pain of the state taking away your benefits.  Thanks "Labour".


----------



## treelover (Jun 18, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...n-benefits-means-testing-training-ed-miliband

Oh look, its by the Uber Blairite Wintour,who seems to relish writing about these 'reforms', cuts, etc.




> The removal of jobseeker's allowance (JSA) for those with skills below level 3 would affect seven out of 10 of the 18-to-21-year-olds currently claiming JSA, and initially save £65m.



65m is nothing, this is ideological


----------



## treelover (Jun 18, 2014)

> Under his plans, people would only be able to claim the higher rate JSA of £71 a week after they have paid National Insurance for five years, instead of the current two. The contributory element of the welfare system has been eroded in Britain and is much smaller than in most European economies.



so its 52 pounds to live on if you haven't paid stamps




> The report also argues that there needs to be a switch of government resources from tax transfers and credits to delivering services, something that might require abandoning the expensive target to eliminate child poverty.



So, the IPPR is pushing for the end of tax credits, etc?


----------



## treelover (Jun 18, 2014)

> the ippr is staffed by middle class researchers often from other countries who have never been in the situations they are creating policy about - what they say, and i say this as a senior researcher, is not worth listening to. most of it's research is done based on short term analysis by, as i say, people with no experience of life. i bet none of them know how difficult it is to live without an income when trying to get a college education without any grants to live off...like so much policy, developed by people who have no direct experience of what they are waffling on about...



posted on CIF


----------



## Nylock (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Well assuming that's true, so what?
> 
> Either we continue with a nasty self entitled bully called Iain, or we get Rachel Reeves who, for all her silly claims about being tougher than the tories on the benefit bill (whatever that means), hasnt' given me any reason to make me think a) she'll be worse (if that's actually possible) and b) that she'll even be the same.
> 
> ...


It seems it IS possible to be worse than the tories, check out the message Fez909 posted above. Refusing JSA to people without qualifications... The phrase 'a new low' has long since failed to have any reasonable meaning with our political classes. Beating benefit claimants for cheap political points seems to be the thing to do these days as they are one of the few sectors of society lacking in any powerful voice or support; it's a case of 'be happy with the shit we give you, or we'll just keep making it worse'...


----------



## treelover (Jun 18, 2014)

Maybe its time for what is left of the left, civil society, decent people, etc,to give them a voice.

Some posters are definitely saying Wintour is putting his Blairite bias on the article, etc.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

Nylock said:


> It seems it IS possible to be worse than the tories, check out the message Fez909 posted above. Refusing JSA to people without qualifications... The phrase 'a new low' has long since failed to have any reasonable meaning with our political classes. Beating benefit claimants for cheap political points seems to be the thing to do these days as they are one of the few sectors of society lacking in any powerful voice or support; it's a case of 'be happy with the shit we give you, or we'll just keep making it worse'...


I suppose the question is: do you think it will bebeter if IDS stays in post (assuming he isn't reshuffled following an election victory by the tories).

Agan, whatever Labour are saying I am not excusing using. But I do not think they will be as nasty or as bullying as IDS.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Two factions of the business party.
> 
> They're figures on the Trumpton Town Clock.


We know this, I just don't think it changes anything.

Either we vote Labour or the Tories get in, I don't see any other outcome. Not voting, or voting for a minotiry like the Greens, will mean the Tories win. I wish it weren't so, but I do not see an alternative.


----------



## campanula (Jun 18, 2014)

In truth, how I engage with politics has no connection whatsoever with the inane Westminster club. True, my dad was old enough to value the concept of a democracy founded on full adult suffrage....but I couldn't give a toss since the policies effected are invariably shit for me and mine. However, this does not mean that we are apolitical, just that we prefer to micro-manage our environment, our social relations and our hopes and aspirations in a more relevant arena.....and in that respect, it is of minimal import just what tribal grouping of business class nimwits get to relive their school debating days.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 18, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Dunno if this is has been mentioned, but what the fuck?
> 
> Labour gonna refuse JSA to those without qualifications. just on BBC news, to be announced tomorrow.


 
Outrageous


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> We know this, I just don't think it changes anything.
> 
> Either we vote Labour or the Tories get in, I don't see any other outcome. Not voting, or voting for a minotiry like the Greens, will mean the Tories win. I wish it weren't so, but I do not see an alternative.


But you have been pushing Labour as an alternative, that's what you've been repeatedly doing for the last two pages.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I suppose the question is: do you think it will bebeter if IDS stays in post (assuming he isn't reshuffled following an election victory by the tories).
> 
> Agan, whatever Labour are saying I am not excusing using. But I do not think they will be as nasty or as bullying as IDS.



So despite them screaming 'we'll be more nasty and bullying than IDS' at the top of their voices at every available opportunity you don't think they will really. Flawless logic as usual.


----------



## agricola (Jun 19, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So despite them screaming 'we'll be more nasty and bullying than IDS' at the top of their voices at every available opportunity you don't think they will really. Flawless logic as usual.



TBF I dont think they will be nastier than IDS, they will shaft everyone on JSA in a much friendlier way than he would.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I suppose the question is: do you think it will bebeter if IDS stays in post (assuming he isn't reshuffled following an election victory by the tories).
> 
> Agan, whatever Labour are saying I am not excusing using. But I do not think they will be as nasty or as bullying as IDS.


OFC i wouldn't want to see IDS staying in post, frankly i'd like to see him swing _from_ a post. However, i remain unconvinced that Labour will be any less nasty or bullying than the Tories when it comes to benefit claimants. Let's not forget who kicked off a lot of this 'strivers vs skivers' shite in the first instance...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2014)

agricola said:


> TBF I dont think they will be nastier than IDS, they will shaft everyone on JSA in a much friendlier way than he would.



Yes, they'll smile at you and act all apologetic about it - and probably won't enjoy it as much. But the effect will be the same at best.


----------



## agricola (Jun 19, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, they'll smile at you and act all apologetic about it - and probably won't enjoy it as much. But the effect will be the same at best.



Indeed.  _"Yes, but the Tories wouldnt give you a cuddle afterwards"_


----------



## xenon (Jun 19, 2014)

.


----------



## xenon (Jun 19, 2014)

.


----------



## xenon (Jun 19, 2014)

.


----------



## xenon (Jun 19, 2014)

.


----------



## treelover (Jun 19, 2014)

IPPR Trustees, with it's Chair Baron Adonis. ...Sir John Armitt who at Railtrack earned £1m+ salary package as a public employee. Then there's Baron John Leonard Eatwell. ...Baron Clive Hollick ...Baroness Parminter.


----------



## xenon (Jun 19, 2014)

.


----------



## treelover (Jun 19, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/labour-reform-welfare-benefits-culture

more here


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2014)

xenon said:


> Neoliberal list shit stains, yeah, I hate Ed Miliband to. What do you do next May then. Assuming there is no insurrection in the meantime. I don't actually hate Miliband, I just think he's a fuck wit. Man the barricades, stockpiled weapons you can't have.



I'd get someone to take my temperature if I were you


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 19, 2014)

> Labour said Mr Miliband would announce that some adult out-of-work benefits, including Jobseeker's Allowance, would be replaced with a "youth allowance" that would be means-tested on parental income and conditional on the young people being in training.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518

What are the odds that the "training" is actually real, profit-making work for Capita and the likes?


----------



## Nylock (Jun 19, 2014)

Yep, that's right, my disillusionment with this country's political class is all about my desire to show i'm more cynical and world-weary than the next person. Nothing else, just that.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> But you have been pushing Labour as an alternative, that's what you've been repeatedly doing for the last two pages.


I'm pushing them out of necessity as the only alternative in2015. I'd love a better choice, believe me!


Nylock said:


> OFC i wouldn't want to see IDS staying in post, frankly i'd like to see him swing _from_ a post. However, i remain unconvinced that Labour will be any less nasty or bullying than the Tories when it comes to benefit claimants. Let's not forget who kicked off a lot of this 'strivers vs skivers' shite in the first instance...


And I agree, but what other choice is there next year?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 19, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So despite them screaming 'we'll be more nasty and bullying than IDS' at the top of their voices at every available opportunity you don't think they will really. Flawless logic as usual.


No I actually don't think they will be worse. I'm not sure it's even possible to be worse given what a Tory majority will produce.

If nothing else labor had promised to end the bedroom tax. Of course there's every chance that's s lie, buy is more than the Tories are promising. Who knows how much worse the tax will be if they get in?

Unfortunately, in your hyperbole flecked personal ranting against me you've lost sight of the point I'm making.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'm pushing them out of necessity as the only alternative in2015. I'd love a better choice, believe me!
> 
> And I agree, but what other choice is there next year?


If they're the only alternative then you don't need to push them, you could do something more constructive with your time and energy.

Instead of asking over and over "what choice do we have next year?" Ask what choices you have *right now* and then act on your answer. Last time I suggested an immediate way of getting involved in something you just said I'm not getting involved with those pricks, they don't even support labour. The logic of your position already cutting down and rejecting attempts to go beyond labour, and on a nakedly sectarian basis.

Edit: for an example of how this plays out right now see the semi pending defence of labour's proposed draconian cuts on the other thread.


----------



## xenon (Jun 19, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Yep, that's right, my disillusionment with this country's political class is all about my desire to show i'm more cynical and world-weary than the next person. Nothing else, just that.



Well done. Have a fucking biscuit.

OK more soberly. I get that this thread serves to highlight Labour's naked duplicity, their ideological adherence to the same Neo Liberalist economic policies as the rest, driven by and captured by the same forces. So now what. What do you tell someone who's only real political engagement is in voting every few years. What's the message other than snearing bumfuck jokes and I'm considerably more sinacle than you repasts. Negativity and cultivating dispair is all it looks like.

Yeah admittedly I haven't helped here. What's to be done then. Join a union, agitate. Do something locally. Build something. Stay off twitter.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 19, 2014)

xenon said:


> Well done. Have a fucking biscuit.


Well done for cleaning up the shit you spouted all over the thread last night... If you're so fucking right in what you say, why bother retracting it you aggressive gobshite. Now take your biscuit and shove it up your arse.

E2A: Nice edit there. I'll leave your original, unedited post in the quotation if it's all the same to you. At least that way any future hostility on this thread between us will have some context.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> Yes, Milliband major announcement speech tomorrow: JSA abolished for under 21, must do training, a new means tested benefit to be instigated
> 
> so, even less independence for the young, one milllion now unemployed, zero hours contracts, hassle from the DWP, etc, how much more can they tolerate?
> 
> ...



Britain resembles East Germany more every year in terms of surveillance, forced work and censorship, but without the good parts like jobs paying enough to live on and housing.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> Then there's Baron John Leonard *Eatwell*. .



I bet he does. [gets coat]


----------



## xenon (Jun 19, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Well done for cleaning up the shit you spouted all over the thread last night... If you're so fucking right in what you say, why bother retracting it you aggressive gobshite. Now take your biscuit and shove it up your arse.
> 
> E2A: Nice edit there. I'll leave your original, unedited post in the quotation if it's all the same to you. At least that way any future hostility on this thread between us will have some context.



The edit was an attempt to clarify. The tidying up of last night's posts because they were incoherent. The aggression, well honestly nothing personal, it's just how it is sometimes.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 19, 2014)

Fair enough


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> No I actually don't think they will be worse. I'm not sure it's even possible to be worse given what a Tory majority will produce.
> 
> If nothing else labor had promised to end the bedroom tax. Of course there's every chance that's s lie, buy is more than the Tories are promising. Who knows how much worse the tax will be if they get in?
> 
> Unfortunately, in your hyperbole flecked personal ranting against me you've lost sight of the point I'm making.



So them promising to end the bedroom tax (the death of which is aready in the post whoever gets in) more than makes up for them denying JSA to under 21s/no qualifications? 

Unfortunately, in your sanctimony flecked naive attempts to see in positives in labour you've lost sight of reality.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 19, 2014)

have to clock up 5 years of work before you can get social security ("benefits") is that  right?


----------



## Nylock (Jun 19, 2014)

Looks to be that way....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> It's you that doesn't get it.
> 
> The tories think labour are socialist lefties. Voting the tories out sends them a message. It makes them think. It makes them pick useless leaders like Hague, Howard and IDS, while they sit in the wilderness.



The Tory membership may believe such things of Labour.  The parliamentary party does not, they're merely cynically use such beliefs for their own ends - to set up an opposition that in political terms, no longer exists.  Hague _et al_ failed because of 18 years of Tory rule prior to '97, not because they offered policies that were significantly different to, or worse than those of new Labour.  That's obvious through comparison of manifestos, and through reading through the "call and response" pantomime post-such events as budgets or the Queen's Speech.



> If all things are completely equal, and they are not, then this alone is better than the current situation which is the best case scenario if you refuse to vote next year.



You *perceive* this to be the case. It's what is known as "the triumph of hope over experience".



> You keep missing the point: it isn't about whether or not Labour are wonderful and lovely. It's about the fact they are NOT the tories.



Except that, in all but name, in all the ways that really matter - in politics, in rhetoric, in intention, they're the same as the Tories. 
Given that they accept the same economic predicates as the Tories, as the Lib-Dems, and as UKIP, they can't be anything *but* "the same as the Tories".



> It's about getting this current lot, including the likes of IDS, out. Noone comes close to this guy for sheer bloody minded almost religious zealotry. if we manage to get him out then that alone is enough of a victory.



And replaciing him with someone who's core policies will be the same as his, merely presented in a more people-friendly manner.  We know this because Reeves has stated her intentions clearly and plainly - more of the same.
Unlike you, I don't believe that replacing an unpleasant megalomaniacal cunt with a smug deceptive cunt is a win for *anyone*.



> At the very least they have more wright of expectation than any other government if they get in. They have promised a repeal of the Bedroom Tax, whether or not you believe they will follow through, that's still more than you will get from the tories, which is who will win othereiwse.



Labour had a massive weight of expectation on them in '97, history shows us that they fulfilled about 5% of that expectation.  



> Like it or not, Labour are the ONLY choice next year. The electoral system isn't going to change and while it might be a self fulfilling prophecy to say so, the Greens are too much of a gamble, even though i'd happily give them a chance.



And while people say "Labour is the NLY choice next year. The electoral system isn't going to change...", nothing *will* change, because no message other than "we'll put up with just about any shit as long as it's not Tory shit, Ed", gets sent.

You're bending the knee and bearing your throat to the same politics that's already seen disabled people attacked and degraded, all on the chance that they'll say "sir" at the end of calling you a useless scrounging cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...n-benefits-means-testing-training-ed-miliband
> 
> Oh look, its by the Uber Blairite Wintour,who seems to relish writing about these 'reforms', cuts, etc.
> 
> ...



"Efficiency savings", like "austerity cuts", are *ALWAYS* ideological.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're bending the knee and bearing your throat to the same politics that's already seen disabled people attacked and degraded, all on the chance that they'll say "sir" at the end of calling you a useless scrounging cunt.



No, that's just your bias speaking.

And frankly, your bias means fuck all when the culmination puts IDS back in charge knowing full well that's what's going to happen - unless of course you have abetter alternative than the childish defeatism i've heard so far.

EDIT: what I mean by bias is your bias against me. You are asserting that i am, at best, naive, about the politics of the labour party. That fact misses the point entirely. Its also completely incongruous with everything i have said and posted on this forum. If that is the logic you employ to respond, then don't bother.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> No, that's just your bias speaking.
> 
> And frankly, your bias means fuck all when the culmination puts IDS back in charge knowing full well that's what's going to happen - unless of course you have abetter alternative than the childish defeatism i've heard so far.



Because, of course, "vote Labour" isn't even akin to childish defeatism.



> EDIT: what I mean by bias is your bias against me. You are asserting that i am, at best, naive, about the politics of the labour party. That fact misses the point entirely. Its also completely incongruous with everything i have said and posted on this forum. If that is the logic you employ to respond, then don't bother.



Bias against you? Don't flatter yourself.  
I'm asserting that you're naive, shading into wilfully-ignorant, not just about labour, but about politics as a whole.  I'm asserting that by saying "anything is better than IDS's boot on my neck", you're merely asking for another boot on your neck, and that Labour will be as happy to put their boot on your neck as the Tories were.  I'm asserting that our current system of representation is broken, and that effort would be better spent trying to do something about that, than punting a change of government as any kind of solution, or even as a respite.

I'm asserting that do-nothings like you will sit at home fiddling with yourselves as Rome burns, and then blame everyone except yourself when the flames start licking at your toes.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 19, 2014)

> You *perceive* this to be the case. It's what is known as "the triumph of hope over experience".



Ok, so?



> Except that, in all but name, in all the ways that really matter - in politics, in rhetoric, in intention, they're the same as the Tories.



That's a claim. They are similar in a great many ways, that isn't the same as being the same.

That doesn't mean they are objectively worth supporting, but that is not my position. 

My position is that: there are two outcomes next year Tory or Labour. There are no other outcomes. If you find labour objectionable, then by not voting you help to guarantee a Tory win.



> And replaciing him with someone who's core policies will be the same as his, merely presented in a more people-friendly manner.  We know this because Reeves has stated her intentions clearly and plainly - more of the same.



Then how is she being deceptive, which you subsequently claim? 

She has stated she will be tougher than the tories on the benefit bill. I agree that is a sinister statement, or at the very least clumsily pandering to the right. It doesn't follow that she will not repeal the BT, for example, or that she will enact policy as vicious as this government. 



> Unlike you, I don't believe that replacing an unpleasant megalomaniacal cunt with a smug deceptive cunt is a win for *anyone*.



Whether or not she is smug (she may be many things, but that wouldn't be an epithet I would have chosen) is irrelevant. She can be as smug as she likes if she behaves even marginally better than IDS.



> Labour had a massive weight of expectation on them in '97, history shows us that they fulfilled about 5% of that expectation.



That is not evidence that Labour will be worse than the tories in 2015.



> And while people say "Labour is the NLY choice next year. The electoral system isn't going to change...", nothing *will* change, because no message other than "we'll put up with just about any shit as long as it's not Tory shit, Ed", gets sent.



Then if the only difference is IDS is not in charge that itself, while I grant isn't ideal, is better than nothing.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because, of course, "vote Labour" isn't even akin to childish defeatism.



I haven't said Labour will fix everything. I have said that the chance they might just do one thing to help, such as repeal the BT, is enough to kick out the Tories.



> I'm asserting that you're naive, shading into wilfully-ignorant, not just about labour, but about politics as a whole.



And in so doing you are demonstrating your bias. My knowledge of politics as a whole is irrelevant to this discussion. Your constant attempts to appear as the Grand Meister with allthe secrets are really quite childish.



> I'm asserting that by saying "anything is better than IDS's boot on my neck", you're merely asking for another boot on your neck, and that Labour will be as happy to put their boot on your neck as the Tories were.



Now you are putting words in my mouth.



> I'm asserting that our current system of representation is broken, and that effort would be better spent trying to do something about that, than punting a change of government as any kind of solution, or even as a respite.



And I have repeatedly said the same thing. It's a pity you people don't read.

But we aren't going to get a better system in time for 2015.



> I'm asserting that do-nothings like you will sit at home fiddling with yourselves as Rome burns, and then blame everyone except yourself when the flames start licking at your toes.



Which is meaningless hyperbole and ad hom.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> My position is that: there are two outcomes next year Tory or Labour. There are no other outcomes. If you find labour objectionable, then by not voting you help to guarantee a Tory win.


is voting sinn fein guaranteeing a tory win?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> is voting sinn fein guaranteeing a tory win?


I think my point was clearly explained, even for a simpleton like you.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 19, 2014)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> My position is that: there are two outcomes next year Tory or Labour. There are no other outcomes. If you find labour objectionable, then by not voting you help to guarantee a Tory win.



Could you explain why then the Electoral Reform Society concluded in a report that as few as 8000 swing voters in a handful of seats are the only ones out of 30 million voters whose vote actually effects the outcome. Why nearly 400 of 600 seats are safe seats that will not change hands no matter what? And what that means for your argument that every vote counts? Because i think it blows it out of the water frankly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I think my point was clearly explained, even for a simpleton like you.


your point was clearly explained. but it's bollocks. not voting is not in all cases a vote for the tories. there are more than two possible outcomes to the election next year, and none of them are palatable. and frankly i'd rather have the genuine tories than some we're not really tory tories - the original is usually best. ideally, of course, we wouldn't have the red scum or the blue scum - nor, indeed, the yellow scum.

i'm rather surprised, bo, that you no longer seem to be ignoring me.


----------



## fogbat (Jun 19, 2014)

I'm in a very safe Labour seat. By not voting, or not voting Labour, I do fuck all for a Tory win.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I haven't said Labour will fix everything.



Which makes it fortunate that I haven't claimed anything of the sort, does it not? 



> I have said that the chance they might just do one thing to help, such as repeal the BT, is enough to kick out the Tories.



You've also written a load of cant about how getting IDS out is imperative.

As has been said by others and myself elsewhere, the Bedroom Tax is a busted flush. Regardless of who is in power, it'll be gone in a year or so, having done its' job.



> And in so doing you are demonstrating your bias. My knowledge of politics as a whole is irrelevant to this discussion. Your constant attempts to appear as the Grand Meister with allthe secrets are really quite childish.



Except that I'm not making any such "attempts", I'm merely speaking from a perspective that includes studying and trying to learn from the past.
And your knowledge of politics is *precisely* relevant, in that informs your perspective.


That you see contradiction of your opinions in the light you invariably do (and I'm talking contradiction in general, not just my contradictions) as posturing (or harrassment, or what-fucking-ever) rather than as critique, signals...well, I won't analyse you publicly.





> Now you are putting words in my mouth.



No, I'm not, I've condensed and am paraphrasing your own posts.




> And I have repeatedly said the same thing. It's a pity you people don't read.



You haven't said the same thing, not even close.  You've said that something should be done within the system, which kind of misses the point that the system survives through minimal concession.
And "you people"? There's only one of me.



> But we aren't going to get a better system in time for 2015.



So let's not bother, eh?  let's just let everything carry on as it is, towards what at best will be a neo-Victorian nightmare realm.
Fuck it, we can't have it in time for the next election, so lets stay with the rigged political "consensus" instead.  let's be dupes for the neoliberal!




> Which is meaningless hyperbole and ad hom.



It'd only be hyperbole if it didn't reflect the gist of your posts here. It'd only be an _ad hominem_ if it didn't reflect the gist of your posts here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Could you explain why then the Electoral Reform Society concluded in a report that as few as 8000 swing voters in a handful of seats are the only ones out of 30 million voters whose vote actually effects the outcome. Why nearly 400 of 600 seats are safe seats that will not change hands no matter what? And what that means for your argument that every vote counts? Because i think it blows it out of the water frankly.



Come on, we *know* it blows his argument out of the water!
Not that it matters.  He's more intent on justifying his position than he is in considering anything as quotidian as fact.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 19, 2014)

fogbat said:


> I'm in a very safe Labour seat. By not voting, or not voting Labour, I do fuck all for a Tory win.


There is that. 

But i wouldn't criticise in a situation that's out of your control. That's not just sitting back and advocating doing nothing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2014)

fogbat said:


> I'm in a very safe Labour seat. By not voting, or not voting Labour, I do fuck all for a Tory win.



Same here.  Same for so many of us.
In my opinion, the only action we have left to us, given being in safe Labour constituencies, is to withdraw our support, and the way to withdraw support isn't to place our votes elsewhere, it's to boycott the process, and make it clear *why* we're doing so.

As with consenting to being governed, our consent to be represented is:
a) taken for granted by our "representatives", and
b) contingent on our allowing ourselves to be used as a cock-sock by those "representatives".
Remove that consent, and the claimed mandate of these political vampires disappears into the aether.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which makes it fortunate that I haven't claimed anything of the sort, does it not?


Not directly, no.



> You've also written a load of cant about how getting IDS out is imperative.



Correct.



> As has been said by others and myself elsewhere, the Bedroom Tax is a busted flush. Regardless of who is in power, it'll be gone in a year or so, having done its' job.



That's an assumption. It's not the only thing labour has spoken on either.



> Except that I'm not making any such "attempts", I'm merely speaking from a perspective that includes studying and trying to learn from the past.



Great. Learn all you can. 



> And your knowledge of politics is *precisely* relevant, in that informs your perspective.



What informs my perspective in this case is the situation in 2015. Again, i am not endorsing labour politics as anything but relative to the viciousness of a tory governemtn if one takes over next year. I don't believe I lack any particular knowledge relevant to that.



> That you see contradiction of your opinions in the light you invariably do (and I'm talking contradiction in general, not just my contradictions) as posturing (or harrassment, or what-fucking-ever) rather than as critique, signals...well, I won't analyse you publicly.


I haven't contradicted myself in this discussion. I'm sure i have done so in other discussion i have participated in, here and elswhere. I don't contend to be infallible any more than I contend to be 100% correct 100% of the time. So what? All I see here are more ad hominems in place of an argument.



> No, I'm not, I've condensed and am paraphrasing your own posts.



You are, since I didn't say what you put in quote marks. You are intellectually dishonest.



> You haven't said the same thing, not even close.  You've said that something should be done within the system, which kind of misses the point that the system survives through minimal concession.
> And "you people"? There's only one of me.



Which therefore means I wasn't simply referring to you.

The system will survive until 2015 and, as i've made abundantly clear, I am speaking about that election. I have also made it clear that we should press for a better system, but that will not happen for next year. 



> So let's not bother, eh?  let's just let everything carry on as it is, towards what at best will be a neo-Victorian nightmare realm.



Now you're putting words in my mouth again.



> It'd only be hyperbole if it didn't reflect the gist of your posts here. It'd only be an _ad hominem_ if it didn't reflect the gist of your posts here.



No, that was your post misrepresenting my arugment and in a derogatory way. So yes, it was ad hom and yes it was hyperbole, and a straw man.


----------



## killer b (Jun 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Same here.  Same for so many of us.
> In my opinion, the only action we have left to us, given being in safe Labour constituencies, is to withdraw our support, and the way to withdraw support isn't to place our votes elsewhere, it's to boycott the process, and make it clear *why* we're doing so.
> 
> As with consenting to being governed, our consent to be represented is:
> ...


This. Although, I'd probably vote hard left / NHS action or whatever if it was an option. 

I would vote labour if if was actually a choice between labour and tories or the yellow scum tbf. But only to hurt the tories or the yellow scum. And I certainly wouldn't advocate anyone else doing it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2014)

I would have voted for sawford jnr (corby indy-labour lash up) when mensch bailed. Wasn't registered at the time alas. Now I'm back in Kettering, nothing can unseat the Hollobonate, so no vote is a good vote.


----------



## binka (Jun 20, 2014)

was talking to my dad yesterday. he's life long labour, union rep in the factories and warehouses he's worked in, always goes to labour, union, co-op conferences and is out and about every election. has been a councillor previously and god knows how many tens of thousands of hours of his life he's given to the party. anyway he wanted to put his name forward for nomination to stand for councillor again at the next local election but some regional full timer is essentially trying to make it impossible for him to stand again. apparently they are really keen to make sure that no 'union people' are allowed to be candidates - they want all candidates to be from the professional middle clas. to say he's annoyed is putting it mildly!

of course i don't think it's surprising to many people here but i've never known him so disillusioned


----------



## treelover (Jun 20, 2014)

> As has been said by others and myself elsewhere, the Bedroom Tax is a busted flush. Regardless of who is in power, it'll be gone in a year or so, *having done its' job*.




what was that?


----------



## xenon (Jun 20, 2014)

binka said:


> was talking to my dad yesterday. he's life long labour, union rep in the factories and warehouses he's worked in, always goes to labour, union, co-op conferences and is out and about every election. has been a councillor previously and god knows how many tens of thousands of hours of his life he's given to the party. anyway he wanted to put his name forward for nomination to stand for councillor again at the next local election but some regional full timer is essentially trying to make it impossible for him to stand again. apparently they are really keen to make sure that no 'union people' are allowed to be candidates - they want all candidates to be from the professional middle clas. to say he's annoyed is putting it mildly!
> 
> of course i don't think it's surprising to many people here but i've never known him so disillusioned


What, how? (I don't know how candidate selection for councillors works TBF.) Filthy bastards.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Then if the only difference is IDS is not in charge that itself, while I grant isn't ideal, is better than nothing.



It's not better than nothing, just a different shade of nothing. Vote for these cunts so these other cunts don't win. They are the same cunts, the same class, same minority interest of privilege. This is the easiest bit to get, even a simpleton like me gets it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 20, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> It's not better than nothing, just a different shade of nothing. Vote for these cunts so these other cunts don't win. They are the same cunts, the same class, same minority interest of privilege. This is the easiest bit to get, even a simpleton like me gets it.


Oh i get it, I just don't agree.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jun 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Oh i get it, I just don't agree.



So Neoliberals with a guilt complex, who might brush some crumbs from the table for the rest of us, is this where our energies must be directed? The compromise didn't work last time. It provided a solid platform for the current lot to entrench class division and inequality. And so it goes on. The emperor is naked. No conviction behind the managerial bullshit.

I get where you're coming from. In 1997 I went that way. But I don't agree.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Oh i get it, I just don't agree.


What do you get and what don't you agree with?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 20, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> What do you get and what don't you agree with?


It.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> It.



Is that it?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 20, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Is that it?


My position has been made clear I think.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> My position has been made clear I think.



It has but not by you.


----------



## binka (Jun 20, 2014)

xenon said:


> What, how? (I don't know how candidate selection for councillors works TBF.) Filthy bastards.


waiting until he has put in his nomination then once nominations are closed informing him that the ward he went for has been selected as an all woman shortlist


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jun 20, 2014)

binka said:


> waiting until he has put in his nomination then once nominations are closed informing him that the ward he went for has been selected as an all woman shortlist



That's bullshit. Stitch up.


----------



## binka (Jun 20, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> That's bullshit. Stitch up.


yes 100% stitch up. it isn't just happening to my dad but to at least one other person in the CLP who is also working class and a union man. they're trying to take it further but i think they're just realising that it isn't the labour party he joined in the 70s any more.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Oh i get it, I just don't agree.



My problem with Labour is more to do with its structure and content.  I just don't accept they are any better than the Conservatives any more.  The few areas where they do offer a few pennies for the working class are simply not worth voting for.  The main problem is that any vote for Labour does not just legitimise them, but legitimises the electoral system that gives us Conservative governments.  Whenever Labour fail, it is never construed as a failure of right-wing politics, which is inevitably the cause of social, economic and environmental decline (since they are a right-wing party).  Their failures are construed as a failure of left-wing politics, and so, naturally, the Conservatives argue even more right-wing politics are justified.

I guess I have seen too many socialists waste their time hoping entryism will bring about socialism.  The number and quality of activists of Labour these days suggest I am not the only one with this view.  So, certainly my view now is don't bother.  Don't ruin the left-wing brand with New Labour guff.  They need lefties more than lefties need Labour tokenism to justify their relevance.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 20, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Don't ruin the left-wing brand with New Labour guff.  They need lefties more than lefties need Labour tokenism to justify their relevance.



What's the left-wing brand?


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 20, 2014)

Left-wing politics and policies still have popular support.  The Labour Party are only finding that out now; they are just not a credible left-wing party any longer. 

EDIT:  Even UKIP know this by the way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2014)

they've also been purposefully disengaging with any left wing or working class base for the last 25 years and are now locked into a 'must be a tory lite' leadership cadres. How many labour-indy lash ups are their now? community labour? pariah we-don't-want-you-at-conference labour?


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 20, 2014)

I know what you mean, it is all think tanks and guardian columnists pontificating about patriotism and how Labour can adopt right-wing populism into their rhetoric.


----------



## xenon (Jun 20, 2014)

binka said:


> yes 100% stitch up. it isn't just happening to my dad but to at least one other person in the CLP who is also working class and a union man. they're trying to take it further but i think they're just realising that it isn't the labour party he joined in the 70s any more.


Fucking despicable  I hope even if your dad and the others can't fight this, they can at least do some damage, cause trouble in trying. Labour are dead to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2014)

xenon said:


> Fucking despicable  I hope even if your dad and the others can't fight this, they can at least do some damage, cause trouble in trying. Labour are dead to me.



But now what?


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> But now what?




In England... Green?  TUSC?  Left Unity?


----------



## xenon (Jun 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> But now what?



Well, the easy answer first. In terms of the GE. The Tories / Libdems aren't likely to win here AFAIK. So it will be TUSC or similar if standing otherwise abstaining.

The wider stuff. I am not sure TBH, not right now. Needs thinking about. I am not totally disengaged, - I do some voluntary work though not overly political.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 21, 2014)

binka said:


> waiting until he has put in his nomination then once nominations are closed informing him that the ward he went for has been selected as an all woman shortlist



Much as I can find some agreement with all-women shortlists, I'd much sooner see all non-graduate shortlists and all non-privately educated shortlists. As far as representation goes, it's the elephant in the room.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 21, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Much as I can find some agreement with all-women shortlists, I'd much sooner see all non-graduate shortlists and all non-privately educated shortlists. As far as representation goes, it's the elephant in the room.



That's quite an interesting point. I'd suggest that private education is a better wedge issue with which to fuck up nuLabour than graduate education though.

Plenty of bright working class kids with masses of student debt from Uni and no future, but very few of them are in a position to take up plum internships or otherwise get a foot on the ladder that leads to membership of the political class etc.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 21, 2014)

Blunkett is leaving politics to spend more time with his A4E


----------



## binka (Jun 21, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Much as I can find some agreement with all-women shortlists, I'd much sooner see all non-graduate shortlists and all non-privately educated shortlists. As far as representation goes, it's the elephant in the room.


my dad say's he has no problem at all with all women short lists but it's being used as a way to exclude people from the nomination process since the ward was only announced as all women once the nominations were closed. he's written a letter asking for them to tell him all the wards which will be all women so he doesn't put his name forward for any of them. i just feel really angry for him since he's dedicated pretty much his entire adult life to the local party and now some pricks who have been there 5 minutes are cunting him and his friend off because they don't fit the profile


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 21, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Blunkett is leaving politics to spend more time with his A4E




20 years in sheffield. He must be a hell of a constituency worker to have stayed there that long


----------



## killer b (Jun 21, 2014)

Are all woman shortlists imposed by the party? Preston (where I am) has the worst ratio of male to female Labour councillors in the country and while all woman shortlists are recommended, it's left to the local branches to actually sort it out. I know this 'cause my dad just had a massive fight on his hands trying to push an all woman shortlist through in the ward next to mine - he had very little support from the regional office. Suppose stuff might be different in different areas mind...


----------



## binka (Jun 21, 2014)

killer b said:


> Are all woman shortlists imposed by the party? Preston (where I am) has the worst ratio of male to female Labour councillors in the country and while all woman shortlists are recommended, it's left to the local branches to actually sort it out. I know this 'cause my dad just had a massive fight on his hands trying to push an all woman shortlist through in the ward next to mine - he had very little support from the regional office. Suppose stuff might be different in different areas mind...


yeah i don't think they really give a fuck about all women shorlists it's just a way to exclude undesirables.


----------



## killer b (Jun 21, 2014)

Sounds a bit odd. Sure it's not infighting in the local branch rather than a fulltimer? That's where the backstabbing mainly goes on ime...


----------



## binka (Jun 21, 2014)

killer b said:


> Sounds a bit odd. Sure it's not infighting in the local branch rather than a fulltimer? That's where the backstabbing mainly goes on ime...


well i don't really want to go into massive personal detail on it but it's what he's told me. he doesn't think it's a personal 'lets not let binkas dad be a councillor' thing but a more general 'lets try and make sure our council candidates are from the professional middle class rather than the union involved working class'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> what was that?



If you want me to reply, it's best to make sure my username is in the header! 
What job?  To destabilise further the already-destabilised social housing sector, to push more people into insecure tenure private renting, and to residualise social housing even further.
Thing is, on any calculation, the Bedroom Tax only needed to be instituted to have those effects, it doesn't *need* to be retained, as the social damage (pushing people into arrears, stripping local authorities of reserves for example) is already done and irreversible without an entire ideological turnaround.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you want me to reply, it's best to make sure my username is in the header!
> What job?  To destabilise further the already-destabilised social housing sector, to push more people into insecure tenure private renting, and to residualise social housing even further.
> Thing is, on any calculation, the Bedroom Tax only needed to be instituted to have those effects, it doesn't *need* to be retained, as the social damage (pushing people into arrears, stripping local authorities of reserves for example) is already done and irreversible without an entire ideological turnaround.



I think that is true for a lot of the policies the Tories have brought in.  Academies, NHS privatisations, Royal Mail, and even changes to policing.  There is no way Labour will try and reverse these changes (it would require a huge amount of capital up front), so they will just shrug their shoulders and claim they are stopping further privatisations, when really they will do nothing of the sort.  At least most Labour politicians are not racist and have fewer open homophobes, and I suppose that is the kind of thing that British elections are going to be decided on.  America lite without any of the good stuff; the elected head of state, and a lot of decentralised power to individual states (much more than even Scotland has).


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Sounds a bit odd. Sure it's not infighting in the local branch rather than a fulltimer? That's where the backstabbing mainly goes on ime...



Just to reiterate this point.  That whenever you hear talk of localism, be wary.  Labour and the Tories really don't trust their local offices at all.  If you think corruption and incompetence is an issue at Westminster, the councils are rife with it.  Genuine localism would be very unpopular, particularly in the cities where cronyism is so open and obvious.  This is part of the reason for ring-fencing money to local authorities, if it did not happen so much would go 'missing' on projects with spurious benefits.


----------



## belboid (Jun 22, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 20 years in sheffield. He must be a hell of a constituency worker to have stayed there that long


safe as houses seat whoever stood there. That said, he was also a hell of a constituency worker, really put effort in and replied to letters, complaints etc with more than just PR guff and irrelevant bollocks.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 22, 2014)

binka said:


> yeah i don't think they really give a fuck about all women shorlists it's just a way to exclude undesirables.



And so much easier than actually making an effort to make their party more inclusive to women. The fact that they need all-women shortlists to get more women into council seats just shows that they're failing to get as many women as men into the party, and there's no discussion of the reasons why this is the case or how it can be rectified.

The way Labour is picking parliamentary candidates with strong links to the existing party elite, and by extension excluding those from outside the political class, shows just how much they care about making their party inclusive. They'd rather run someone who has already left parliament in disgrace than someone from outside their circle-jerk.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Blunkett is leaving politics to spend more time with his A4E



_Labour leader Ed Miliband said: “David Blunkett is a man whose commitment and determination have carried him to the highest positions in politics with one purpose – to serve the people of our country.”_

The way I remember it most of his home office policies showed nothing but conempt for the people of this country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6057528.stm


----------



## rioted (Jun 24, 2014)

Proposals to stop nuisance singing, games and kites being flown at Bestwood Country Park

Taliban faction at work.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 25, 2014)

Since our former Labour Councillor lost his seat to UKIP by 37 votes. He and two other party members have been around to the house three times asking why he lost and what is the remedy.
They are only going to the homes of known union activists and ex party members.
I don't know if they realise that the TUSC took 102 votes from locals who would possibly voted for Labour in the past
My point to them was like we all know on here that the Labour party is no longer seen as an alternative but the flip side of the same coin.
Waste of time telling them.
They cannot see the problem and I despair at people who after all the years of militant action we were involved with turn around when they become become Labour party candidates and become watered down Tories!


----------



## cantsin (Jun 25, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Much as I can find some agreement with all-women shortlists, I'd much sooner see all non-graduate shortlists and all non-privately educated shortlists. As far as representation goes, it's the elephant in the room.



interesting idea


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> Are all woman shortlists imposed by the party? ... I know this 'cause my dad just had a massive fight on his hands trying to push an all woman shortlist through in the ward next to mine - he had very little support from the regional office.



Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.


No they don't.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 25, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.



It's not very often I come down on the same side as 'men's rights activists' (and I'm not suggesting you are one of these btw) but yeah, it's wrong. Not because it discriminates against men but because It's top-down and arbitrary and completely disregards the causes of existing inequalities. It's a policy designed to look good at a passing glance, not to actually work.

It's not even fair on women that they're not able to succeed purely on their own merits. And there's evidence on this thread that all women shortlists are being used by the people at the top to control the grassroots level of the party.


----------



## killer b (Jun 25, 2014)

I'm fine with them tbh. Certainly while there's (iirc) 3 women on the labour group in Preston.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 26, 2014)

Labour jumping on board with tory plans to deny homeowners the right to block to shale drilling under their homes.

http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/n...vernment-on-fracking-trespass-law-change.html

Somebody really needs to teach Milipede the meaning of the phrase 'open goal'


----------



## Quartz (Jun 26, 2014)

And yesterday Labour were trying to make something of a Tory's absence at PMQs. Only for it to backfire when it became known that his wife was in hospital and he was at her bedside. Oops.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Shortlists restricted to women are wrong *and discriminate against men*. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.



Won't somebody think of the menz???


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not very often I come down on the same side as 'men's rights activists' (and I'm not suggesting you are one of these btw) but yeah, it's wrong. Not because it discriminates against men but because It's top-down and arbitrary and completely disregards the causes of existing inequalities. It's a policy designed to look good at a passing glance, not to actually work.
> 
> It's not even fair on women that they're not able to succeed purely on their own merits. And there's evidence on this thread that all women shortlists are being used by the people at the top to control the grassroots level of the party.



You're missing the point, Frankie-boy.
The point being that "all-women shortlists" do the central party several favours and aren't at all arbitrary:
1) They disempower constituencies from one of the few remaining things they're permitted - selection.
2) They allow the party as a whole to look as if they're "challenging sexism" (although all they're *actually* doing is window-dressing).
3) They permit the insertion of "on-message" candidates into safe seats, "locking in" the loyalty of those candidates to the party heirarchy, and not the constituency party.
Of course it's not designed to work.  Not for the constituencies, anyway.  But what do you expect?  Labour has been gutting constituency parties of power for 20 years now!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> I'm fine with them tbh. Certainly while there's (iirc) 3 women on the labour group in Preston.



I'm fine with the *idea*, but not with how and why Labour put it into practice.  As with most other things, they're using it to top-load the parliamentary party with slavishly-loyal machine politicians who've previously been wonks. Not good for democracy, such as it is.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2014)

that certainly isn't the case with the local parties (or at least this local party). Maybe in that London, but career politicians aren't interested in running for council in provincial cities.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're missing the point, Frankie-boy.
> The point being that "all-women shortlists" do the central party several favours and aren't at all arbitrary:
> 1) They disempower constituencies from one of the few remaining things they're permitted - selection.
> 2) They allow the party as a whole to look as if they're "challenging sexism" (although all they're *actually* doing is window-dressing).
> ...



You can't tell me I'm missing the point and then just agree with me, that's no fun


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2014)

Sky news reporting John Cruddas as attacking Milliband and not implementing more of the IPPR report, the one that including stopping JSA for under 21's and plenty more right wing stuff, localised welfare, etc.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 29, 2014)

Diane Abbot speaking at last week's nonexistent protest. Stupid cow couldn't even be bothered to turn up and vote against her own party's motion to stop the Bedroom Tax.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 29, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.



completely idiotic.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 29, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.



I think it would be an excellent idea to have positive discrimination in favor of candidates who weren't privately educated. At least to the point where the proportion of candidates who were privately educated is representative of society as a whole.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 29, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Labour jumping on board with tory plans to deny homeowners the right to block to shale drilling under their homes.
> 
> http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/n...vernment-on-fracking-trespass-law-change.html
> 
> Somebody really needs to teach Milipede the meaning of the phrase 'open goal'



What do you mean open goal? They want in on this bonanza of making money


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 29, 2014)

J Ed said:


> What do you mean open goal? They want in on this bonanza of making money



People are more likely to donate money to your party if you at least pretend to be capable of winning an election...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 30, 2014)

"Labour will tackle tax avoidance by cutting then freezing business rates for more than 1.5 million business properties": http://press.labour.org.uk/post/90291230234/a-competitive-tax-system-that-supports-long-term


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 30, 2014)

Ed Balls is a cunt. Taking a stand in favor of corporate tax dodging and against humans.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ve-branch-business-corporation-tax-investment


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 1, 2014)

How on earth do you get that from the article? You've gone from freezing corporation tax at current levels to being "in favour of corporate tax dodging". They are utterly different things and you know it.

The stuff about 25% of contracts going to SMEs is fuckwitted though. The current lot haven't made it work, for all sorts of reasons, and nor will Labour.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 1, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The stuff about 25% of contracts going to SMEs is fuckwitted though. The current lot haven't made it work, for all sorts of reasons, and nor will Labour.



Of course it works, it's redistributed a lot of money from the majority of us to the already very rich. It has worked perfectly which is why Labour are so desperate to give it a veneer of legitimacy so they can continue it.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 1, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Of course it works, it's redistributed a lot of money from the majority of us to the already very rich. It has worked perfectly which is why Labour are so desperate to give it a veneer of legitimacy so they can continue it.



What on earth do you mean?

Look, it's a given that government spends money on goods and services, many of which come from the private sector. That's what redistribution looks like in a mixed economy.

The SMEs versus big business thing is a rather new political theme, mixing elements of protectionism and romantic right-wing anti-capitalism (pluck British SMEs versus faceless global monoliths). It doesn't work in practice because a) European procurement law and b) there is no real correlation between the size of a business and its probity or competence. Also, it's horrendously risky and expensive to bid for government contracts.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 1, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> What on earth do you mean?



http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/20...lion-in-donations-from-donors-linked-to-atos/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/29/sovereign-capital-tory-donors-millions
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/03/health-and-social-care-act-big-money-tory-donations/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulation_by_dispossession


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 1, 2014)

Right. We're clearly talking at cross purposes. More interested in how Bernie Gunther decides that Ed Balls is in favour of tax dodging.


----------



## rioted (Jul 1, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That's what redistribution looks like in a mixed economy.


No it doesn't! Redistribution is about people - rich people losing and poor people gaining. It doesn't matter if those rich people are in the private or public sector. What actually happens is, like the railways, the private sector creams off huge ammounts as profits and inflated "wages" to the already super rich. The only private sector which the government ought to give money to are sole traders where the operative, the worker makes the profit.


----------



## rioted (Jul 1, 2014)

Whilst we're Ballsing it up:
Ed Balls: Labour won't renationalise rail


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 1, 2014)

rioted said:


> The only private sector which the government ought to give money to are sole traders where the operative, the worker makes the profit.



That's fine, but it does mean that almost every industry sector will need to be nationalised immediately. I'm not entirely sure that will be a vote-winner.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 1, 2014)

rioted said:


> No it doesn't! Redistribution is about people - rich people losing and poor people gaining. It doesn't matter if those rich people are in the private or public sector. What actually happens is, like the railways, the private sector creams off huge ammounts as profits and inflated "wages" to the already super rich. The only private sector which the government ought to give money to are sole traders where the operative, the worker makes the profit.



I have no idea how he is refusing to see something so simple and obvious to I think the majority of people in this country.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 1, 2014)

rioted said:


> Whilst we're Ballsing it up:
> Ed Balls: Labour won't renationalise rail


Apparently Balls claimed that "most people don't want the railways to be renationalised". Out of touch or what?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Apparently Balls claimed that "most people don't want the railways to be renationalised". Out of touch or what?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 1, 2014)

Yet more bowing and forelock touching to their masters from the 'people's party'


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 1, 2014)

It doesn't matter if 70% of the public say they want renationalisation, it's just not a sensible strategy. The owners would need to be compensated. Far better to tighten up franchise conditions to the point where they become unworkable for private owners and then award franchises gradually, one by one, to Network Rail, which could over time recoup TOC capabiliites from the private sector.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 1, 2014)

So what you're proposing is renationalisation at glacial speed?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> So what you're proposing is renationalisation at glacial speed?



More or less, yes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2014)

a) borrow to pay the current 'owners' off. Gvmnts can borrow at rates far preferential to Joe Citizen. Tax the rich more to cover the loan.

b) take it back and refuse compensation. Tax the rich more to pay for the inevitable legal fall out. Or just change the law to make what you did legal, IDS style


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Gvmnts can borrow at rates far preferential to Joe Citizen.



As long as they don't start seizing commercial assets and terrifying businesses, of course.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> As long as they don't start seizing commercial assets and terrifying businesses, of course.




borrow to the hilt first and _then_ bring the Terror


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> borrow to the hilt first and _then_ bring the Terror



Seems sensible. The borrowing will have to be in foreign currency, and there can't be too much early transparency about the plan. Far better to make reassuring, pro-business noises now in advance of the election.

So there you go, Balls is doing everything you would want.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jul 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> a) Or just change the law to make what you did legal, IDS style



That. Politicians can do what they want, when they want.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 1, 2014)

Frankie Jack said:


> That. Politicians can do what they want, when they want.



Not really. A lot is said here about the demands of global capital and business interests, and they are certainly a constraint, but the electorate are a bunch of whiny, vicious, demanding, cuntwitted short-termists as well, and they have politicians by the balls.

One has to feel sorry for MPs, whose core skill is merely to latch onto simplistic ideas and work a room well.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jul 1, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Not really. A lot is said here about the demands of global capital and business interests, and they are certainly a constraint, but the electorate are a bunch of whiny, vicious, demanding, cuntwitted short-termists as well, and they have politicians by the balls.
> 
> One has to feel sorry for MPs, whose core skill is merely to latch onto simplistic ideas and work a room well.


Yep. Those ideas mostly coming from think tanks. No originality from ploticians these days.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2014)

well Joe Citizen is at the mercy of political whim, big capital not so much.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> a) borrow to pay the current 'owners' off. Gvmnts can borrow at rates far preferential to Joe Citizen. Tax the rich more to cover the loan.
> 
> b) take it back and refuse compensation. Tax the rich more to pay for the inevitable legal fall out. Or just change the law to make what you did legal, IDS style


Make sure the the price paid is far below market value. That is how these things are done.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Not really. A lot is said here about the demands of global capital and business interests, and they are certainly a constraint, but the electorate are a bunch of whiny, vicious, demanding, cuntwitted short-termists as well, and they have politicians by the balls.



The tories have just changed the law of the land so that if someone wants to drill for gas under your house, you have no say in the matter. Which private citizens do you suppose would have demanded that particular change? And no, Lord Browne doesn't count.

If anything the politicians are at the mercy of what the newspapers keep saying the people want, like sending Abu Qatada home or whatever. I doubt there are that many Daily Mail readers who have even met Abu Qatada, and yet apparently they're all ever so hopping mad with him about something.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 1, 2014)

The banks already own most of the rolling stock on the Railways through special leasing companies.  Given the state had to throw a lot of money at the banks, can this stock be taken back on public books as 'interest'?  Then lease it to the private companies at pip-squeaking rates, which they can pay in company shares if cash isn't to hand, eventually gaining the state a majority stake.

Either that or stove Branson's skull in with a tin of beans and take it all for nothing.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> a) borrow to pay the current 'owners' off. Gvmnts can borrow at rates far preferential to Joe Citizen. Tax the rich more to cover the loan.
> 
> b) take it back and refuse compensation. Tax the rich more to pay for the inevitable legal fall out. Or just change the law to make what you did legal, IDS style



c) Find a loophole which would allow the government to tender a bunch of new services on existing lines (perhaps tweaking the routes where necessary).  A public sector provider offers to run them at cost?


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 1, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The tories have just changed the law of the land so that if someone wants to drill for gas under your house, you have no say in the matter. Which private citizens do you suppose would have demanded that particular change? And no, Lord Browne doesn't count.
> 
> If anything the politicians are at the mercy of what the newspapers keep saying the people want, like sending Abu Qatada home or whatever. I doubt there are that many Daily Mail readers who have even met Abu Qatada, and yet apparently they're all ever so hopping mad with him about something.



Qatada... that's the guy that has a hook for a hand, right?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jul 1, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The banks already own most of the rolling stock on the Railways through special leasing companies.  Given the state had to throw a lot of money at the banks, can this stock be taken back on public books as 'interest'?  Then lease it to the private companies at pip-squeaking rates, which they can pay in company shares if cash isn't to hand, eventually gaining the state a majority stake.
> 
> Either that or stove Branson's skull in with a tin of beans and take it all for nothing.



(((tin of beans)))


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Qatada... that's the guy that has a hook for a hand, right?



You're thinking of Abu Hamza, the previous fictional bad guy but one.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 1, 2014)

She even did a winking smiley, SpookyFrank.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 1, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Not really. A lot is said here about the demands of global capital and business interests, and they are certainly a constraint, but the electorate are a bunch of whiny, vicious, demanding, cuntwitted short-termists as well, and they have politicians by the balls.
> 
> One has to feel sorry for MPs, whose core skill is merely to latch onto simplistic ideas and work a room well.



Only a very small part of the electorate decides a general election. Swing voters in key marginals, generally middle-class swing voters as it happens.

So both parties take massive bungs from dodgy millionaires to pay for political data analysis consultants and their software in order to effectively target those middle class swing voters in key marginals. Which means that they aren't going to have any policies that wouldn't appeal to dodgy millionaires and/or middle class swing voters.

See e.g. http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/01/06/sunday-review-“the-victory-lab-the-secret-science-of-winning-campaigns”-by-sasha-issenberg/

The book being reviewed: 'The Victory Lab' describes the relevant techniques in a US context, but as you may have noticed, both the Tories and nuLabour are keen to hire consultants who've been successful in the US (or Australia).

I'm in 'Mad Frankie' Field's constituency and my vote makes no difference whatsoever to the general election outcome. It's going to return a huge labour majority despite 'Mad Frankie' being a Tory for all practical purposes. Nobody's vote here matters while we remain within the attractors of the current political status quo. The only votes that matter, in terms of politicians actually being influenced by what those voters think that they want, are swing votes in constituencies where the outcome is actually in doubt.

(separate and more contentious point removed for another post)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Seems sensible. The borrowing will have to be in foreign currency, and there can't be too much early transparency about the plan. Far better to make reassuring, pro-business noises now in advance of the election.
> 
> So there you go, Balls is doing everything you would want.




Balls, the fifth columnist.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 2, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/02/dennis-skinner-labour-national-executive



> Dennis Skinner, the scourge of Tory prime ministers from Ted Heath to David Cameron who was dubbed the "Beast of Bolsover", has been voted off Labour's governing national executive committee, prompting an outcry from across the party.
> 
> Hours after the veteran MP for Bolsover had taunted the prime minister as a member of the Bullingdon Club responsible for wrecking the NHS, the party announced that he had been unseated.
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2014)

one of the few good eggs and they turf him out of influence. Wankers.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 2, 2014)

If there's ever going to be a left alternative, nuLabour has to be wrecked as an electoral force.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> one of the few good eggs and they turf him out of influence. Wankers.



He's landed more hits on the Cameron and the cabinet in this parliament than the rest of the opposition put together. He's principled, honest, popular and effective. So he has to go!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2014)

the purge of genuine labour socialists continues eh


----------



## krink (Jul 9, 2014)

Millibean hasn't even got the balls to say he supports the strikes tomorrow but I can guarantee the speakers at the rally will be telling us to vote for him. Fuck that! (and I will be heckling them if they do say vote labour btw)


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> With Labour seemingly being the only game in town I think we need a thread illustrating why anybody with any sense wouldn't touch them with a bargepole and exactly what Labour members are supporting.
> 
> So here are two stories to kick it off.
> 
> ...





Labour is the only game in town. The only realistic way working class people will gain social and economic emancipation in Britain is by reclaiming labour and reshaping it as a socialist party.

Working class people should be re-joining labour and taking their party back, its the only realistic option, talk of tiny socialist parties, anarchism etc...all pie in the sky.

To answer your question, there is no alternative.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Labour is the only game in town. The only realistic way working class people will gain social and economic emancipation in Britain is by reclaiming labour and reshaping it as a socialist party.
> 
> Working class people should be re-joining labour and taking their party back, its the only realistic option, talk of tiny socialist parties, anarchism etc...all pie in the sky.
> 
> To answer your question, there is no alternative.


Good to know that those million people out striking today should all just give up and vote for a party which won't support them. 

You fucking shill.


----------



## Nylock (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Labour is the only game in town. The only realistic way working class people will gain social and economic emancipation in Britain is by reclaiming labour and reshaping it as a socialist party.
> 
> Working class people should be re-joining labour and taking their party back, its the only realistic option, talk of tiny socialist parties, anarchism etc...all pie in the sky.
> 
> To answer your question, there is no alternative.


You're having a fucking laugh. Just how do you propose that the working class take the party back? Go on, I'm all ears...


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Labour is the only game in town. The only realistic way working class people will gain social and economic emancipation in Britain is by reclaiming labour and reshaping it as a socialist party.
> 
> Working class people should be re-joining labour and taking their party back, its the only realistic option, talk of tiny socialist parties, anarchism etc...all pie in the sky.
> 
> To answer your question, there is no alternative.



We have to face the facts, Militant Tendency tried and failed.  A strong socialist, or left-wing, faction would be expelled well before they got an MP.  In the meantime, they would be supporting a right-wing party.

If you're a socialist, bear in mind I do want to see a strong left-wing voice, or even some plurality.  I can't see either happening in Westminster.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Labour is the only game in town. The only realistic way working class people will gain social and economic emancipation in Britain is by reclaiming labour and reshaping it as a socialist party.



Sorry, but that's bullshit.  The last time the working class tried entryism as a means of "reclaiming Labour", they were witch-hunted out of the party by Kinnock and his neoliberalism-lite centrists.



> Working class people should be re-joining labour and taking their party back, its the only realistic option, talk of tiny socialist parties, anarchism etc...all pie in the sky.
> 
> To answer your question, there is no alternative.



And just *how* do the working class win back a party that's changed *all* the mechanisms by which constituency parties could actually change party policy?
Back when I was first a Labour Party member, I could raise any concern or issue at a party meeting, get it debated, and if the constituency picked it up, get it heard nationally, at conference, and voted on, whether that was legislative or to do with internal rules.  
By the time I left Labour, they'd already started to curtail the freedom of local activists, and by 2001 they'd removed the power of constituency representatives to take matters to conference.
You're living in a dreamworld if you think Labour can be "changed from the inside".  The rules and procedures have been changed to *specifically* prevent that from happening, and the other two mainstream parties were so impressed at what Labour did, that they changed their own constitutions likewise.

Just to repeat: There's no mechanism by which activists can reclaim the party.  All the mechanisms that allowed "people power" or "member power" have been removed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Good to know that those million people out striking today should all just give up and vote for a party which won't support them.
> 
> You fucking shill.



TBF to the poster, many people who propose this route have little comprehension of just how thoroughly Labour altered the constitution and the membership rules post-'94 in order to alienate activist power within the party.  They have little comprehension that any sort of entryism is now impossible because of the cut-outs to achieving any "power" or influence within constituency parties.  That's why Labour is happy to have so many wanna-be political careerists as councillors nowadays, rather than local activists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2014)

Nylock said:


> You're having a fucking laugh. Just how do you propose that the working class take the party back? Go on, I'm all ears...



There's no way to do it, short of removing the extant Labour Party wholesale, and that's impossible.  They've tainted the ideals of the party irredeemably.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> We have to face the facts, Militant Tendency tried and failed.  A strong socialist, or left-wing, faction would be expelled well before they got an MP.  In the meantime, they would be supporting a right-wing party.
> 
> If you're a socialist, bear in mind I do want to see a strong left-wing voice, or even some plurality.  I can't see either happening in Westminster.



Given the arbitrary power that Central Office holds, left-wing voices don't get into positions of influence.  They're actively-resisted.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given the arbitrary power that Central Office holds, left-wing voices don't get into positions of influence.  They're actively-resisted.



True, resisted, ignored and pushed out into deep water until you disappear.
Then ten years later they come door knocking asking for your support and input because they miss your passion.


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2014)

John McTernan(former Blair spin doctor) in the Times has described rail privatisation as "one of the "unalloyed triumphs of Major's Gov't" and argues Labour shouldn't attempt to renationalise them!

madness...


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

treelover said:


> John McTernan(former Blair spin doctor) in the Times has described rail privatisation has been one of the "unalloyed triumphs" of Major's time in office and argues labour shouldn't attempt to renationalise them!



The weather must be lovely up there.


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2014)

treelover said:


> John McTernan(former Blair spin doctor) in the Times has described rail privatisation as "one of the "unalloyed triumphs of Major's Gov't" and argues Labour shouldn't attempt to renationalise them!
> 
> madness...



I can see why a Blairite spin doctor would say that - after all, rail privatization killed a lot of people and cost the country billions of pounds, which makes it the same kind of triumph as Iraq was.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Labour is the only game in town. The only realistic way working class people will gain social and economic emancipation in Britain is by reclaiming labour and reshaping it as a socialist party.
> 
> Working class people should be re-joining labour and taking their party back, its the only realistic option, talk of tiny socialist parties, anarchism etc...all pie in the sky.
> 
> To answer your question, there is no alternative.


i thought you were a sinn feiner. and as a sinn feiner i thought you'd recall

a) who sent the troops into the six counties in 1969;
b) who presided over criminalization in the 1970s;
c) who sent the sas murder squad into the six counties in 1976.

it is therefore somewhat surprising to see you advocate a vote for the party of roy mason.


----------



## Nylock (Jul 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's no way to do it, short of removing the extant Labour Party wholesale, and that's impossible.  They've tainted the ideals of the party irredeemably.


Pretty much what I was thinking when I wrote my reply...


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought you were a sinn feiner. and as a sinn feiner i thought you'd recall
> 
> a) who sent the troops into the six counties in 1969;
> b) who presided over criminalization in the 1970s;
> ...




I said the working class should take back labour and that was the most REALISTIC option. I asked posters to name another, nobody can.

Working class people rejoining labour and turning it back to its origins is the only route available.

Most Shinners would agree with me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> I said the working class should take back labour and that was the most REALISTIC option. I asked posters to name another, nobody can.
> 
> Working class people rejoining labour and turning it back to its origins is the only route available.
> 
> Most Shinners would agree with me.


i can only say you know less about the history of the labour party than i thought you did.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Labour is the only game in town. The only realistic way working class people will gain social and economic emancipation in Britain is by reclaiming labour and reshaping it as a socialist party.
> 
> Working class people should be re-joining labour and taking their party back, its the only realistic option, talk of tiny socialist parties, anarchism etc...all pie in the sky.
> 
> To answer your question, there is no alternative.


Talking of "pie in the sky", what's the precedent for any labour party anywhere in the world being turned back from neo-liberalism by an influx of left-wing members?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> I said the working class should take back labour and that was the most REALISTIC option. I asked posters to name another, nobody can.


If it's so realistic, I presume you can give me an example of a neo-liberal labour party being won back for working class socialism, right?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> If it's so realistic, I presume you can give me an example of a neo-liberal labour party being won back for working class socialism, right?




You answer me first, give me another option ?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i can only say you know less about the history of the labour party than i thought you did.



Ditto, you know less about the average Shinner......Why do you think Gerry Adams was at Tony Benns funeral etc.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You answer me first, give me another option ?



I haven't pretended to have any options or answers, you're the one telling us what we've all got to do. Before I do it, can you give me a single example of it working?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I haven't pretended to have any options or answers, you're the one telling us what we've all got to do. Before I do it, can you give me a single example of it working?



You are slagging of the half a loaf is better then none option, but giving no alternative.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Ditto, you know less about the average Shinner......Why do you think Gerry Adams was at Tony Benns funeral etc.


but not, i note, at james callaghan's.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You are slagging of the half a loaf is better then none option, but giving no alternative.


No. What I'm saying is prior to investing my time in joining and reclaiming the Labour Party, can you give me a single example of such a strategy actually being successful in turning a neo-liberal party "back" to socialism. The alternative here is me not wasting my time.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Because there's actually quite a few examples of labour parties being (a) supplanted by new left-wing parties (in most of Latin America) (b) forced to compete by new/revamped left-wing parties (most of continental Europe) or (c) being forced to respond to mass action (err... basically all of history). I'm not arguing that any of those looks very promising in Britain right now, but there is at least precedent.

Any examples of a neo-liberal party being turned "back" to socialism yet Kalfindin ?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Good to know that those million people out striking today should all just give up and vote for a party which won't support them.
> 
> You fucking shill.


Childish


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> No. What I'm saying is prior to investing my time in joining and reclaiming the Labour Party, can you give me a single example of such a strategy actually being successful in turning a neo-liberal party "back" to socialism. The alternative here is me not wasting my time.


The alternative to the labour party right now is the Tory party as a majority.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> The alternative to the labour party right now is the Tory party as a majority.



What about the next 20 years instead of just the next five? Do you want Labour to put the brakes on very, very lightly for a bit? Then let the Tories get in and rip things up again? And then Labour get in....?

Fuck it, lets give the Tories the keys to the JCB now and let them get on with it. It's all taking ages and I'm getting bored. Let's see how much they can piss people off before a proper opposition turns up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2014)

Labour have spent how many a hundred or so? years now getting by on being 'not the other cunts'

milliband in near 5 years as leader of the labour party ever endorsed a strike.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> The alternative to the labour party right now is the Tory party as a majority.



Firstly, I live in Hackney South & Shoreditch, so not only does it not matter if I vote,  I could even go round and somehow persuade 10,000 of my neighbours to vote Tory and I'd still end up with a Labour MP (such is the wonderous democracy we live in).

Secondly, Kalfindin wasn't telling me to vote for Labour because they were the least worst of a bad bunch, he was telling me to "reclaim the Labour Party" for socialism which is considerably more time consuming (and has what I estimate to be zero chance of success).

Finally, and this is the bit you might want to try grasping once and for all, the politics of the government of the day is not significantly determined by which of the two parties of government (293 years in power and counting) happens to win any given election but by the consensus that is shared between them. Thus Balfour was a free-trader despite being a Tory, MacDonald and Baldwin both believed in the Gold Standard, Attlee and Churchill were both advocates of the welfare state, Callaghan and Thatcher were both monetarists and Thatcher and Blair were both neo-liberals. There is sod all point in changing the government without changing the consensus, and if you want to change that the absolute last bloody thing you would want to do would be to sign a blank cheque to the Labour Party announcing that you'll support them forevermore no matter how noxious their policies, simply because they aren't the Tories.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Finally, and this is the bit you might want to try grasping once and for all, the politics of the government of the day is not significantly determined by which of the two parties of government (293 years in power and counting) happens to win any given election but by the consensus that is shared between them.



And the part you might want to try grasping is that I am not saying there is much difference at all.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Do you want Labour to put the brakes on very, very lightly for a bit?



If nothing else, then yes.

And in the meantime we campaign and work toward a better system; that, as i've always contested, is the long term goal. 

For now, next year, if the only outcome is Labour put the brakes on lightly then that is still infinitely more preferrable than 5 more years of IDS, Gove, Hunt, etc. 

Or, as was asked, give me an alternative.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If nothing else, then yes.
> 
> And in the meantime we campaign and work toward a better system; that, as i've always contested, is the long term goal.
> 
> ...



It's not working your way. It's been explained a dozen different ways. People spent more than a decade making the case you were making when Labour were in power. It's not "infinitely preferable", it's the same result ultimately. Labour just kicked Skinner off the NEC. You think they're in the mood for listening to left-wingers? You've got shadow cabinet members perfectly happy to talk down the welfare state in public, there's no indication at all from the leadershop or PLP that there's going to be a leftward shift of any kind, and as had been pointed out to you, the mechanisms to change Labour from within are gone. Haven't you paid attention in the past 20 years? You can't just ignore all the evidence.

The alternative is a party that has a manifesto I like. I'll vote for one when I see one. Otherwise, let the Tories get in. I can't be expected to vote for policies I hate from Labour for the rest of my life. Why should I continually validate an organisation that has spent my entire adult lifetime seeing how far it can push me?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> It's not working your way. It's been explained a dozen different ways. People spent more than a decade making the case you were making when Labour were in power. It's not "infinitely preferable", it's the same result ultimately. Labour just kicked Skinner off the NEC. You think they're in the mood for listening to left-wingers? You've got shadow cabinet members perfectly happy to talk down the welfare state in public, there's no indication at all from the leadershop or PLP that there's going to be a leftward shift of any kind, and as had been pointed out to you, the mechanisms to change Labour from within are gone. Haven't you paid attention in the past 20 years? You can't just ignore all the evidence.
> 
> The alternative is a party that has a manifesto I like. I'll vote for one when I see one. Otherwise, let the Tories get in. I can't be expected to vote for policies I hate from Labour for the rest of my life. Why should I continually validate an organisation that has spent my entire adult lifetime seeing how far it can push me?



I've no idea what Labour are in the mood for. All i'm concerned with is that, right now, people are able to get some respite. If there was an alternative that offered a better solution I'd take it. There isn't; that's the problem. I don't really care about the past 20 years and I don't really care about Tony Blair or how aggrieved people are on this thread. I care that we make the best choice we can, as a nation, next year, and, in lieu of an alternative that noone has provided still, i see that as Labour. It's far from idea, granted. But it is still, IMO, better than the Tories. The only people who say otherwise are speculating.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I've no idea what Labour are in the mood for. All i'm concerned with is that, right now, people are able to get some respite. If there was an alternative that offered a better solution I'd take it. There isn't; that's the problem. I don't really care about the past 20 years and I don't really care about Tony Blair or how aggrieved people are on this thread. I care that we make the best choice we can, as a nation, next year, and, in lieu of an alternative that noone has provided still, i see that as Labour. It's far from idea, granted. But it is still, IMO, better than the Tories. The only people who say otherwise are speculating.



Labour won't offer respite.
They aren't a solution and they won't even ameliorate the problems we have.
If you don't care about the past twenty years you're not the person to best judge the next five.
If you don't care about the legacy of Tony Blair then you don't care about politics in The UK at all.
If you don't care about how aggrieved people on this thread are, you have dedicated an awful lot of time engaging with them about why they should be less aggrieved.
If you care about making the best choice you can, don't validate Labour's manifesto. Not voting or voting for another party would be a better choice.
You are speculating, everyone else is just looking at the evidence.


----------



## starfish2000 (Jul 10, 2014)

Ive no idea who to vote for. Iraq aside, the liberalisation of Gambling made my blood boil & Labour have sold out the working person. Meanwhile the Tories are carrying out the largest systematic criminal asset stripping of ordinary people since the Nazi's. 

Im actually thinking of leaving the UK


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Labour won't offer respite.



is speculation.

what is your alternative that doesn't return the Tories?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

starfish2000 said:


> Ive no idea who to vote for. Iraq aside, the liberalisation of Gambling made my blood boil & Labour have sold out the working person. Meanwhile the Tories are carrying out the largest systematic criminal asset stripping of ordinary people since the Nazi's.
> 
> Im actually thinking of leaving the UK


If the tories are returned i'll leave the UK by taking a running jump off the cliffs of Dover.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> is speculation.
> 
> what is your alternative that doesn't return the Tories?



Let them in if that's what it takes to build a better country in the long-term. You want them in all the time, just with a different colour tie.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Let them in if that's what it takes to build a better country in the long-term. You want them in all the time, just with a different colour tie.


I don't think you're in any position to tell me what i want after a statement as nonsensical as that.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> And the part you might want to try grasping is that I am not saying there is much difference at all.


I was not imagining that you had and my response was not based on that premise.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Let them in if that's what it takes to build a better country in the long-term. You want them in all the time, just with a different colour tie.



Indeed, and what does it say of socialism and socialists if the best they can propose to people is that they try and the same bunch of criminals in just with different ties?  Is that going to win people over to socialist ideas as an alternative to what we have now or are they going to correctly note that these socialists are shilling for the people who are fucking them over and go and vote for UKIP?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If the tories are returned i'll leave the UK by taking a running jump off the cliffs of Dover.


i wasn't going to vote but now it looks as if i'll have to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I've no idea what Labour are in the mood for. All i'm concerned with is that, right now, people are able to get some respite. If there was an alternative that offered a better solution I'd take it. There isn't; that's the problem. I don't really care about the past 20 years and I don't really care about Tony Blair or how aggrieved people are on this thread. I care that we make the best choice we can, as a nation, next year, and, in lieu of an alternative that noone has provided still, i see that as Labour. It's far from idea, granted. But it is still, IMO, better than the Tories. The only people who say otherwise are speculating.


you fucking muppet. so you don't care about iraq, afghanistan, the crumbling of civil liberties etc etc etc ad nauseam.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Indeed, and what does it say of socialism and socialists if the best they can propose to people is that they try and the same bunch of criminals in just with different ties?  Is that going to win people over to socialist ideas as an alternative to what we have now or are they going to correctly note that these socialists are shilling for the people who are fucking them over and go and vote for UKIP?


So provide an alternative?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't think you're in any position to tell me what i want after a statement as nonsensical as that.


"They" means both parties. The ones who've ruled for 300 years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If nothing else, then yes.
> 
> And in the meantime we campaign and work toward a better system; that, as i've always contested, is the long term goal.
> 
> ...


if you say to people 'vote labour' you can't then say 'and work for a better alternative' as no one will believe you: you've said to them you're offering bullshit. fine, work for a better society. but if you say 'vote labour' no one will believe you're after a better society, just different cunts in charge.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So provide an alternative?



Labour are shit. Not providing an alternative isn't worse than voting for something shit. Doing nothing is better than doing something shit.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> "They" means both parties. The ones who've ruled for 300 years.


Whatever.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Labour are shit. Not providing an alternative isn't worse than voting for something shit. Doing nothing is better than doing something shit.


Doing nothing = voting Tory.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Doing nothing = voting Tory.



You can fuck off with that


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Whatever.


We have one ruling class, they divide in 2 and wear different colour ties. People like you scare everyone by saying the blue ties will cause the end of the world. Other people tell everyone the opposite. The same people stay in charge forever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Labour are shit. Not providing an alternative isn't worse than voting for something shit. Doing nothing is better than doing something shit.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Doing nothing = voting Tory.


Oh no!! Are you too young to remember Blair or something?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Doing nothing = voting Tory.



Voting Labour = Voting Tory.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2014)

unless you can show me exactly where the labour party differs radically on policy- where it hasn't 'me-tood' a recent anti w/c tory initiative or election pledge than I rather think it is you who are voting tory.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Voting Labour = Voting Tory.


yeh but if you vote tory you get rid of 'beau' wells.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Oh no!! Are you too young to remember Blair or something?


he's the memory of a goldfish


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> You can fuck off with that


You think that by not voting you aren't helping them get back in? How naive are you?

The only people that woudl consider not voting are those that don't like the current system and don't like the tories. Their supporters won't be not voting so all you do is reduce the pool of votes against them, Labour or otherwise. That means the tories return, with your help.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Oh no!! Are you too young to remember Blair or something?


Irrelevant.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> We have one ruling class, they divide in 2 and wear different colour ties. People like you scare everyone by saying the blue ties will cause the end of the world. Other people tell everyone the opposite. The same people stay in charge forever.


ANd your alternative?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Irrelevant.


toss and bilge


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So provide an alternative?



Just a few ideas in decreasing order of sensibleness but all better options than voting for more war, workfare, surveillance and enrichment of the richest at the expensive of the majority from the cunts with the red ties instead of blue and yellow:

1) The Workers' Bomb(s)
2) Building a solid left alternative like Podemos in Spain through intelligent use of media and engaging with people who are angry with the centre-right in centre-left clothing as normal people rather than weird members of a subculture
3) Encouraging mass boycotts of voting
4) Completely ignoring politics as much as possible
5) Voting UKIP to piss off liberals


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> ANd your alternative?



The socialists need to start local or regional.  Take the councils and build from there.  Cut out Westminster.  Decentralisation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Just a few ideas in decreasing order of sensibleness but all better options than voting for more war, workfare, surveillance and enrichment of the richest at the expensive of the majority from the cunts with the red ties instead of blue and yellow:
> 
> 1) The Workers' Bomb(s)
> 2) Building a solid left alternative like Podemos in Spain
> ...


6) organising within your own community


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> ANd your alternative?


Not actively voting for them would be a start.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Voting Labour = Voting Tory.


Voting Labour= voting Labour
Voting Tory = voting Tory.

I don't accept they are exactly identical. You can keep your tinfoil hat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> The socialists need to start local.  Take the councils and build from there.  Cut out Westminster.




when militant did that in liverpool the Labour Party knifed them in the back. Thats how great labour are wells.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Not actively voting for them would be a start.


But by not voting you are actively voting them in. That's the problem. The system doesn't reognise a no vote. At best you have ahung parliament which is no better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Voting Labour= voting Labour
> Voting Tory = voting Tory.
> 
> I don't accept they are exactly identical. You can keep your tinfoil hat.


of course they aren't exactly identical. miliband is not cameron, balls is not osborne. all they differ on is how to shaft us.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Irrelevant.


My experience of the last Labour government is irrelevant to whether I should vote for another one?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Voting Labour= voting Labour
> Voting Tory = voting Tory.
> 
> I don't accept they are exactly identical. You can keep your tinfoil hat.



Can you give us a few examples of how Labour will be better than the Tories since they are already promising to be worse?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> But by not voting you are actively voting them in. That's the problem. The system doesn't reognise a no vote. At best you have ahung parliament which is no better.


if the last 20 years are irrelevant then on what do you base your opposition to the conservative and unionist party?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> when militant did that in liverpool the Labour Party knifed them in the back. Thats how great labour are wells.



I didn't say the things to which you are responding. 

I also didn't say labour are great, 'communist'.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> But by not voting you are actively voting them in. That's the problem. The system doesn't reognise a no vote. At best you have ahung parliament which is no better.


By voting for Labour you're voting for a Labour government. Which I do not want.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Can you give us a few examples of how Labour will be better than the Tories since they are already promising to be worse?


they'll whisper sweet nothings while they wield the axe.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Can you give us a few examples of how Labour will be better than the Tories since they are already promising to be worse?


answered elsewhere.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> By voting for Labour you're voting for a Labour government. Which I do not want.


Great, provide an alternative then.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> when militant did that in liverpool the Labour Party knifed them in the back. Thats how great labour are wells.



Who needs Labour?  The issue with the socialists is not unity but co-ordination.  One rule: don't cannabilise each other chasing a few votes.

EDIT:  Maybe Rule Two:  don't bother with Westminster.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Id' rather give my vote to a party that's at least promising to repeal the Bedroom Tax and the Health and Social Care bill. They might not. At least there's a chance, which is more than you'll get from the tories who will just make things even worse.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2014)

BTW has anyone actually looked much into what Labour Left groups like the LRC are actually about? These people are my favourites, they simultaneously support Ed Miliband and Kim Jong-Un. Labour is happy to let people like that carry bags for them cos they know that they can have fuck all influence in the party, THAT is what they think about people trying to reclaim the party and they are right. That is how relaxed they are but good luck with your harmful fool's errand.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Great, provide an alternative then.


The alternative to self-destructive behaviour is stopping, surely?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I didn't say the things to which you are responding.



I know, I was pointing it out to show what does happen to genuine socialist tendencies in labour


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Just a few ideas in decreasing order of sensibleness but all better options than voting for more war, workfare, surveillance and enrichment of the richest at the expensive of the majority from the cunts with the red ties instead of blue and yellow:
> 
> 1) The Workers' Bomb(s)
> 2) Building a solid left alternative like Podemos in Spain through intelligent use of media and engaging with people who are angry with the centre-right in centre-left clothing as normal people rather than weird members of a subculture
> ...


Most of those are long term options. I am not arguing against campaigning for long term change on a more fundamental level.

you won't encouarge tory voters not to vote so all you will get is the outcome i explained above.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Id' rather give my vote to a party that's at least promising to repeal the Bedroom Tax and the Health and Social Care bill. They might not. At least there's a chance, which is more than you'll get from the tories who will just make things even worse.



Without New Labour's stealth privatisation we would never be in the dangerous position we are now in regards to health and the bedroom tax was a Labour proposal in the first place.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2014)

depressing thought of the day- the only party left of Labour to take a seat from them while labour are in opposition for the last 90 odd years is RESPECT


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Who needs Labour?  The issue with the socialists is not unity but co-ordination.  One rule: don't cannabilise each other chasing a few votes.
> 
> EDIT:  Maybe Rule Two:  don't bother with Westminster.



true. the problem (for us) with fptp is that it forces people into a very broad tent.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Most of those are long term options. I am not arguing against campaigning for long term change on a more fundamental level.
> 
> you won't encouarge tory voters not to vote so all you will get is the outcome i explained above.


What constituency do you live in btw? In about 550 of them this debate is academic anyway


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Without New Labour's stealth privatisation we would never be in the dangerous position we are now in regards to health and the bedroom tax was a Labour proposal in the first place.



All these things were enacted by this government. Not labour.

Arguing that the tories took apart the NHS on a lie because of Labour is spurious nonsense.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> unless you can show me exactly where the labour party differs radically on policy- where it hasn't 'me-tood' a recent anti w/c tory initiative or election pledge than I rather think it is you who are voting tory.



Exactly. I'm moderate enough to be swayed by Labour policy if it goes anywhere near socialist territory. They can't even offer the most basic things to the soft-left electorate. Put the utilities in public hands? NO. Renationalise a few choo-choos? NO. Promise to make sure poor people are provided with a decent basic income and stuck up for in the media? NO.

I'm so mild I bet they could buy me off by just doing the above if it got the Tories out, but today's Labour can't do even the most gentle bit of socialism. They're cunts. They're shit. They stand for nothing. What is Labour party policy? It's not even coherent. It's an amorphous blob of fear and cowardice.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> true. the problem (for us) with fptp is that it forces people into a very broad tent.



... and the 'Awesome Wells' paradox if you don't vote for a cunt you'll get an even bigger one.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> All these things were enacted by this government. Not labour.
> 
> Arguing that the tories took apart the NHS on a lie because of Labour is spurious nonsense.


Erm, you really don't remember the Blair years, do you?


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Exactly. I'm moderate enough to be swayed by Labour policy if it goes anywhere near socialist territory. They can't even offer the most basic things to the soft-left electorate. Put the utilities in public hands? NO. Renationalise a few choo-choos? NO. Promise to make sure poor people are provided with a decent basic income and stuck up for in the media? NO.
> 
> I'm so mild I bet they could buy me off by just doing the above if it got the Tories out, but today's Labour can't do even the most gentle bit of socialism. They're cunts. They're shit. They stand for nothing. What is Labour party policy? It's not even coherent. It's an amorphous blob of fear and cowardice.



...and the waffle.  Don't forget the waffle.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Id' rather give my vote to a party that's at least promising to repeal the Bedroom Tax and the Health and Social Care bill. They might not. At least there's a chance, which is more than you'll get from the tories who will just make things even worse.




they promised to look after the NHS and rescind the JSA.

in 15 years they began the NHS sell off and went even harsher on claimants for dole


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2014)

I feel like the Iraq War and its ever ongoing and mounting consequences haven't been mentioned enough yet.

Also Afghanistan and Serbia.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

do you remember labour governments?
now don't misunderstand us, vote labour if you want, we can't stop you, but...
do you remember labour governments? 
do you remember notting hill?
do you remember lewisham?
do you remember southall and the murder of blair peach?
go ahead, vote labour if you have to, but...
do you remember grunwicks?
do you remember the winter of discontent?
do you think if kinnock was in power during the miners' strike he would have treated them any different than the tories did?
do you think if labour were in power their reaction to the urban uprisings would have been any different from the police?
do you think truncheons and plastic bullets will taste nicer under a labour government?
do you really believe that the capitalist elite will allow themselves to be peacefully voted out of existence by some poxy labour party, just like that without a fight?
do you seriously think that the nonsense of parliament has any real relevance to the class war going on every day in the streets and factories?
do you think our whole lives should be reduced to the misery of hanging around waiting for the next election, just so we can vote labour, hoping in vain it will change something? IT WILL CHANGE NOTHING!!

parties, vanguards and leaderships can't give us what we need, they only represent their own class interests. the only time we really win anything is when we fight for it ourselves, with our own hands through DIRECT ACTION/MASS RESISTANCE/WORKERS CONTROL


https://libcom.org/files/vote-labour-TVA.pdf


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Id' rather give my vote to a party that's at least promising to repeal the Bedroom Tax and the Health and Social Care bill. They might not. At least there's a chance, which is more than you'll get from the tories who will just make things even worse.




there's one born every minute


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

"There's a 50% chance they might repeal evil." My kind of party.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells 

Tthere is an argument for 'anyone but the Tories' in a very small percentage of seats, but you shouldn't diminish that by saying it is a vote for Labour. I know they need foot soldiers to fight the Tories, but it is just too much.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> What constituency do you live in btw? In about 550 of them this debate is academic anyway


as i've said before; if you live ina safe seat and your vote will have no difference then that's a different matter. people aren't to be blamed for things beyond their control, obv.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> "There's a 50% chance they might repeal evil." My kind of party.


there's a 100% chance they'd pass evil


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> ... and the 'Awesome Wells' paradox if you don't vote for a cunt you'll get an *even bigger *one.



So, not really a paradox, just a lack of any decent alternative.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> "There's a 50% chance they might repeal evil." *My kind of party.*


is a fatal misrepresentation of the argument.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Awesome Wells
> 
> Tthere is an argument for 'anyone but the Tories' in a very small percentage of seats, but you shouldn't diminish that by saying it is a vote for Labour. I know they need foot soldiers to fight the Tories, but it is just too much.


then by all means return a tory majority.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> is a fatal misrepresentation of the argument.



It was. That's what I was going for there.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So, not really a paradox, just a lack of any decent alternative.



Stop calling it an alternative. It's not.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> then by all means return a tory majority.



There is not going to be a Tory majority. It's nigh on impossible.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> as i've said before; if you live ina safe seat and your vote will have no difference then that's a different matter. people aren't to be blamed for things beyond their control, obv.


So that's basically 90% of the population then.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> then by all means return a tory majority.



So they want socialists to win them elections, and then piss all over them.  It ain't going to happen. Old New Labour.  It's fucking nuts.


----------



## shifting gears (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> But by not voting you are actively voting them in. That's the problem. The system doesn't reognise a no vote. At best you have ahung parliament which is no better.



"The system" is so fucking entrenched that people can't see it for the worthless pseudo-democracy it is

When enough people realise what's been staring them in the face for years... Things will get interesting


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2014)

shifting gears said:


> "The system" is so fucking entrenched that people can't see it for the worthless pseudo-democracy it is
> 
> When enough people realise what's been staring them in the face for years... Things will get interesting



Yes, things like the Arab Spring, the rise of Podemos in Spain (from not existing 4 months ago to being polled as the official opposition next year) and even more reactionary events like the rise of far-right Ukrainian nationalism shows just how much more fluid this stuff is than we realise. Which makes voting for Tories in red ties even more short sighted and ignorant.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Yes, things like the Arab Spring, the rise of Podemos in Spain (from not existing 4 months ago to being polled as the official opposition next year) and even more reactionary events like the rise of far-right Ukrainian nationalism shows just how much more fluid this stuff is than we realise. Which makes voting for Tories in red ties even more short sighted and ignorant.



The Guardian are going to write so many articles about Podemos no-one will like them for long. Owen Jones in a Podemos t-shirt in February 2015 will be the last straw.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> The Guardian are going to write so many articles about Podemos no-one will like them for long. Owen Jones in a Podemos t-shirt in February 2015 will be the last straw.



Yup, his gap year will ruin everything.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> The Guardian are going to write so many articles about Podemos no-one will like them for long. Owen Jones in a Podemos t-shirt in February 2015 will be the last straw.


Plus Pablito is a bit of a Spanish Owen Jones himself...


----------



## J Ed (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Plus Pablito is a bit of a Spanish Owen Jones himself...



Jaume d'Urgell is the Spanish Owen Jones, surely?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> No. What I'm saying is prior to investing my time in joining and reclaiming the Labour Party, can you give me a single example of such a strategy actually being successful in turning a neo-liberal party "back" to socialism. The alternative here is me not wasting my time.




Im not aware its ever been tried,


Favelado said:


> There is not going to be a Tory majority. It's nigh on impossible.




If people followed advice of posters we would have a permanent Tory govt.

That's how irrational their politics are.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> So that's basically 90% of the population then.



My point stands


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> There is not going to be a Tory majority. It's nigh on impossible.


I have no desire to second guess the outcome


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Yes, things like the Arab Spring, the rise of Podemos in Spain (from not existing 4 months ago to being polled as the official opposition next year) and even more reactionary events like the rise of far-right Ukrainian nationalism shows just how much more fluid this stuff is than we realise. Which makes voting for Tories in red ties even more short sighted and ignorant.




You are seriously comparing the political possibilities in Essex and Tunbridge wells with the Arab spring ?

Ha, ha mentalist


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> If people followed advice of posters we would have a permanent Tory govt.



Of course we wouldn't and you know it you naughty sock puppet.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> they promised to look after the NHS and rescind the JSA.
> 
> in 15 years they began the NHS sell off and went even harsher on claimants for dole


I don't deny any of this and have referenced labour's attitude toward benefits many times before.

But they were not as harsh in13 years as this government had been in 4. I dread to think what will happen if they are given a clear mandate. One thing they will do will be to reduce JSA for long term claimants by a cumulative10% each year.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I have no desire to second guess the outcome



Don't guess, look at all the evidence. Where's Nate Silver when we need him?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Of course we wouldn't and you know it you naughty sock puppet.



So tell me genius, what would we have ?


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You are seriously comparing the political possibilities in Essex and Tunbridge wells with the Arab spring ?
> 
> Ha, ha mentalist



but... but... we're Britain... food riots, poverty... it doesn't happen _here_.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Don't guess, look at all the evidence. Where's Nate Silver when we need him?


I don't know that reference and despite this evidence I still see no reason to think the Tories won't be worse still. Look at the evidence there.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't deny any of this and have referenced labour's attitude toward benefits many times before.
> 
> But they were not as harsh in13 years as this government had been in 4. I dread to think what will happen if they are given a clear mandate. One thing they will do will be to reduce JSA for long term claimants by a cumulative10% each year.




If the Tories get in again say bye, bye to the welfare state, goodnight to unemployment money, goodbye to the NHS and all the rest. 100x worse then labour.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> but... but... we're Britain... food riots, poverty... it doesn't happen _here_.



You are seriously comparing the political possibilities of Britain and the middle east, lol.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't know that reference and despite this evidence I still see no reason to think the Tories won't be worse still. Look at the evidence there.



Nate Silver predicted the US election results very well indeed. Actually, 2010 UK not so well.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You are seriously comparing the political possibilities of Britain and the middle east, lol.



If there is a genuine desire by right-wingers in Westminster to



Kalfindin said:


> say bye, bye to the welfare state, goodnight to unemployment money, goodbye to the NHS and all the rest.



who the fuck knows what will happen?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 10, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> who the fuck knows what will happen?


None on here, that's certain.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> None on here, that's certain.



Have faith in Ed Balls.  He can't even work Twitter for fuck sake, and you're asking us to campaign for him to be chancellor.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

No difference between Labour and the Tories, are you sure ?

Life sentence's for people who work and claim dole, break housing benefit rules etc. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24104743

Benefit cheats in England and Wales could face longer jail terms of up to 10 years, following new guidance from the director of public prosecutions.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> No difference between Labour and the Tories, are you sure ?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24104743



That's your best effort at pointing out the apparent differences between the two parties?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> That's your best effort at pointing out the apparent differences between the two parties?



You obviously have never lived in the real world.

Don't think you would be saying that if trying to scrape by signing on, doing the odd boot sale to make ends meet and potentially facing a long jail sentence if caught. That's the reality for many people.

Your reality is pontificating with mock disdain.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> If the Tories get in again say bye, bye to the welfare state, goodnight to unemployment money, goodbye to the NHS and all the rest. 100x worse then labour.



Absolute bollocks. If you actually think that's true you have no idea how capitalism works.  A fantastic irony given that you're telling everyone to get into the real world.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You obviously have never lived in the real world.



 you're fucking priceless!


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

It's just an attempt by the Tories to be seen to be hard on benefit fraud.  Labour will probably beat them to the punch.  The chance for them to show the deserving poor how hard they are on 'junkies' and 'lazy folk' (or, rather, the sick and unemployed) will be too juicy too miss.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> No difference between Labour and the Tories, are you sure ?
> 
> Life sentence's for people who work and claim dole, break housing benefit rules etc.
> 
> ...



That's the Labour supporting former DPP then?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Absolute bollocks. If you actually think that's true you have no idea how capitalism works.  A fantastic irony given that you're telling everyone to get into the real world.




subconsciously you are a fucking Tory.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> It's just an attempt by the Tories to be seen to be hard on benefit fraud.  Labour will probably beat them to the punch.  The chance for them to show the deserving poor how hard they are on 'junkies' and 'lazy folk' (or, rather, the sick and unemployed) will be too juicy too miss.




Another pro Tory post, No Labour have condemned it.Its not an attempt, its reality.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> subconsciously you are a fucking Tory.



Why the fuck do you think social security exists?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 10, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Why the fuck do you think social security exists?



Your abstract egotistical nonsense does not put bread on the table of struggling people.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Another pro Tory post, No Labour have condemned it.



Last month
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26506522



> Under the plan, 18 to 24-year-olds out of work for a year will be offered a taxpayer-funded job for six months - with those who refuse losing benefits.



So the Tories don't pay them, Labour will pay 'them'.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 10, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Why the fuck do you think social security exists?



Why are they always screwing those who need it? Greed, selfish politics, class hate.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Your abstract egotistical nonsense does not put bread on the table of struggling people.



No come on. Tell me why you think it exists. Nothing abstract about that question it's a straightforward question. Why do you, Kalfindin, think the social security system exists?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Why are they always screwing those who need it? Greed, selfish politics, class hate.



Why did they bring it in in the first place?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Another pro Tory post, No Labour have condemned it.Its not an attempt, its reality.



You sure you're not in the SWP?


----------



## Humberto (Jul 10, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Why did they bring it in in the first place?



As I understand it because you had a load of battle hardened proles coming back from the war and they needed to have concessions to prevent a ruling class downfall. Why do you think the NHS and welfare state was set up?


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Another pro Tory post, No Labour have condemned it.Its not an attempt, its reality.



The BBC article you linked to. The DPP making the proposal is a Labour supporter. Any thoughts?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2014)

Humberto said:


> As I understand it because you had a load of battle hardened proles coming back from the war and they needed to have concessions to prevent a ruling class downfall. Why do you think the NHS and welfare state was set up?



Yeah more or less. Don't forget the beginnings of it happened much earlier.  

The point I'm getting at is it's needed and all this toss about 'kiss goodbye to the welfare state' spouted by the labour hacks wells and kalfindin is just that, toss.  Sure they'll strip it back further, privatise it and so on but to say they'll just do away with it is pure bollocks.  Social security isn't just cash payments and the NHS it's public education and a whole host of other services too numerous to list. What hacks like wells and Kalfindin are trying to do is say 'oooh, vote labour because they'll be less harmful' despite a whole wealth of evidence to the contrary.  Social security is a class buy off that serves the ruling class because it keeps their workers just about healthy enough, fed enough and educated enough to do the shitty jobs.  If it didn't serve that function it would've been done away with long ago, in fact probably wouldn't have been brought in at all.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 10, 2014)

Cutting it too much could be disastrous.  I doubt either Ed Balls or George Osbourne have magically worked out some 'tolerable' level of welfare spending that will keep the proles happy, so we will get a bit of trial and error.

EDIT:  I know the USA goes by some minimum amount required to survive, or something similar. Will fish out the article...


----------



## Humberto (Jul 10, 2014)

I see them taking apart the NHS piece by piece, sanctioning JSA claimants for bugger all, promoting workfare, creating more obstacles to ESA claims. Basically intensifying the agenda they have already been following. Why are they following this agenda if it is what protects them?


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2014)

> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/10/labour-party-fundraiser-500-thousand-antony-gormley



The Art World seems to like Labour.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 11, 2014)

It's been neo liberalism for the past forty years and they have always hated us.  I don't think they've forgotten these agreements entirely I think it's they want to strip back as much as they can get away with, they're literally seeing how much they can get away with and there's been varying degrees of success in combating it varying from country to country.  

They are certainly the class doing the most class war and they're very open about that.  I think the agenda is being followed because of precisely what I said.  They don't wanna spend any money on stupid things like social security, they want social security for them and not their workers and they're getting it by the wheel barrow full.  The struggle now is the same as it's always been only our side, in this country at least, is doing a pretty crappy job of fighting back precisely because of 'oh just vote labour because it won't be as bad' type attitudes. Elsewhere the situation is a bit better.  I know nothing about that party in Spain but it seems pretty good, particularly if they've managed to get that far in such a short space of time.  I just don't think any change will come via the ballot box. I don't wanna see violence but I do wanna see some serious direct action because that's the only thing that's been proven to do anything in the past.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2014)

Encouraging


Doctor Carrot said:


> I know nothing about that party in Spain but it seems pretty good, particularly if they've managed to get that far in such a short space of time.


http://hiredknaves.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/podemos-translated-manifesto/

(from the Spanish Politics Thread). Looks encouraging to me- light years away from whats on the table here.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 11, 2014)

But its only pennies to them. Its not rational it seems. You only have to talk to a few right wingers to know they are cracked and hate to see anyone HELPED.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Encouraging
> 
> http://hiredknaves.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/podemos-translated-manifesto/
> 
> (from the Spanish Politics Thread). Looks encouraging to me- light years away from whats on the table here.



That's now the second most popular party in Spain? I would certainly vote for that. That is indeed light years away from anything here.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 11, 2014)

Humberto said:


> But its only pennies to them. Its not rational it seems. You only have to talk to a few right wingers to know they are cracked and hate to see anyone HELPED.



Only because they've been propagandised for decades.  It's perfectly rational.  Social security is a necessary evil, they hate providing it but know they have to, unless of course they can successfully drill into people's heads that there is no alternative to neo liberalism so just resign yourself to it.  They've had a bloody good go at it but even after years, hundreds of years in fact as the same arguments now were used in the 19th century, but they just can't quite get the job done because you can't overcome that central plank of human nature, the one that says 'social creature' on it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> That's now the second most popular party in Spain? I would certainly vote for that. That is indeed light years away from anything here.




Favelado or one of the other spanishy based urbs could tell you better but it looks like they are going for the crown of the proper opposition in an altogether too cosy 2-party system. And the ETA-loving terrorist friends etc smears are already ther. Take a look at the spanish politics thread for more, it's certainly food for thought.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 11, 2014)

They went the other way and admitted their economic system requires unemployment, and that we should then resent those unemployed for being a wasteful expense.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 11, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Have faith in Ed Balls.  He can't even work Twitter for fuck sake, and you're asking us to campaign for him to be chancellor.


No I'm asking you to kick out this government.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 11, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Last month
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26506522
> 
> ...


If I'm going to be forced to work at least being paid is better.

Granted its a shitty deal, but again give me an alternative?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You are seriously comparing the political possibilities in Essex and Tunbridge wells with the Arab spring ?
> 
> Ha, ha mentalist



Getting more than a lil bit of racism and ableism from this here, comrade.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> No I'm asking you to kick out this government.


God, how many times must we do this with you? Ok, step by step.

1. You say "I'm asking you to kick out this government". Kicking this govt out for you is a strictly electoral action and has only one component - voting labour - all other options being for you the functional equivalent of voting tory (this point is never established btw)

2. The vast majority of people in the country - including you - live in seats where the way in which they vote makes no difference to the outcome. Around 70% of seats never change hands. The only votes that count are those concentrated in marginal swing seats - some informed estimates have suggested these people may number as few as 8000 people nationally.

3. Therefore you are demanding a course of action that for most people is utterly meaningless and ineffectual _in terms of achieving what you claim people must work towards._

4. What's worse is that whilst you're doing this you're moving into a) closing down any anti-neoliberal politics that doesn't go along with your aims _and _methods and b) defending labour policy.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

Do you believe it is matter of total indifference whether the Tories are returned to power?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2014)

Do you see any problems in the logic of wells?

Does it matter how i see it? I'm not going to effect the outcome. Nor are you.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If I'm going to be forced to work at least being paid is better.
> 
> Granted its a shitty deal, but again give me an alternative?



Labour's solution to the Tories policy of forced labour will be to subsidise large multinational companies.  That is depressing.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Do you believe it is matter of total indifference whether the Tories are returned to power?



They are not going to reverse anything though.  So, there is a bit of me that thinks: Tory neo-cons will sell off everything sooner or later, Labour might or might not postpone that for a few years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If the tories are returned i'll leave the UK by taking a running jump off the cliffs of Dover.


i hope this isn't one of those promises that will be forgotten after the general election.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Do you believe it is matter of total indifference whether the Tories are returned to power?


Can you reformulate this question so that it means that wanting to get rid of a tory govt necessarily means voting labour please. Then make sure to insinuate that if you don't want a labour govt then you support the tory method of cuts and attacks on the poorest and so on. (Then send wells a sign up form). Or, at least admit that was the intent behind the phrasing that you chose to employ.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 11, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> They are not going to reverse anything though.  So, there is a bit of me that thinks: Tory neo-cons will sell off everything sooner or later, Labour might or might not postpone that for a few years.


So Labour are a better choice right now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So Labour are a better choice right now.


It doesn't matter if they are better or worse when your vote has no effect whatsoever.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So Labour are a better choice right now.



Lethal injection is better than public stoning too.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 11, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Lethal injection is better than public stoning too.


If those were the only choices, in whatever grisly situation you are fantasising, then yes. I think i'd rather have a quick injection than be smashed to death by rocks. 

Your fantasy, not mine


----------



## Favelado (Jul 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If those were the only choices, in whatever grisly situation you are fantasising, then yes. I think i'd rather have a quick injection than be smashed to death by rocks.



You wouldn't even appeal against the sentence, that's the sad thing.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 11, 2014)

Favelado said:


> You wouldn't even appeal against the sentence, that's the sad thing.


Supposition.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> They are not going to reverse anything though.  So, there is a bit of me that thinks: Tory neo-cons will sell off everything sooner or later, Labour might or might not postpone that for a few years.



Even if this were the case it would by that logic be desirable to have labour in?	The stronger claim that electing Labour is a way, or worse still the only way, of stopping or reversing the attacks on workers is clearly untenable.   But still, where there's an opportunity to punish the Tories and LDs by voting Labour, then it's worth doing, no?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do you see any problems in the logic of wells?
> 
> Does it matter how i see it? I'm not going to effect the outcome. Nor are you.



Actually, I might - very marginally - since I happen to live in a marginal.  I think Wells might be overplaying his case, but there's a rational kernel there that his critics haven't been able to undermine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Lethal injection is better than public stoning too.


not from the pov of the spectators


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 11, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Im not aware its ever been tried,



It has been tried, it is being tried, here and all over the world.



> If people followed advice of posters we would have a permanent Tory govt.
> 
> That's how irrational their politics are.


That's what we have now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Actually, I might - very marginally - since I happen to live in a marginal.  I think Wells might be overplaying his case, but there's a rational kernel there that his critics haven't been able to undermine.


Or, what you mean is that there is part of it that you agree with - and you should being a paid up labour party member - but that this part has been undermined on here to pretty much everyone's satisfaction apart from you two. What is this rational kernel that you think wells is unable to express adequately but that you can grasp? is it the shock news that tories are bad and labour may be better  - of course this is the case, and it's why they will win the next election. But to build these other idiocies on top of this (and to ignore all the other stuff this position needs to cut out of its analysis) is well...idiotic. I can see why you warm to his position despite being able to see through the gaps in his logic and presentation - it's because he's basically expressing a far cruder version of what you've been peddling on here since you saw the light - but despite the crude form the content is substantively similar.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Actually, I might - very marginally - since I happen to live in a marginal.  I think Wells might be overplaying his case, but there's a rational kernel there that his critics haven't been able to undermine.



What about the counter-case that validation of Labour's Tory-lite manifestos pushes them ever rightwards? That's what's happened and will continue to happen. In ten years' time you could be making the same case for voting Labour, when they're arguing for the slower introduction of NHS charges than the Conservatives.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Actually, I might - very marginally - since I happen to live in a marginal.  I think Wells might be overplaying his case, but there's a rational kernel there that his critics haven't been able to undermine.


That "rational kernel" is what has and will sustain another 100 years of being ruled by the same people.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

The difficulty facing the left - and I don't pretend to have answered it - is to respond strategically by acknowledging the force of the rational kernel of the argument for the lesser evil, whilst also preventing it from excluding or subordinating any other form of effective political challenge from coming into being.  The electoral system remains a key barrier in this.

There is no serious attempt to reclaim the party at present at a national level - McCluskey has chosen, unsurprisingly, to wave a white flag and an open cheque book rather than use what leverage UNITE money should buy at the level of policy.  Whether Labour wins or loses the next election there we need to be doing the groundwork of establishing a seriously independent trade union base with roots in the PLP at every level of the party that can demonstrate a clear alternative to the politics of austerity and pull away from the neoliberal leadership, perhaps in terms of a formal break.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The difficulty facing the left - and I don't pretend to have answered it - is to respond strategically by acknowledging the force of the rational kernel of the argument for the lesser evil, whilst also preventing it from excluding or subordinating any other form of effective political challenge from coming into being.  The electoral system remains a key barrier in this.
> 
> There is no serious attempt to reclaim the party at present at a national level - McCluskey has chosen, unsurprisingly, to wave a white flag and an open cheque book rather than use what leverage UNITE money should buy at the level of policy.  Whether Labour wins or loses the next election there we need to be doing the groundwork of establishing a seriously independent trade union base with roots in the PLP at every level of the party that can demonstrate a clear alternative to the politics of austerity and pull away from the neoliberal leadership, perhaps in terms of a formal break.


What do you mean _unsurprisingly_? Him/them not doing this, them being prepared to use that potential leverage _for good_ formed the basis for you own claims that party was in the process of moving leftward and for others to join the party - and you argued against people who told you exactly what would happen. Again, you were wrong but manage to be right it seems.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Even if this were the case it would by that logic be desirable to have labour in?	The stronger claim that electing Labour is a way, or worse still the only way, of stopping or reversing the attacks on workers is clearly untenable.   But still, where there's an opportunity to punish the Tories and LDs by voting Labour, then it's worth doing, no?



It won't stop it.  Postpone the inevitable, maybe.  More than likely, follow Tory policy at a slower pace.  Voting against the Tories is not a vote for Labour.   Making that statement is what I object to, it pretends our electoral system and politics are much more democratic than they actually are.  We are basically two New Labour governments away from hating them as much as the Tories if we are honest.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> It won't stop it.  Postpone the inevitable, maybe.  More than likely, follow Tory policy at a slower pace.  Voting against the Tories is not a vote for Labour.   Making that statement is what I object to, it pretends our electoral system and politics are much more democratic than they actually are.  We are basically two New Labour governments away from hating them as much as the Tories if we are honest.



Yes, I don't disagree.  Whatever our response is, it can't just to be to say "vote Labour" to kick out the Tories.  But though it's insufficient - and obviously so - it is still necessary...


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What do you mean _unsurprisingly_? Him/them not doing this, them being prepared to use that potential leverage _for good_ formed the basis for you own claims that party was in the process of moving leftward and for others to join the party - and you argued against people who told you exactly what would happen. Again, you were wrong but manage to be right it seems.



It's unsurprising in the sense that - in the absence of a powerful movement to pressure them to do otherwise - even "left-talking" union leaders are going to take the line of least resistance.  I argued that it was necesssary to build such a movement, but clearly we (ie socialists in the Labour party and UNITE) need to reflect on how this has been allowed to happen and learn the lessons.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Yes, I don't disagree.  Whatever our response is, it can't just to be to say "vote Labour" to kick out the Tories.  But though it's insufficient - and obviously so - it is still necessary...


yes vote tweedledum to get rid of tweedledee


----------



## Nylock (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The difficulty facing the left - and I don't pretend to have answered it - is that it no longer exists in any meaningful way on a mass consciousness level any more.


FTFY

What passes for a 'labour' party these days has pretty much entirely capitulated to the neoliberals and rightwingers of this country (and beyond) and that any attempts at genuinely setting up a mass left movement inevitably runs into the buffers as the rightwing press/vocal neoliberal academics/rightwing politicians & public figures/the classes ranged against the working class inevitably close ranks and employ the same old techniques to divide and atomise a movement before it begins to gain momentum. 

I'm not saying that the electorate are so dumb as to adopt the media narratives uncritically, however the forces ranged against the working class have had decades of practise at keeping them down and divided and amongst their most insidious tactics (and greatest victory) was to drag ever rightwards what has been traditionally defined as 'the workers party' in this country. All the 'big wins' of recent decades have been to the neoliberal right and very little has been won by 'the left' and this has had its own demoralising effect. 

Additionally, whilst 'the left' has been continually fracturing and fighting amongst itself only to unite when the inevitable (and increasingly futile) demonstrations happen, the right has been less (publicly) divided and focussed on attaining power and consolidating it, and this can be seen through every stratum of society. This, coupled with almost unprecedented levels of naked greed and corruption in our local (and national) political figures and institutions with seemingly little in the way to check these behaviours all adds up to the general apathy that fuck-all will change and that things will only get increasingly worse as these dead-eyed bastards continue to asset strip the country and tighten the screw ever further. 

Eventually the apathy will turn to rage as the people will have been backed into a corner with nowhere to go. When that happens, 'the left' had best be prepared to participate in a meaningful way in the (in all likelihood) violent and chaotic 'reset' of the balance of power and the structural changes that result from it. Otherwise, the far right will.

TL/DR version: the current 'Labour' Party is a busted flush and is a tragic shadow of what it was supposed to be based upon it's founding principles. Go ahead and vote for them if you like the idea of utilising the 'same shit, different arsehole' vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The difficulty facing the left - and I don't pretend to have answered it - is to respond strategically by acknowledging the force of the rational kernel of the argument for the lesser evil, whilst also preventing it from excluding or subordinating any other form of effective political challenge from coming into being.  The electoral system remains a key barrier in this.
> 
> There is no serious attempt to reclaim the party at present at a national level - McCluskey has chosen, unsurprisingly, to wave a white flag and an open cheque book rather than use what leverage UNITE money should buy at the level of policy.  Whether Labour wins or loses the next election there we need to be doing the groundwork of establishing a seriously independent trade union base with roots in the PLP at every level of the party that can demonstrate a clear alternative to the politics of austerity and pull away from the neoliberal leadership, perhaps in terms of a formal break.


out of curiosity what would you have had mcluskey do at this point - launch a new party less than a year before a general election in which it would be humiliated?


----------



## Limerick Red (Jul 11, 2014)

In the recent local and euro elections, TUSC candidates were proactively campaigning and leafleting against ukip, which is de-facto campaigning for labour. This, for all the talk of people's assemblies, building a party outside of labour etc. will be repeated by all groups on the left in the run up to the general election, The fear of the Tories and ukip will force the left into a complete capitulation, and will trot out the " labour without illusions" line when they eventually bottle it.
The hard work of the grassroots and party cadre in communities will be pissed up the wall by the bottlers at the top, who will encourage their constituents to "suck it up and vote labour" ...people deserve better, this is not good enough and it's why the left in this country are going nowhere.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity what would you have had mcluskey do at this point - launch a new party less than a year before a general election in which it would be humiliated?



No actually, I would have been urging him to say to Miliband "we'll support you financially to the extent that we feel your policies would benefit working people" and made a series of demands at the National Policy Forum and Party Conference as a pre-condition for funding Labour candidates in general, otherwise offering to financially support only those candidates who sign up to them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No actually, I would have been urging him to say to Miliband "we'll support you financially to the extent that we feel your policies would benefit working people" and made a series of demands at the National Policy Forum and Party Conference as a pre-condition for funding Labour candidates in general, otherwise offering to financially support only those candidates who sign up to them.


would these demands be in addition to or an alternative to the labour manifesto all labour candidates would have endorsed?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> would these demands be in addition to or an alternative to the labour manifesto all labour candidates would have endorsed?



Well, obviously if the party accepted the demands in full or for the most party it could be the manifesto itself.  If it failed to make significant concessions it would a manifesto of socialists in the Labour party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

when will socialists realise they have no place in the labour party?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes vote tweedledum to get rid of tweedledee


that goes back to my orginal question - whether you believed it made no material difference whatsover whether the Tories were kick out or not.   Some people may feel this.  But I don't think it's what the majority of working class people in Britain think, despite the vanishingly small difference that Miliband seems intent on offering.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> when will socialists realise they have no place in the labour party?



maybe sooner than you think


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> that goes back to my orginal question - whether you believed it made no material difference whatsover whether the Tories were kick out or not.   Some people may feel this.  But I don't think it's what the majority of working class people in Britain think, despite the vanishingly small difference that Miliband seems intent on offering.


perhaps you don't remember labour introducing a 10p tax rate for the low paid. and then abolishing it. or introducing tuition fees. or a thousand and one other things. what working class people want is a party which represents them, which the parliamentary labour party has signally failed to do for at least 25 years.

or do you think that brown's dinners in the city in the early 90s, described in the press as to allay any concerns businesses might have about labour, were improving parliamentary representation of working class interests? out of all the labour mps are there more than a score who have any genuine interest in promoting working class interests?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> maybe sooner than you think


do you mean that the years of arguments here have finally made it through your skull?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> do you mean that the years of arguments here have finally made it through your skull?


It's a question of how the party stands in relation to the class.   Unless there's a fairly substantial change of course, that historic relationship if going to tested as never before....(despite your litany of previous failures)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2014)

Oh god, the same stuff you lot pulled before every election labour looked like it was going to win:

1. Labour in power will act in an anti-working class manner opening up a vacuum for class politics. And they're a little bit better than the tories so join vote and support labour.
2. When labour does indeed act like this in power becomes - _the tories are worse, stick with labour_._ The time is not right to split or even stand candiates against labour_. When the election is then lost  - as a result of the anti-working class stuff -  it becomes
3. We must vote labour because the tories are worse and because Labour in power will act in an anti-working class manner opening up a vacuum for class politics. The time

And we're back at 1. Followed by 2. And then 3. Then all over again. Textbook. Utopian nonsense that history has destroyed.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2014)

1 does seem like a fair description of where we are now.  But 2 won't automatically follow - this is what we have to get right


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> 1 does seem like a fair description of where we are now.  But 2 won't automatically follow - this is what we have to get right


yes, it takes _work_ to make sure 2 follows. and that's your squalid little job.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> 1 does seem like a fair description of where we are now.  But 2 won't automatically follow - this is what we have to get right



That's not a description of where we are - it's a description of  the circular political behaviour of your tradition and what it does and how it argues over and over over. Before 2010 you were in stage 2 - now you're in stage 3, and a few month after 2015 you'll be back at stage 1. This is the whole political history of your _current _tradition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> I said the working class should take back labour and that was the most REALISTIC option. I asked posters to name another, nobody can.
> 
> Working class people rejoining labour and turning it back to its origins is the only route available.



An inaccessible route.

But hey, if you believe there's a way round all the structural and constitutional obstacles, please feel free to elucidate them to the rest of us!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> An inaccessible route.
> 
> But hey, if you believe there's a way round all the structural and constitutional obstacles, please feel free to elucidate them to the rest of us!


not to mention the historical obstacles, or the political obstacle that it has never been a socialist party


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You are slagging of the half a loaf is better then none option, but giving no alternative.



You know why?
Because people who propose what you're proposing are generally of the "vote Labour with no illusions" school, when it comes down to a G.E. In other words you're not prepared to *consider* any alternative that doesn't fit your (tripartite) schema.
Here's an alternative for you, nonetheless - Mass disengagement from the electoral process: What if they hold an election, and nobody comes?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Favelado said:


> What about the next 20 years instead of just the next five? Do you want Labour to put the brakes on very, very lightly for a bit? Then let the Tories get in and rip things up again? And then Labour get in....?
> 
> Fuck it, lets give the Tories the keys to the JCB now and let them get on with it. It's all taking ages and I'm getting bored. Let's see how much they can piss people off before a proper opposition turns up.



Quite.
That people like "Bo" Wells can't fathom that a vote for any of the mainstream parties is a vote for "More of the same please, sir!" is disturbing.
I'll fall back on my hoary old saw here, and say "a shit sandwich with a Labour garnish is still a shit sandwich".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Firstly, I live in Hackney South & Shoreditch, so not only does it not matter if I vote,  I could even go round and somehow persuade 10,000 of my neighbours to vote Tory and I'd still end up with a Labour MP (such is the wonderous democracy we live in).



Yup, and the pathetic attempt to reform the electoral system, which offered us a choice between FPTP and the worst of the other options (proportional representation that wasn't quite proportional representation, and would have mainly acted to embed the current _status quo_ within the "new" system) has made sure that the above situation won't change any time soon, so any of us in constituencies with comfortable majorities effectively have no leverage in the political process.



> Secondly, Kalfindin wasn't telling me to vote for Labour because they were the least worst of a bad bunch, he was telling me to "reclaim the Labour Party" for socialism which is considerably more time consuming (and has what I estimate to be zero chance of success).



A proposal for which he's not, AFAIK, furnished anyone with a method or set of methods for achieving (possibly because he didn't realise that Labour changed their internal rules etc to prevent such a thing happening).



> Finally, and this is the bit you might want to try grasping once and for all, the politics of the government of the day is not significantly determined by which of the two parties of government (293 years in power and counting) happens to win any given election but by the consensus that is shared between them. Thus Balfour was a free-trader despite being a Tory, MacDonald and Baldwin both believed in the Gold Standard, Attlee and Churchill were both advocates of the welfare state, Callaghan and Thatcher were both monetarists and Thatcher and Blair were both neo-liberals. There is sod all point in changing the government without changing the consensus, and if you want to change that the absolute last bloody thing you would want to do would be to sign a blank cheque to the Labour Party announcing that you'll support them forevermore no matter how noxious their policies, simply because they aren't the Tories.



Power will always seek more power, and seek to perpetuate itself.  The name doesn't matter when the end result is the same.  The only tool we have against this hegemony is our ability to deny power an electoral mandate - to say "I'm not voting, not for anyone", and to campaign for others to do the same - and make what is party-political, personal.  Playing the "blue wing, red wing" game gives us a sop of participation, but it gives us no say.  As our governments push the myth that they govern by consent - that they are democratically-elected, and are democratic governments - then why not put that to the test, deny them electoral legitimacy by not voting, and then see what their position is re: "democracy" when they're denied the consent of a majority of the electorate?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If the tories are returned i'll leave the UK by taking a running jump off the cliffs of Dover.



Beachy Head is more effective. Most of the legendary white cliffs are fenced off 20-30m from the cliff edge, because of erosion problems.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Indeed, and what does it say of socialism and socialists if the best they can propose to people is that they try and the same bunch of criminals in just with different ties?  Is that going to win people over to socialist ideas as an alternative to what we have now or are they going to correctly note that these socialists are shilling for the people who are fucking them over and go and vote for UKIP?



IMO if you tout "vote Labour without illusions" and/or buy into the idea that the Labour Party can be changed from inside/through entryism, then you're not a socialist of any kind.  All you are is a useful idiot for neoliberals.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Beachy Head is more effective. Most of the legendary white cliffs are fenced off 20-30m from the cliff edge, because of erosion problems.



Make you you have 'Love Reign O'er Me' by the Who playing in your headphones when you jump.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Voting Labour= voting Labour
> Voting Tory = voting Tory.
> 
> I don't accept they are exactly identical. You can keep your tinfoil hat.



No-one has said they're "exactly identical".
However, many people (including myself) have told you that politically and economically, they are interchangeable.  Whoever governs, they will shit the same shit onto the mass of the population of the UK.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> But by not voting you are actively voting them in. That's the problem. The system doesn't reognise a no vote. At best you have ahung parliament which is no better.



I think you need to read Bagehot's "The English Constitution", and then *any* of the dozens of constitutional commentaries from the 20th century (I recommend Bogdanor).  Scrutiny of any of these will apprise you of the fact that governance is by consent.  A vote is taken as consent.  Not voting is a sign that consent is not being given.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

J Ed said:


> BTW has anyone actually looked much into what Labour Left groups like the LRC are actually about? These people are my favourites, they simultaneously support Ed Miliband and Kim Jong-Un. Labour is happy to let people like that carry bags for them cos they know that they can have fuck all influence in the party, THAT is what they think about people trying to reclaim the party and they are right. That is how relaxed they are but good luck with your harmful fool's errand.



The NCP?  Don't they own a load of car parks?


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you need to read Bagehot's "The English Constitution", and then *any* of the dozens of constitutional commentaries from the 20th century (I recommend Bogdanor).  Scrutiny of any of these will apprise you of the fact that governance is by consent.  A vote is taken as consent.  Not voting is a sign that consent is not being given.



I suppose the only problem with that is how openly some of the (especially) Blairite crowd revelled in living in a post-democratic age; its a bit much to think that they would all toodle off just because noone voted for them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Make you you have 'Love Reign O'er Me' by the Who playing in your headphones when you jump.



Don't you have to be riding a Lambretta to pull that one off properly, though?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't you have to be riding a Lambretta to pull that one off properly, though?



I rather thought that went without saying.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

agricola said:


> I suppose the only problem with that is how openly some of the (especially) Blairite crowd revelled in living in a post-democratic age; its a bit much to think that they would all toodle off just because noone voted for them.



I don't expect them to toodle off.
I do expect that media pressure (even if it comes from outside or below, rather than the mainstream media) to at least force a debate (not by "them", by "us") on the legitimacy of their governance.  I also expect that the display of contempt by the elites for the electoral process that would be inherent in taking a mandate from a minimal vote (note I say "minimal", not "minority", as we're already in "elected by a minority" territory) would kick general dissent up a gear for some, from apathy to obstruction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I rather thought that went without saying.



If only it were preceded by the killing of the bellboy, I'd be a happy panda, no longer having to ask "Sting, where is thy death?".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Exactly. I'm moderate enough to be swayed by Labour policy if it goes anywhere near socialist territory. They can't even offer the most basic things to the soft-left electorate. Put the utilities in public hands? NO. Renationalise a few choo-choos? NO. Promise to make sure poor people are provided with a decent basic income and stuck up for in the media? NO.
> 
> I'm so mild I bet they could buy me off by just doing the above if it got the Tories out, but today's Labour can't do even the most gentle bit of socialism. They're cunts. They're shit. They stand for nothing. What is Labour party policy? It's not even coherent. It's an amorphous blob of fear and cowardice.



They can't/won't even promise to repeal any anti-union legislation the coalition push through before May 2015.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> ... and the 'Awesome Wells' paradox if you don't vote for a cunt you'll get an even bigger one.



That'd only be paradoxical in a "steady state" universe.  In an expanding universe, the infinite expansion of cuntitude is not only possible, but natural.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Favelado said:


> The Guardian are going to write so many articles about Podemos no-one will like them for long. Owen Jones in a Podemos t-shirt in February 2015 will be the last straw.



Owen doesn't "do" tees.  He wears his workers' blue shirt at all times.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 11, 2014)

Nylock said:


> You're having a fucking laugh. Just how do you propose that the working class take the party back? Go on, I'm all ears...


Does it involve flaming torches and pitchforks? Just that if it does I need to keep an eye on the price of oil. 

Would rope and a hammer do in a pinch or would I be the only one without a flaming torch?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Owen doesn't "do" tees.  He wears his workers' blue shirt at all times.


 
Probably in order to just about look like an adult.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Beachy Head is more effective. Most of the legendary white cliffs are fenced off 20-30m from the cliff edge, because of erosion problems.


does it matter? i'm hiring 50 deckchairs for the day after the election so people can watch auld 'beau' fly


----------



## Libertad (Jul 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> If only it were preceded by the killing of the bellboy, I'd be a happy panda, no longer having to ask "Sting, where is thy death?".



 Very good indeed citizen.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 11, 2014)

Bearing in mind the party composition of Scottish MPs and the impending referendum I'm not sure that the long term direction of the Labour Party is something that will affect any of us here in England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_for_constituencies_in_Scotland_2010–


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> If the Tories get in again say bye, bye to the welfare state, goodnight to unemployment money, goodbye to the NHS and all the rest. 100x worse then labour.



Your argument only has validity if you can prove that Labour have no intention of doing the same.
Given that they're as committed as the coalition to, for example, TTIP (TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), their committment to doing much the same as the coalition has been signalled to anyone with a pair of eyes in their head, and the ability to read.
All the prior protections of the public sector from "the market" (i.e. rapacious capitalists looking to asset strip) will be gone, under Labour as under the coalition.  Social security?  That'll  be gone to, as a system of insurance (with a commercial company, naturally) garnished with charitable provision for the povs is expanded from its' current function (optional) to being the over-arching model.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> It's just an attempt by the Tories to be seen to be hard on benefit fraud.  Labour will probably beat them to the punch.  The chance for them to show the deserving poor how hard they are on 'junkies' and 'lazy folk' (or, rather, the sick and unemployed) will be too juicy too miss.



Yep, good old Labour who visited the so-called "Benefits Integrity Project" on disabled people, a decade before Iain Dunked-in Shit was sicced on us by Cameron.  Labour tend to forget how many suicides, hunger strikes etc accompanied that clusterfuck of a "probe" into fraudulent claims, and how few cases of fraud it actually turned up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> subconsciously you are a fucking Tory.



Consciously, you're wilfully-ignorant.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 11, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You obviously have never lived in the real world.
> 
> Don't think you would be saying that if trying to scrape by signing on, doing the odd boot sale to make ends meet and potentially facing a long jail sentence if caught. That's the reality for many people.
> 
> Your reality is pontificating with mock disdain.



Ah I see you edited. I am trying to scrape by signing on you fucking idiot.  It doesn't change the fact that you're completely and utterly clueless.

See in reality I'm exactly the sort of person you're trying to reach with your 'vote labour they'll be better' and yet I, and no doubt many others who don't have their head up their arse, completely disagree with you.  Have a think about why that might be the case instead of accusing people like me of being smug know it alls.  Have a look at all the post on the atos thread, a great many people there will disagree with you too, again have a think why that might be.

For Labour to get me to even vaguely entertain the idea of voting for them for 3 seconds they would have to abolish all age limits for single occupancy in housing benefit, not gonna happen, they would have to increase public spending and wrest control of social provision back from the third sector so my degree actually gets some value again, not gonna happen. Those are just two things that would suit me, my personal circumstances but seeing as Labour actually brought these things in there's no chance them reversing it.  That's just my personal circumstances, there's a whole host of other things they brought in that harm people who aren't me, things like ESA, blowing up brown people abroad, PFIs and so on. Why the fuck would I vote for any of this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Humberto said:


> I see them taking apart the NHS piece by piece, sanctioning JSA claimants for bugger all, promoting workfare, creating more obstacles to ESA claims. Basically intensifying the agenda they have already been following. Why are they following this agenda if it is what protects them?



Put simply: Because there's a tension between what neoliberalism demands, and what you might call the "Bread and Circuses" limit.  Neoliberalism demands complete submission to "the market", but political realities demand that some minimum provision is made in order to prevent mass physical dissent, so they give us just enough bread, and enough circuses, to keep us cowed but not starving, and enough entertainment to keep our thoughts away from dissent.  Fall below that limit of provision (as neoliberalism demands) and you get exactly what the Romans got - bread riots.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 11, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> But by not voting you are actively voting them in. That's the problem. The system doesn't reognise a no vote. At best you have ahung parliament which is no better.



Not voting does at least show them up for the hypocritical bastards they are when they try to set minimum quotas for trade union ballots.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Probably in order to just about look like an adult.




Good point.  Mind you, a white shirt would make him look like he'd just taken his school tie off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

stuff_it said:


> Does it involve flaming torches and pitchforks? Just that if it does I need to keep an eye on the price of oil.
> 
> Would rope and a hammer do in a pinch or would I be the only one without a flaming torch?



Whichever tools the workers choose to use, will do!


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Put simply: Because there's a tension between what neoliberalism demands, and what you might call the "Bread and Circuses" limit.  Neoliberalism demands complete submission to "the market", but political realities demand that some minimum provision is made in order to prevent mass physical dissent, so they give us just enough bread, and enough circuses, to keep us cowed but not starving, and enough entertainment to keep our thoughts away from dissent.  Fall below that limit of provision (as neoliberalism demands) and you get exactly what the Romans got - bread riots.




In the U.K. can't see it, Wonga and Foodbanks will keep them at bay

and punitive sentences, such as three months for a bottle of water.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2014)

they  can't maintain the current prison levels let alone start actually going through with the increasingly draconian bullshit grayling wank fantasies.

not building any more nicks are they?


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> they  can't maintain the current prison levels let alone start actually going through with the increasingly draconian bullshit grayling wank fantasies.
> 
> not building any more nicks are they?


Nope, they're "modernising". Room for expansion and an increase in prison places is just a side effect, as are the expected PFI profits...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/modernisation-of-the-prison-estate


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

Favelado said:


> There is not going to be a Tory majority. It's nigh on impossible.


it'd almost be worth a tory majority to see 'beau' wells face as he got astride his scooter to re-enact the end of quadrophenia, only on his case it'd be quadro-phonier.






first time as tragedy...





second time as farce!


----------



## krink (Jul 11, 2014)

Need a new plan cos at the end Jimmy drives the scooter over the cliff but he isn't on it. He just walks off back to reality.


----------



## xenon (Jul 11, 2014)

Not this shit again.


----------



## krink (Jul 11, 2014)

Shame Sting wasn't on it when it went tho


----------



## bamalama (Jul 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't you have to be riding a Lambretta to pull that one off properly, though?



Nope you need a rally 200 disguised as a gran sport 160


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

bamalama said:


> Nope you need a rally 200 disguised as a gran sport 160


he's got a push scooter and that'll have to do.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 12, 2014)

stuff_it said:


> Does it involve flaming torches and pitchforks? Just that if it does I need to keep an eye on the price of oil.
> 
> Would rope and a hammer do in a pinch or would I be the only one without a flaming torch?



Just to say that I would fully support entryism if the primary strategy was, in lieu of a better name, "the angry rabble of peasants" approach.  In austerity Britain, especially in urban areas, pitchforks are a bit of a luxury.  If I instead turn up with some random household utensil, like my two-year old mop or  three-year old paint roller, I would feel a little self-conscious.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, good old Labour who visited the so-called "Benefits Integrity Project" on disabled people, a decade before Iain Dunked-in Shit was sicced on us by Cameron.  Labour tend to forget how many suicides, hunger strikes etc accompanied that clusterfuck of a "probe" into fraudulent claims, and how few cases of fraud it actually turned up.



It is forgotten that Duncan Smith was paraded around by both Labour and Tories as an intellectual on issues of worklessness.  He even had some think tank while in opposition that produced policy proposals.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2014)

stuff_it said:


> Nope, they're "modernising". Room for expansion and an increase in prison places is just a side effect, as are the expected PFI profits...
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/modernisation-of-the-prison-estate


The "Prison Estate". I have heard of the Fourth Estate which is the media, there is also nowadays a description of bogging and similar as the Fifth Estate, but I had no idea that there was this Sixth Estate - the prisons

.





DairyQueen said:


> It is forgotten that Duncan Smith was paraded around by both Labour and Tories as an intellectual on issues of worklessness.  He even had some think tank while in opposition that produced policy proposals.



IDS an intellectual, I laugh until I cry. Is "intellectual" another of those words that has changed its meaning in the modern world?

It is good to be reminded of Labour's past crimes lest anyone despairing of austerity be tempted to think of voting for them. That is not a mistake we need to re-visit. There is no hope or succour to be had from the so called Labour Party. It is not ours anymore.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> It is forgotten that Duncan Smith was paraded around by both Labour and Tories as an intellectual on issues of worklessness.  He even had some think tank while in opposition that produced policy proposals.



The Centre for Social Justice.  Dunked-in Shit supposedly had an epiphany after visiting the Easterhouse estate in Scotland, and seeing the work done there under Bob Holman's guidance.  Holman was very quick to make sure people knew that Dunked-in Shit's ideas had no roots in what Holman had been doing.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 12, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Just to say that I would fully support entryism if the primary strategy was, in lieu of a better name, "the angry rabble of peasants" approach.  In austerity Britain, especially in urban areas, pitchforks are a bit of a luxury.  If I instead turn up with some random household utensil, like my two-year old mop or  three-year old paint roller, I would feel a little self-conscious.


These are important issues. Many can't even afford decent gaffer tape or wood-handled mops these days. If left much longer it will be workfare slaves armed with sporks.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2014)

It seems Keir Starmer, former DPP and ex-Marxist, now promoter of the 'ten years for benefit fraud' rule, which the Tories are taking up, is considering becoming a Labour MP.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> It seems Keir Starmer, former DPP and ex-Marxist, now promoter of the 'ten years for benefit fraud' rule, which the Tories are taking up, is considering becoming a Labour MP.



Oh joy.  Ex-Marxist.  No doubt Awesome Wells will be holding this guy up as a shining beacon that entryism is alive and well in the Labour Party.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 13, 2014)




----------



## savoloysam (Jul 17, 2014)

Gloria Del Pierro


----------



## treelover (Jul 19, 2014)

> Angela Eagle, "Labour needs a "decisive break" with neoliberalism"
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...iew-labour-needs-decisive-break-neoliberalism



Mmm, but at least some of them are naming the beast now...


----------



## treelover (Jul 19, 2014)

Btw, has anyone posted anything on their 'Your Britain' site?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 20, 2014)

The only alternative


> On Sunday one delegate forced a vote on a demand for an emergency budget in 2015 to allow a Labour government to rip up the coalition's spending plans for 2015-16. Members, however, voted by 125 to 14 in favour of the leadership's proposal to accept the coalition's plans for day-to-day spending – but not necessarily capital spending – in the first year of the next parliament.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 21, 2014)

This is bad, yes, but it doesn't follow that they won't be able to shift spending priorities, or that borrowing for capita investment is not worth having.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This is bad, yes, but it doesn't follow that they won't be able to shift spending priorities, or that borrowing for capita investment is not worth having.


Keep telling yourself this. Keep telling everyone else this too. Keep on hacking.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This is bad, yes, but it doesn't follow that they won't be able to shift spending priorities, or that borrowing for capita investment is not worth having.



Delusional, Cruddas has got everything he wanted, including a move to localised benefits which means a form of parish relief in the future


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This is bad, yes, but it doesn't follow that they won't be able to shift spending priorities, or that borrowing for capita investment is not worth having.



Will there ever come a time when you stop justifying such political reacharounds?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 21, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This is bad, yes, but it doesn't follow that they won't be able to shift spending priorities, or that borrowing for capita investment is not worth having.


if you read 'private eye' you'd know that any involvement with crapita was not worth having. and certainly not worth borrowing for.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 21, 2014)

> capita investment


  ah the ruses of the unconscious mind - this is sadly very apt


----------



## brogdale (Jul 21, 2014)

nuff respect to the Crickster...

http://bcove.me/wl4d538g


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 21, 2014)

> Tony Blair today launched a thinly-veiled attack on Ed Miliband’s march to the left, warning Labour will be consigned to opposition if it treats private enterprise as “contaminated” and puts “strict ideology” ahead of voters’ demand for choice and quality in public services.
> 
> The financial crisis does not mean that the public have “fallen back in love with the State”, Mr Blair said, he as insisted the New Labour recipe remains the “surest route to electoral success”.



Here.  Discuss.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 21, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Here.  Discuss.



Why doesn't tony blair just fuck off and join the tories?

for that matter, why doesn't tony blair just fuck off?


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 22, 2014)

I think the more we see of him in the papers the less coverage he is getting overseas.  Is he still the ambassador for peace?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2014)

Talking of "ambassadors of peace"....our REd went to see Barak, at his gaff, yesterday...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 22, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Here.  Discuss.


"Ed Miliband's march to the left". Hilarious.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> "Ed Miliband's march to the left". Hilarious.


 it caused me an involuntary lol


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 22, 2014)

articul8 said:


> This is bad, yes, but it doesn't follow that they won't be able to shift spending priorities, or that borrowing for capita investment is not worth having.



Oh dear a Freudian slip there "capita investment". The Labour party has already burnt its fingers with the Capita organisation.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> The only alternative



You're link doesn't work properly and appears to point to a job advert anyway. Theoretical Chemist, eh? Mr Fancy-Pants.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 22, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> You're link doesn't work properly and appears to point to a job advert anyway. Theoretical Chemist, eh? Mr Fancy-Pants.


Bollocks, this is what I meant to link to. Sorry about that.


----------



## Poshmanc (Jul 24, 2014)

Stoat Boy said:


> Utter nonsense. Its just that the 'Labour' brand makes you feel better about yourself. Both are two sides of the same shitty stick and in many ways I would argue that worse things happen under a Labour government because of the sort of stupid sentiment you have expressed which means they face less opposition.
> 
> Somehow you dont mind being metaphorically fucked if its a nice politican with a red rosette on whilst doing so.


 Spot on. The Labour party are craven liars who want to stab the working class in the bck. The Tories at least have the honesty to say to your face that they plan to reduce your standard of living. The latest policy from Ed Balls is to announce they will follow Coalition spending targets, rather than come up wirh nay ideas of their own. Announcing, as they did, that the will make the cuts in a 'fairer' fashion just makes them even more pathetic. Ye Gods, is this what people struggled for, a Labour Party comprised of lickspittles and creeps.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2014)

Poshmanc said:


> Spot on. The Labour party are craven liars who want to stab the working class in the bck. The Tories at least have the honesty to say to your face that they plan to reduce your standard of living. The latest policy from Ed Balls is to announce they will follow Coalition spending targets, rather than come up wirh nay ideas of their own. Announcing, as they did, that the will make the cuts in a 'fairer' fashion just makes them even more pathetic. Ye Gods, is this what people struggled for, a Labour Party comprised of lickspittles and creeps.



"Want to"?  They've been stabbing us in the back since the foundation of the party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2014)

double post


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 28, 2014)

Poshmanc said:


> Announcing, as they did, that the will make the cuts in a 'fairer' fashion just makes them even more pathetic.



Was Cameron's Big Society basically not an attempt to do more-or-less do that?  Take advantage of people's good-will to some absurd extremity.


----------



## Poshmanc (Jul 29, 2014)

To be fair to him (and I accepts you may not want to be) his idea at least was based on a genuine ideological belief, ie that individuals, charities, trusts and the community are often better placed to run local services than the state. The Tories believe in a small state with services organised locally, at least to some extent. Academy schools are an example. You may not support such ideas but they are based on Tory beliefs. The problem becomes when you try to quantify Labour beliefs: what on earth are they other than aping the Coalition?


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 29, 2014)

Poshmanc said:


> To be fair to him (and I accepts you may not want to be) his idea at least was based on a genuine ideological belief, ie that individuals, charities, trusts and the community are often better placed to run local services than the state. The Tories believe in a small state with services organised locally, at least to some extent. Academy schools are an example. You may not support such ideas but they are based on Tory beliefs. The problem becomes when you try to quantify Labour beliefs: what on earth are they other than aping the Coalition?



All that localism guff was around before 2010.

Check out this... its 2014... but just look at the contents and contributors; front bench Labour folk and leaders of councils.
*
"a localist future"
"The power of localism"
"The co-operative council"
"The co-ordinating council" (councils don't provide services any more, they co-ordinate them)
"Independent local government"*

It all comes from planning and stakeholder engagement.  Basically, big company will build a load of flats next door, you can advise them what colour the external walls should be painted.  That's localism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Was Cameron's Big Society basically not an attempt to do more-or-less do that?  Take advantage of people's good-will to some absurd extremity.



Basically a re-named reiteration of Blair's "3rd sector" ventures - involving charities and local voluntary orgs in service provision.  It was shit when Blair did it, and even shitter when Cameron picked up the ball and ran with it, especially as neither cunt had done much to analyse the dynamics of charitable giving (time or money), and where it comes from.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2014)

Poshmanc said:


> To be fair to him (and I accepts you may not want to be) his idea at least was based on a genuine ideological belief, ie that individuals, charities, trusts and the community are often better placed to run local services than the state. The Tories believe in a small state with services organised locally, at least to some extent. Academy schools are an example. You may not support such ideas but they are based on Tory beliefs. The problem becomes when you try to quantify Labour beliefs: what on earth are they other than aping the Coalition?



Well, we could establish a circular logic to policy, because many of the coalition's policies have their genesis in Blair's "new Labour".  The reason is, of course, that all the parties involved are signed up to neoliberalism, which prescribes a small state, so hiving off services to local 3rd sector provision, with a little government money to sweeten the pill to the charities, seems great.  The problems start, as we've already seen (if you bother to look), when the government puts the squeeze on spending, and all of a sudden those charities etc are having to manage on their own, with no government _largesse_.
You see, if the state provides services, and makes poor provision, we can somewhat hold the state to account.  With "individuals, charities, trusts and the community" doing so, there's often no accountability, or so little and so diffuse that no-one can be held to account for failures.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jul 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Basically a re-named reiteration of Blair's "3rd sector" ventures - involving charities and local voluntary orgs in service provision.  It was shit when Blair did it, and even shitter when Cameron picked up the ball and ran with it, especially as neither cunt had done much to analyse the dynamics of charitable giving (time or money), and where it comes from.



Yes.  To be fair to Labour, they at least knew a Big Society-type initiative was a dead end since it would basically be an advert for the fact that all the big contracts go to large 'charities' (what I mean, of course, is large businesses).

I remember a couple years back, a small(ish) charity lost out on a government contract up here.  When I say small, it had hundreds of employees.  If they can't benefit from stuff like this what hope does some small community group in Brixton (run by maybe 3-4 committed volunteers) have if they want/need some cash?



> Although the Wise Group – which has which has 650 staff and last year helped 5353 people into work – had been long-listed, it lost out to two private sector firms.
> One, Ingeus UK, won its bid just a year after it appointed Dean James, a former senior civil servant in the Department of Work and Pensions, as its chief executive.



Funny thing here is the Wise Group ended up sub-contracting for the winners.  Total shambles, most of that shite was probably started by Labour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 31, 2014)

DairyQueen said:


> Yes.  To be fair to Labour, they at least knew a Big Society-type initiative was a dead end since it would basically be an advert for the fact that all the big contracts go to large 'charities' (what I mean, of course, is large businesses).
> 
> I remember a couple years back, a small(ish) charity lost out on a government contract up here.  When I say small, it had hundreds of employees.  If they can't benefit from stuff like this what hope does some small community group in Brixton (run by maybe 3-4 committed volunteers) have if they want/need some cash?



We've already seen our biggest welfare rights advice provider lose 60% of funding, a couple of smaller ones shrink down to residual "two half days twice a week" schemes", various public/private youth projects get deep-sixed, etc etc.  There's nowhere for these little concerns to go for money. 




> Funny thing here is the Wise Group ended up sub-contracting for the winners.  Total shambles, most of that shite was probably started by Labour.



Many of us were suspicious even back when Blair was punting it, that it was transparently a way of opening the door to the big service companies, and so it's proved, where loads of charities are subbing for them.  The other thing they're doing, of course, is capturing contracts from other, smaller, private companies, by buying them out.  What was that, our political masters keep trying to sell us about the virtues of competition again?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 3, 2014)

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/former-rotherham-mp-s-diaries-on-jail-time-1-6764991



> Jailed former Rotherham MP Denis MacShane has told how he felt someone “had it in for me” after he spent six weeks in high-security Belmarsh prison.
> 
> Mr MacShane, who represented the town for Labour until he stood down in 2012, was given a six-month jail sentence for making bogus expenses claims worth £12,900.
> 
> ...


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 26, 2014)

Everybody but everybody knows, but not a pitchfork in sight.
Suppose I did get a pitchfork, I'd be just next days chip wrapper.
We need a constitution so very badly with big business nowhere in sight.
Labour went down the pan with Mrs Tony Thatcher-Blair.


----------



## treelover (Sep 5, 2014)

In the Referendum debates its been incredible to watch(expected?) the L/P defend all sorts of Condem/Tory policies and deny their effects on Scotland, this week, they are attacking the SNP's plans to reform benefits in a more benign way that the brutal changes NL and the Condems have instigated asserting they will ''cost 750 million''.


----------



## DairyQueen (Sep 5, 2014)

treelover said:


> In the Referendum debates its been incredible to watch(expected?) the L/P defend all sorts of Condem/Tory policies and deny their effects on Scotland, this week, they are attacking the SNP's plans to reform benefits in a more benign way that the brutal changes NL and the Condems have instigated asserting they will ''cost 750 million''.



With the amount of rank hypocrisy from Labour in this referendum, we could probably emulate and surpass everything that is great about the Tory cumfaces thread.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 6, 2014)

We only voted the other cumfaces in because Labour were bigger cumfaces. Does that make the voting public cumfaces twice over?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 6, 2014)

The leader has never opened the tank turret, to peep out( he's reading the Sun) and he has sent his army out with mostly blank ammo.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 6, 2014)

...


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 9, 2014)

grrrrr

pro-cops, pro-robbers, was my response.

but i'm sure a lot of you cleverer people can do better.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 9, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> View attachment 60811
> 
> grrrrr
> 
> ...


Shut up you fucking cunt. 

How's that?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 10, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Shut up you fucking cunt.
> 
> How's that?



i went with that in the end.  it was easier.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 11, 2014)

Labour councillor in York makes easy transition to tories:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-29150083

It may just be a desperate act to retain a career, but such a move would have seemed incomprehensible a few decades ago, now it's not much more than the colour of the rosette between the two parties.


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 11, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> It may just be a desperate act to retain a career, but such a move would have seemed incomprehensible a few decades ago, now it's not much more than the colour of the rosette between the two parties.



The political defection is an ancient British political tradition. I'm old enough to remember Reg Prentice who was in Wilson's cabinet, defected to the greatest political party that ever was or will be, and was then in Thatcher's cabinet.


----------



## superfly101 (Sep 16, 2014)




----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

Someone has just said something or took a picture and he has glanced over, big deal.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 17, 2014)

superfly101 said:


>


I'd look awkward if I was in an enclosed space with a hundred or so people who knew what a cunt I was.


----------



## treelover (Oct 6, 2014)

Ed Balls was on ITV's, The Agenda, the question was about France and its sclerotic economy, etc, Balls was going on about how it needed to reform, flexible labour markets, extending retirement age, more opening hours, he sounded like a Tory, which he basically is.


----------



## treelover (Oct 12, 2014)

The right wing media, Telegraph, Times, seem to be highlighting (manufactured)concerns that Labour are ignoring what they hear on the doorstep about 'welfare scroungers', etc, citing the increasingly ubiquitous hard right L/P MP Simon Danczuk, useful idiot?

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...r-news/rochdale-mp-simon-danczuk-puts-6156587
seems he also has the time to run a deli as well


----------



## rioted (Oct 12, 2014)

Perhaps if Labour could find a non-public schoolboy to voice their education policies they might make sense.

Labour's Hunt urges 'Hippocratic oath' for teachers

Perhaps the worst thing about this is that I agree with Michael Gove   



> This prompted the former Education Secretary Michael Gove to deliver the riposte that Labour's position on free schools is "so tortured they should send in the UN to end the suffering".


----------



## J Ed (Oct 12, 2014)

Thick scab cunt


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 12, 2014)

> Labour has said it backs further restrictions on migrants' ability to claim benefits as a sign it understands public concerns about immigration.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29587391

What they understand is that some people voted for UKIP and therefore the best thing to do is to dress the party up in a great big UKIP costume and start chucking out knee-jerk, back-of-an-envelope policies. All without troubling themselves to actually look at the current rules for migrants claiming benefits, the practicalities of changing those rules or the likely knock on effects. Never mind the wider moral, economic and social factors that might be worthy of consideration, let's all jump on the great big immigrant-bashing gravy train to credibility central.

This is the exact same 'idea' that David Cameron has already put into practice. Labour _could_ attack both the tories and UKIP by challenging this fiction of the scrounging immigrant coming here for a free ride, and thus maybe set themselves apart from the people they're supposed to be opposed to, or they could just be another voice in the chorus of reactionary bullshit.

Clueless, spineless wankers the lot of them.


----------



## rioted (Oct 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Thick scab cunt


Shallow puss prick.


----------



## murphy1970 (Oct 13, 2014)

It certainly didn't take Labour long to capitulate to UKIP's agenda.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Oct 14, 2014)

murphy1970 said:


> It certainly didn't take Labour long to capitulate to UKIP's agenda.



After spending the blair, brown and miliband years trying their best to morph into a red version of the conservatives they now seem to want to see whatb of ukip's ideas they can add to the mess that was formally known as labour


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Talk about life imitating....


> Mr Miliband met EastEnders star Danny Dyer at a London awards ceremony for gay magazine Attitude on Monday night, according to The Sun.
> 
> Discussing the show, Mr Miliband revealed he knew the character of Ben Mitchell had been played by five different actors while Martin Fowler had been portrayed by three.
> 
> ...





> Malcolm Tucker: This is important stuff, Hugh! Right, we do a weekly digest for the Prime Minister, we boil down the week's television, cinema, music, so on.
> 
> Oliver Reeder: The Zeitgeist tapes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Nov 4, 2014)

Haringey Council does not contain one single Tory. Here they are at war with the NUT
http://www.juliedavies.org.uk/


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

OK, I've considered that for a while..and nope, zilch...sfa.

Anyone?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OK, I've considered that for a while..and nope, zilch...sfa.
> 
> Anyone?



tbh the person most effectively rubbishing ed miliband is ed miliband himself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2014)

what has milliband achieved then


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> what has milliband achieved then


Hmmm......err.......weeellllllll.....is it that we're not meant to call them "nu" any more?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> what has milliband achieved then



From within the labour perspective:
1) A sustained labour lead in the polls after their worst post-war election performance.
2) Ensured that the post-leadership election battles were minor and kept internal.
3) Held onto the core labour vote that many thought would walk away after 2010
4) Attracted and kept lib-dem defectors


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> From within the labour perspective:
> 1) A sustained labour lead in the polls after their worst post-war election performance.
> 2) Ensured that the post-leadership election battles were minor and kept internal.
> 3) Held onto the core labour vote that many thought would walk away after 2010
> 4) Attracted and kept lib-dem defectors



Yeah, a full and thorough analysis of his intra-party achievements....but to the UKIP waverer on Rochester High St...fuck all, in other words. 
A worse leadership rating than Clegg is going some.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, a full and thorough analysis of his intra-party achievements....but to the UKIP waverer on Rochester High St...fuck all, in other words.
> A worse leadership rating than Clegg is going some.


All the above are part of one and the same and not really intra-party stuff really - it's what's put them in position to be able to achieve majority govt five years after the disaster of 20010. And if they are maintained, then those UKIP voters won't matter in  immediate electoral terms come next may.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Nov 6, 2014)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> All the above are part of one and the same and not really intra-party stuff really - it's what's put them in position to be able to achieve majority govt five years after the disaster of 20010. And if they are maintained, then those UKIP voters won't matter in  immediate electoral terms come next may.


tbh my money's on a tory govt with a small majority.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh my money's on a tory govt with a small majority.


Pretty much all options/bets are still live at this point i think.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> All the above are part of one and the same and not really intra-party stuff really - it's what's put them in position to be able to achieve majority govt five years after the disaster of 20010. And if they are maintained, then those UKIP voters won't matter in  immediate electoral terms come next may.


I'd certainly agree that holding the LD 'defectors' is central to the 35% 'plan', but I'd question, (and I know we can't really answer this), to what extent that solidity derives from the strength of the 'push' factors, rather than the attraction of the 'pull'. In other words, they're still so angry with the LDs that they'll stick with NuLab despite Miliband.

It's the defectors to SNP that should be his prime concern.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh my money's on a tory govt with a small majority.


What...>326 tory seats?
really?


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Nov 6, 2014)

Cameron is the strongest leader, as a political personality.  Labour should hire Russell Brand.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> What...>326 tory seats?
> really?


let's wait and see, eh. and then you can buy me the pints you'll owe me.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> let's wait and see, eh. and then you can buy me the pints you'll owe me.


Yeah, OK.

But seriously, you've seen the Ashcroft marginal stuff? Albeit with the usual caveats, the current polling says that they haven't any chance of hanging on to what they've presently got.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, OK.
> 
> But seriously, you've seen the Ashcroft marginal stuff? Albeit with the usual caveats, the current polling says that they haven't any chance of hanging on to what they've presently got.


yeh and you trust the polls.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh and you trust the polls.


as opposed to a hunch? Yeah.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> as opposed to a hunch? Yeah.


and you trust the polls now to accurately reflect the votes in six months  yeh that's really fucking scientifick.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and you trust the polls now to accurately reflect the votes in six months  yeh that's really fucking scientifick.


trends, trends.
More "scientific" than your 'bones'/'water'/'sea-weed'


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> trends, trends.
> More "scientific" than your 'bones'/'water'/'sea-weed'


yeh  _trends _


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh  _trends _


 Other stuff, as well...



> Labour might have collapsed in Scotland but the gainers are not the Tories but the SNP – which means t*his development does not in any way help CON with their overall majority ambition.*
> 
> The dramatic move to the SNP in Scotland suggests that LAB’s doing disproportionately better in England where the Tories were 11.4% ahead on votes last time and where LAB lost 83 seats.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> From within the labour perspective:
> 1) A sustained labour lead in the polls after their worst post-war election performance.
> 2) Ensured that the post-leadership election battles were minor and kept internal.
> 3) Held onto the core labour vote that many thought would walk away after 2010
> 4) Attracted and kept lib-dem defectors


 Not quite the worst post-war performance in terms of %vote (2nd worst) or seats (3rd worst) - and the poll leads have virtually dried up, which is what all this is about of course.  The rest is true though.  I suspect he's kept the party together by simply doing nothing, taking no risks.  That was adequate at the onset of austerity, but he just hasn't got it to construct a narrative to win in May.  He might get there on the unreformed electoral map, but it's looking less good.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

There's space to talk about the first bit - combined. The polls have been here before and two weeks later a healthy labour lead.

What other options other than keeping the thing rolling were there after 2010? Why does he need this PR narrative bollocks speak - he's got a solid 30% Forget fucking narratives.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There's space to talk about the first bit - combined. The polls have been here before and two weeks later a healthy labour lead.
> 
> What other options other than keeping the thing rolling were there after 2010? Why does he need this PR narrative bollocks speak - he's got a solid 30% Forget fucking narratives.


There weren't any other options that Labour could do in 2010.  Miliband emerged out of what Labour were at the time, the attempt to deceive themselves they were moving away from Blairism.  They are what they are - but it might not be enough to win.  Narratives, ducky?  Well, call it what you want, he's got to _say_ something, the party has to _propose something_ between now and May.  Voting's about real experiences, but how that maps onto parties and who is encouraged to vote or stay at home will in part hang on the politics of the next 6 months.  I can imagine what Cameron will say, but not what Miliband can say.  That's not a good position to be in.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

Wilf said:


> There weren't any other options that Labour could do in 2010.  Miliband emerged out of what Labour were at the time, the attempt to deceive themselves they were moving away from Blairism.  The are what they are - but it might not be enough to win.  Narratives, ducky?  Well, call it what you want, he's got to _say_ something, the party has to _propose something_ between now and May.  Voting's about real experiences, but how that maps onto parties and who is encouraged to vote or stay at home will in part hang on the politics of the next 6 months.  I can imagine what Cameron will say, but not what Miliband can say.  That's not a good position to be in.


Stop. First sentence. What


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

The rest of that, i'm glad you had a nice time in the park.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Stop. First sentence. What


 You seem to be thinking I'm arguing there is/was another path to glory for Labour. I'm not.


----------



## treelover (Nov 7, 2014)

Peter Hain was on Today this morning defending Ed,  he was very good, attacking the state of the country, zero hours, etc, he also described one of his constituents who has terminal liver disease who has lost all his benefits and others*, the shadow cabinet, etc,  have been largely silent, etc, lets hope they all wake up. 

*leaving aside Hain helped create ESA, etc, sinner repenteth.


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> Peter Hain was on Today this morning defending Ed,  he was very good, attacking the state of the country, zero hours, etc, he also described one of his constituents who has terminal liver disease who has lost all his benefits and others*, the shadow cabinet, etc,  have been largely silent, etc, lets hope they all wake up.
> 
> *leaving aside Hain helped create ESA, etc,* sinner repenteth.*


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2014)

belboid said:


>


 1  = Not enough


----------



## treelover (Nov 7, 2014)

I'd rather Hain stick up for his constituents now, rather than not.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> I'd rather Hain stick up for his constituents now, rather than not.


Show us your workings. Show us the repentance. Lest you be thought an easily bought fool.


----------



## rekil (Nov 13, 2014)

David Lammy: Highly selective schools have a role in London



> The Tottenham MP said there was “obviously a role for highly selective schools” and argued that the private and state sectors should work more closely. He called for new powers over education and skills policy to be devolved to the Mayor and for a London schools commissioner to be appointed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 13, 2014)

copliker said:


> David Lammy: Highly selective schools have a role in London



Hardly surprising from Lammy. He's trying to get middle-class Londoners on side for the mayoral elections, plus his ideological background is firmly in this sort of non-socialist Blairite wankery.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2014)

copliker said:


> David Lammy: Highly selective schools have a role in London


it's back to the status quo ante 1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London_Education_Authority

education was of course a function of the london county council and the greater london council.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2014)

Perfect example of a focus-group derived, 'dog-whistle', budget-neutral, non-political, short-term and non-sustainable "policy".


> Labour is calling for a billion pounds in bank fines to be handed to the NHS as the party seeks to move on from the political damage of a tweet by the former shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry...


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/22/use-bank-fines-fund-national-health-service-labour

FS


----------



## binka (Dec 7, 2014)

binka said:


> was talking to my dad yesterday. he's life long labour, union rep in the factories and warehouses he's worked in, always goes to labour, union, co-op conferences and is out and about every election. has been a councillor previously and god knows how many tens of thousands of hours of his life he's given to the party. anyway he wanted to put his name forward for nomination to stand for councillor again at the next local election but some regional full timer is essentially trying to make it impossible for him to stand again. apparently they are really keen to make sure that no 'union people' are allowed to be candidates - they want all candidates to be from the professional middle clas. to say he's annoyed is putting it mildly!
> 
> of course i don't think it's surprising to many people here but i've never known him so disillusioned


not sure if anyone's interested but speaking to my dad this evening he's now on administrative suspension from the party (along with his two friends) while the party investigates accusations against them of bullying. they haven't been bullying of course it's just a way to stop them attending any meetings while the regional full timers complete the process of essentially disbanding the branch and making sure all the undesirables know their place. funny thing though is my dad is actually quite popular and this has caused massive protest within the town with many complaining about their treatment.

this is in a marginal which labour will be targeting next year and six months before the election the party has managed to alienate all the people who actually put the time in to knock up, deliver leaflets etc. all the stuff that actually helps win an election!

anyway my dad is still kicking up a fuss (they're sending a full timer from london to investigate all the complaints they've received about his shitty treatment) but his heart is probably gone from it now. i think he sees that the labour party is happy to take his time, his money and his vote but they don't want people like him having any actual say in how things are done


----------



## J Ed (Jan 5, 2015)

What?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 5, 2015)

Excellent! this is what we want.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> What?



Time for a 'Why the Morning Star is going down the pan' thread?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 5, 2015)

I think it'd be a very good thing if Labour had quotas for people who _didn't_ go to public school.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 5, 2015)

_'Street-fighter'_?  Miliband couldn't KO a wet paper bag.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> What?



Meh.  I reckon even I could take Ed in a square go and I'm soft as shite.


----------



## treelover (Jan 5, 2015)

His speech just now was quite impressive, there seems to be a genuine anger there, I think Osborne's speech and plans(back to the 30's) have galvanised him.

a bit anyway...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2015)

treelover said:


> His speech just now was quite impressive, there seems to be a genuine anger there, I think Osborne's speech and plans(back to the 30's) have galvanised him.
> 
> a bit anyway...



I reckon some strategist has told him to appear galvanised.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I reckon some strategist has told him to appear galvanised.


I'd be happy to coat him in zinc, if that's what he wants.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I'd be happy to coat him in zinc, if that's what he wants.


i read that as 'i'd be happy to castrate him, if that's what it takes'


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i read that as 'i'd be happy to castrate him, if that's what it takes'


He appears to have done that himself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> What?


i think it fair to say labour would be given a bloody nose on the doorsteps


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

can't really see miliband as ken or ryu. Maybe one of the crap novelty ones like vega


----------



## Looby (Jan 5, 2015)

Did anyone see Ed Balls on BBC news? He was asked about Russell Brand calling him a clicky wristed, snide cunt and he responded by calling Brand a pound shop Ben Elton. [emoji1]

I laughed.[emoji33]


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

burn!


----------



## killer b (Jan 5, 2015)

a bonus for the lackey who wrote that joke. nice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

sparklefish said:


> Did anyone see Ed Balls on BBC news? He was asked about Russell Brand calling him a clicky wristed, snide cunt and he responded by calling Brand a pound shop Ben Elton. [emoji1]
> 
> I laughed.[emoji33]


it worked well when brand said it. it looks weak when it's recycled.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it worked well when brand said it. it looks weak when it's recycled.


he should have gone for the mum cuss


----------



## Looby (Jan 5, 2015)

It was such an awkward moment it sort of made my arse twitch.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jan 5, 2015)

sparklefish said:


> It was such an awkward moment it sort of made my arse twitch.


That would have been a classier comeback


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 6, 2015)

...because they appear to be trying to drive a wedge between Scottish and English voters.  And in the process to be calling Scottish voters "subsidy junkies", and deliberately misunderstanding devolution into the bargain.


----------



## coley (Jan 6, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Time for a 'Why the Morning Star is going down the pan' thread?


It's arrived at the sewage farm going off that headline.


----------



## coley (Jan 6, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I reckon some strategist has told him to appear galvanised.



Bugger needs galvanised.


----------



## andysays (Feb 8, 2015)

Just in case there was any doubt
Labour is aggressively pro-business, says Tristram Hunt 



> Tristram Hunt, the shadow education secretary, told BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show that Labour was a “furiously, passionately, aggressively pro-business” party...
> 
> ...Hunt said Labour was on the side of Britain’s businessmen and women. He said: “I’m enormously enthusiastic about businessmen and women making money, about delivering shareholder return, about making profit...
> 
> ...“We have heard from some businesspeople. We have got 5 million great businesses working really hard across Great Britain, making money, as I say, and Labour is on their side.



Sounds like Mandelson and "intensely relaxed..." all over again


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2015)

'red' ed promoising to go after the offshore banking havens and demand to know who banks with them. I hear the sound of a bollocks promise and several lols and 'or you'll do what' from offshore banks


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> 'red' ed promoising to go after the offshore banking havens and demand to know who banks with them. I hear the sound of a bollocks promise and several lols and 'or you'll do what' from offshore banks



While a prime minister may have *nominal* powers over those offshore havens, he doesn't have *anything* in his armoury to compel compliance. At best all he can do is solicit some hollow promises.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Feb 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> While a prime minister may have *nominal* powers over those offshore havens, he doesn't have *anything* in his armoury to compel compliance. At best all he can do is solicit some hollow promises.



So Basically a vote for the Red conservatives as opposed to a vote for the Blue,Yellow,Purple conservatives its still gonna be business as usual or ed miliped being an empty vessel making a lot of but with little of substance inside but enough tho hope that enough of us will be stupid enough to buy it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2015)

SikhWarrioR said:


> So Basically a vote for the Red conservatives as opposed to a vote for the Blue,Yellow,Purple conservatives its still gonna be business as usual or ed miliped being an empty vessel making a lot of but with little of substance inside but enough tho hope that enough of us will be stupid enough to buy it



Pretty much. Previous PMs have made similar promises to the electorate, and have been made promises about disclosure by the tax havens, but what isn't explained to Joseph and Josephine Mug-Punter is that many of the accounts in tax havens are held by trusts, mostly blind trusts, which are in turn operated by holding companies, usually in a chain, so establishing the "beneficial owner" is almost impossible without vast cost to the taxpayer.


----------



## gosub (Feb 8, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> 'red' ed promoising to go after the offshore banking havens and demand to know who banks with them. I hear the sound of a bollocks promise and several lols and 'or you'll do what' from offshore banks



 He's planning to keep, and take credit for something that already happens?  that up there with having a go at Cameron for not completely undoing the tax stuff Labour brought in, as he did at last PMQ's


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2015)

gosub said:


> He's planning to keep, and take credit for something that already happens?


here you go:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/ex...d-Milibands-call-for-tax-haven-crackdown.html

not quite what I said, the man on the radio was vague. But still, its a promise he can't and won't keep.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 8, 2015)

Tony Blair says he will help with the election campaign if Ed Miliband wants him to 

Is that a threat or something?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pretty much. Previous PMs have made similar promises to the electorate, and have been made promises about disclosure by the tax havens, but what isn't explained to Joseph and Josephine Mug-Punter is that many of the accounts in tax havens are held by trusts, mostly blind trusts, which are in turn operated by holding companies, usually in a chain, so establishing the "beneficial owner" is almost impossible without vast cost to the taxpayer.


in that case, just confiscate half of all value in those bank accounts over night with no warning on the assumption they're pretty much all there for tax evasion purposes, then let the real owners plead their case if they feel they've been wronged.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 8, 2015)

Because a Labour Council sorts it so that rich people don't have to look at oiks in their garden: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tower-bridge-luxury-development-10030769.html


----------



## gosub (Feb 8, 2015)

free spirit said:


> in that case, just confiscate half of all value in those bank accounts over night with no warning on the assumption they're pretty much all there for tax evasion purposes, then let the real owners plead their case if they feel they've been wronged.


I'm  kind of a fan of Habeus Corpus


----------



## free spirit (Feb 8, 2015)

gosub said:


> I'm  kind of a fan of Habeus Corpus


but if they're hiding their identity deliberately to stop HMRC from tracking them down, then fuck that IMO.

Besides IIRC they already do this for tax disputes in other areas, eg the footballers who've been caught out with the film investement avoidance schemes have had to pay the fines in advance of any appeals on the presumption that they're guilty.

WTF else are they doing hiding their money in tax havens behind obscure ownership structures that make it near impossible to work out who owns the money?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 8, 2015)

actually what I suggested is fully in line with habeous corpus anyway, as anyone who's been wronged would have full recourse to the courts to prove it, but it'd be up to them to do the proving, not HMRC to attempt to work out who they are and if they have a legit reason for wanting to hide their money in an offshore tax haven.


----------



## JTG (Feb 8, 2015)

gosub said:


> I'm  kind of a fan of Habeus Corpus


I have yet to form an opinion, they were on at the same time as Slayer so I missed them


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> While a prime minister may have *nominal* powers over those offshore havens, he doesn't have *anything* in his armoury to compel compliance.



Sure he does.  Palmerstone would have sent a gunboat.  Ed could do the same if he chose.

Now, you're correct to say that the chances of him choosing to do that are pretty close to the minus range.  But don't let him off the hook too easily: action is within his power.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> While a prime minister may have *nominal* powers over those offshore havens, he doesn't have *anything* in his armoury to compel compliance. At best all he can do is solicit some hollow promises.


Not entirely true. For British Overseas Dependencies he could suspend home rule, or threaten to do so. Suspension of home rule happened with the Turks & Caicos islands in 2009 because of ministerial corruption. 

Not sure what recourse he would have with the likes of Jersey, which has a distinct national identity...


----------



## gosub (Feb 8, 2015)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2015)

free spirit said:


> in that case, just confiscate half of all value in those bank accounts over night with no warning on the assumption they're pretty much all there for tax evasion purposes, then let the real owners plead their case if they feel they've been wronged.



And this would be allowed to happen because...?
Bear in mind just how ubiquitous these accounts are among the £100,000pa and more crowd. 
Also, history shows us (sadly) that it's nigh on impossible to "crack" a bank holding such accounts. We've been trying since the Inland Revenue went after the Vesteys. Their governing bodies are responsible to no legislature but their own, and those legislatures (Caymans, Guernsey etc etc) are "stitched up" by the very people who invest there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2015)

gosub said:


> I'm  kind of a fan of Habeus Corpus



Especially if it's Cameron's inanimate body that's being presented.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 10, 2015)

https://jakecanner.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/an-open-letter-to-iain-mcnicol/

*AN OPEN LETTER TO IAIN MCNICOL.*
February 8, 2015jakecanner


Dear Iain,

My name is Jake. You’ve only met me once so I doubt that you’d remember this particular bespectacled Labour-supporting 19 year old. Anyway, hello. I currently work in a restaurant in Waterloo. I enjoy my job. It’s sociable, fun and enables me to continue living in one of the most vibrant and diverse (and expensive) cities in the world. Like thousands of other people, I have to work hard to survive and thrive here. I’ve been a Labour Party member, volunteer and activist for 5 years.

[...]

This is specifically in regard to Labour Students and Young Labour. However, even more specifically, its members Bex Bailey, Ben Dilks, Jack Falkingham, Ashley Wise and Jack Storry. Individuals whom I’m sure you’re extremely familiar with.

[...]

The individuals in-hand decided to visit the restaurant I work in during the evening on the 6th February 2015. They know who I am because I’m an active member of the party, so I’ve undoubtedly met them on several occasions. I was even pressured into voting for Bex for NEC in order to get support from NOLS in my candidacy for LGBT Officer. Although saying that, it was pulled because I _dared_ to vote against the ‘whip’ and not the way I was ‘supposed to’.

Upon seeing me stood working front-of-house and greeting customers on a fairly busy shift, they felt it appropriate to stand at the top of the stairs and point and laugh at me. Just to reiterate – _they pointed and laughed at me_. I’ve been in this job for just over a month and for that to happen in front of colleagues and customers, it was humiliating and degrading to say the least.

They are _employed_ by Labour and Parliament and paid with our membership money and taxes. They are members of a party that prides itself on being the party of working people.

[...] I sincerely hope that it raises some key questions about Labour Students, Young Labour and the classist and elitist attitudes of its senior members.


----------



## treelover (Feb 10, 2015)




----------



## Wilf (Feb 10, 2015)

I quite like that he names names - revenge is always good - but if he's still in the party he draws the wrong conclusions from that incident.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 11, 2015)

> I was even pressured into voting for Bex for NEC in order to get support from NOLS in my candidacy for LGBT Officer. Although saying that, it was pulled because I _dared_ to vote against the ‘whip’ and not the way I was ‘supposed to’.


 Not entirely a towering man of principle himself.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 12, 2015)

Ha Ha


> The latest Ipsos Mori political monitor, released Thursday, has the Liberal Democrats on 6%. The party’s lowest score in 25 years. As context, in 1990, West Germany won the World Cup, and Roxette’s “_It Must Have Been Love”_ topped the charts.
> 
> What makes the figures even more extraordinary is that the Lib Dems are now tied with the SNP, which of course only runs in Scotland.



EDIT  Wrong bloody thread


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2015)

There is no right thread for a quote that reminds me of the musical output of Roxette!


----------



## J Ed (Feb 12, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> [...] I sincerely hope that it raises some key questions about Labour Students, Young Labour and the classist and elitist attitudes of its senior members.



As disgusting as it is unsurprising to me


----------



## J Ed (Feb 14, 2015)

https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/rachel-reeves-is-a-lying-bastard/



> Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Rachel Reeves has probably never done a real day’s work in her pampered fucking life.  After graduating from Oxford and then the LSE she was handed a non-job at the British Embassy in Washington before returning to the UK to work in the banking sector.  She is every bit as clueless and out of touch as the chinless toffs in government she claims to oppose.
> 
> This week Reeves and her creepy underling Shadow Employment Minister Stephen Timms have been boasting about Labour’s plans to bully and impoverish unemployed people with their Compulsory Jobs Guarantee.  And just like Iain Duncan Smith she is quite happy to bend the truth to further her benefit sanctioning agenda.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Feb 14, 2015)

> This week Reeves and her creepy underling Shadow Employment Minister Stephen Timms



The Christian Socialist Timm's, has a long history of being involved in welfare reform with very frequent meetings with UNUM in the early days of New Labour.


----------



## treelover (Feb 16, 2015)

Well who would have thunk it, Labour have a open goal with large scale tax evasions, etc, instead they are announcing plans to clamp down on cash in hand, so you must get a receipt say from your gardener!

(no link, mentioned on paper review)


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 27, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Time for a 'Why the Morning Star is going down the pan' thread?



For context, no-one in the office is a big fan of wet Ed, it's a gentle piss-take. I would have thought it was obvious from the photo, but apparently not.


----------



## bemused (Feb 28, 2015)

treelover said:


> instead they are announcing plans to clamp down on cash in hand, so you must get a receipt say from your gardener!



It's one of those line items they add to pay for their commitments. I'm sure somehwere on Ed Balls' spreadsheet is says - cash in hand tax - £23bn


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2015)

> Ed Miliband: don't mistake my decency for weakness
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/06/ed-miliband-dont-mistake-my-decency-for-weakness
> 
> In Guardian interview he says New Labour was ‘too sanguine’ on inequality



Ed comes out fighting

all a bit too late


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 6, 2015)

They weren't "too sanguine" on inequality; they were full of cracking wheezes to increase it.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> They weren't "too sanguine" on inequality; they were full of cracking wheezes to increase it.


I think the phrase was "_Intensely relaxed", _wasn't it_?_


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2015)

Yes, most of the Tories welfare reforms built on Nl and Brown would have pursued most of them if they had got in,

I do think Milliband will reign in some of the extremes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2015)

treelover said:


> Yes, most of the Tories welfare reforms built on Nl and Brown would have pursued most of them if they had got in,
> 
> I do think Milliband will reign in some of the extremes.








she reigns





she wears reins

do you see the difference?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> do you see the difference?


Between her maj and a horse? 

No, not really.


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2015)

WGAF!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2015)

treelover said:


> WGAF!


if you don't know the difference between reigns and reins - and indeed rains - then things have come to a very poor pass.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Between her maj and a horse?
> 
> No, not really.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 6, 2015)

Pickman's model

Well, they both have two birthdays a year and call their fathers Sire.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Pickman's model
> 
> Well, they both have two birthdays a year and call their fathers Sire.


neigh neigh and thrice neigh


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2015)

Of the multitude of issues that are screaming for attention...Miliband alights upon today's soundbite. FFS



> A future Labour government would take legal steps to ensure that live television debates become permanent features of general election campaigns, in a move to prevent politicians blocking them for their own self-interest.



Seriously, this is 'real'.


----------



## agricola (Mar 7, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Of the multitude of issues that are screaming for attention...Miliband alights upon today's soundbite. FFS



It really is awe-inspiring that, in this day and age and with the country experiencing what it is, they could come out with that proposal.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 7, 2015)

Just came to this thread to post that! Astonishing, desperate, tawdry...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2015)

Meanwhile...the SIndy frontpage says (apparently)..






"The cunt factor"?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2015)

fireside chats


----------



## treelover (Mar 8, 2015)

The election is descending into farce, meanwhile poverty, inequality issues don't seem to be getting a look in.


----------



## bemused (Mar 16, 2015)

Not sure it deserves the category of scum but expensing a £17 Remembrance Day wreath seems rather tight. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-31895703


----------



## treelover (Mar 16, 2015)

I don't agree, it was on behalf of her role as a local M.P, it wasn't a personal gesture, afaik.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2015)

Champion wasn't the only one to claim for a Remembrance Day wreath, some Tory (whose name escapes me) also claimed.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Meanwhile...the SIndy frontpage says (apparently)..
> 
> 
> 
> ...





DotCommunist said:


> fireside chats



Room 101 - well, it would be nice to think so.


----------



## treelover (Mar 16, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/ed-miliband-labour-will-not-form-coalition-with-snp

Breaking news on the Guardian, Milliband rules out coalition with the SNP

too social democratic for them?


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2015)

Tbf, Labour were never going to enter into a coalition with the SNP. A confidence and supply arrangement is as far as it's going to go. The Toxics have been 'over-egging the pudding' as was demonstrated by that ridiculous poster they revealed last week. 

Now the Tories and the DUP and UKIP, that's a different matter...


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/ed-miliband-labour-will-not-form-coalition-with-snp
> 
> Breaking news on the Guardian, Milliband rules out coalition with the SNP
> 
> too social democratic for them?


nice of him to do so after SNP had already ruled it out


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 16, 2015)

I am ruling out my engagement to Halle Berry. 

Get me the BBC.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/ed-miliband-labour-will-not-form-coalition-with-snp
> 
> Breaking news on the Guardian, Milliband rules out coalition with the SNP


Will he also rule out wearing hover boots this afternoon?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2015)

no coalition but secret meetings in the spare kitchen maybe.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 17, 2015)

Here's the pro Labour Daily Racist Homophobe's take:


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Here's the pro Labour Daily Racist Homophobe's take:



not content with adopting tory spending plans, labour adopt tory policy on coalitions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I am ruling out my engagement to Halle Berry.
> 
> Get me the BBC.


sadly halle berry ruled out becoming engaged to me.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> sadly halle berry ruled out becoming engaged to me.


Indeed.  But you can still make an announcement that _you're_ ruling it out.  Even if Ms Berry already ruled it out many months ago.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 17, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> The political defection is an ancient British political tradition. I'm old enough to remember Reg Prentice who was in Wilson's cabinet, defected to the greatest political party that ever was or will be, and was then in Thatcher's cabinet.


Ah, yes, the case of Reg Prentice and Dr Lewis (or Dr Death, as I call him these days).
https://pinkindustry.wordpress.com/...n-defence-and-strategic-studies/reg-prentice/

The Labour Party has been corrupted through infiltration.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2015)

Rachael Reeves:



> “We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work,” she said. “Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.”


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Rachael Reeves:



The hilarity residing in her thinking that she and her fellow Labourites are "working people", rather than parasitising them.


----------



## treelover (Mar 17, 2015)

So, there were no unemployed members of the nascent labour party when it was forming?

the ironic thing is she actually states some positive things such as clamping down on sanction targets, etc, though will of course keep sanctions.


----------



## treelover (Mar 17, 2015)

> Reeves is treading in difficult political territory, eager to highlight the fallout from the government’s austerity policies without appearing to be soft on the rising cost of welfare.



is it rising, Amelia Gentleman is usually a scrupulous journalist, but this sounds like Tory speak.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> So, there were no unemployed members of the nascent labour party when it was forming?
> 
> the ironic thing is she actually states some positive things such as clamping down on sanction targets, etc, though will of course keep sanctions.


fyi: there were no members of the labour party until it was formed.


----------



## treelover (Mar 17, 2015)

> Labour has committed to maintaining the Conservatives’ overall £26,000 benefit cap, and a Labour government would look at lowering this cap, in parts of the country outside London, where housing is cheaper. “It is right that people shouldn’t be able to get more on benefits than they do in work. You have to be able to show people that the welfare state is fair,” she said.



FFS, they are going to introduce regional benefit caps, what level is Reeves going to set it at, in say Hull?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Rachael Reeves:


profoundly depressing, but revealing.  Would Labour have told the Jarrow marchers they were a load of feckless scroungers?    The idea that the unemployed might be very "hard working people" who have lost their job and can't find another....doesn't occur to them.   If you're on benefits, whoever you are and whatever you've done, you're shit, worthless.   I'm really fucking angry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2015)

articul8 said:


> profoundly depressing, but revealing.  Would Labour have told the Jarrow marchers they were a load of feckless scroungers?    The idea that the unemployed might be very "hard working people" who have lost their job and can't find another....doesn't occur to them.   If you're on benefits, whoever you are and whatever you've done, you're shit, worthless.   I'm really fucking angry.


but you're not going to leave the labour party over this when you've stayed in it for so many other things.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2015)

I'm going to fight this idea of what the party is, and who it represents.


----------



## Sue (Mar 17, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm going to fight this idea of what the party is, and who it represents.


Ah, you're going to change it from within.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 17, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm going to fight this idea of what the party is, and who it represents.


So, if not this, what is your line in the sand?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm going to fight this idea of what the party is, and who it represents.



It's simple. "Hard-working people" isn't about representing labour, organised or otherwise, any more. It's about representing the interests of those elements of the middle classes that hold swing votes in swing constituencies. it's about appealing to a minority, and taking the core vote - the voters that gave Reeves her safe seat - for granted.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Would Labour have told the Jarrow marchers they were a load of feckless scroungers?



Yes, modern Labour politicians despise the working poor let alone the unemployed.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2015)

Yes will that's one major reason I've argued PR is necessary to start unwinding that skewing of priorities.  But it's also part of these people's worldview," there are three classes: the rich, the aspiring and the feckless.  And we look down on the feckless poor, because their aspirations aren't ours."


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Yes, modern Labour politicians despise the working poor let alone the unemployed.


Yes that's the other incredible thing.  Stigmatising being "on benefits" even though you might well be working


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2015)

> “We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work,” she said. “Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.”



=



> We need PR.



Clueless surface clown.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2015)

I didn't say it was the whole solution but a system which encourages the party to maximise support in w/c areas would make them less susceptible to crude chasing of swing vote.  That's obvious maybe, but still worth remembering.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 17, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm going to fight this idea of what the party is, and who it represents.


And you'll succeed where Tony Benn and Denis Skinner failed because ...?

(in no more than 3500 words, including references and footnotes).


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2015)

You see someone killing someone you

a) join in
b) say i'm joining in but i oppose it
c) We need PR
d) leave the killing gang


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say it was the whole solution but a system which encourages the party to maximise support in w/c areas would make them less susceptible to crude chasing of swing vote.  That's obvious maybe, but still worth remembering.


This isn't swing bashing-  it's the core of your party. It's what it believes in. It's what you did in power. Worth remembering amonsgt the keir hardie tattoos.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This isn't swing bashing-  it's the core of your party.It's what it believes in. It's what you did in power. Worth remembering amonsgt the keir hardie tattoos.


This isn't new, either. Labour MPs have said exactly the same thing before, in the last 12 months. 

They're not the party of Jarrow, they're the party of Harrow.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 17, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Yes that's the other incredible thing.  Stigmatising being "on benefits" even though you might well be working


Well they've gone a long way towards ensuring Labour MPs are stigmatised. 

And when I encourage people not to vote for them, I'll say it's tough love.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 18, 2015)

Online rumours damage British democracy, says Douglas Alexander. Is it any fucking wonder that disenfranchised people fall prey to conspiracy theories when they are the victims of a political class which continually works in tandem to conspire against them? Also, who's betting that while he used an extreme example he also considers actually valid points which are contrary to establishment common sense to be conspiracy theories?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Online rumours damage British democracy, says Douglas Alexander. Is it any fucking wonder that disenfranchised people fall prey to conspiracy theories when they are the victims of a political class which continually works in tandem to conspire against them? Also, who's betting that while he used an extreme example he also considers actually valid points which are contrary to establishment common sense to be conspiracy theories?


Oh, he'll absolutely think views outside of received Common Sense are conspiracy theories. 

The thing is, though, he's built his model of Why Labour Is Tanking in Scotland on a flaky model. Yes, of course there are conspiracy theories on the social media; you can go online any day and see them. But to suggest that 45% of the population have fallen prey to conspiracy theories is in itself a conspiracy theory. 

What he actually means is that people are no longer swallowing whole the establishment wisdom on everything. His press release doesn't necessarily go from his desk to the BBC to the lips of the person at the bus stop. If he's worried about that, then something at least is going right.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 18, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> This isn't new, either. Labour MPs have said exactly the same thing before, in the last 12 months.
> 
> They're not the party of Jarrow, they're the party of Harrow.


It was actually a bit longer than I remembered, but virtually the same words -Tom Harris, Labour MP:

"We were set up as the party to represent the values of working people, working being the key word. We weren't set up as some sort of charity to help the poorest in society".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...t-Tom-Harris-has-lessons-to-teach-Labour.html


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Online rumours damage British democracy, says Douglas Alexander. Is it any fucking wonder that disenfranchised people fall prey to conspiracy theories when they are the victims of a political class which continually works in tandem to conspire against them? Also, who's betting that while he used an extreme example he also considers actually valid points which are contrary to establishment common sense to be conspiracy theories?



_It's weird isn't it - the more i punch this face the bigger the bruises get. They don't even recognise me anymore._


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 18, 2015)

And here's Scottish Labour's backroom boss defending Rachel Reeves:


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> It was actually a bit longer than I remembered, but virtually the same words -Tom Harris, Labour MP:
> 
> "We were set up as the party to represent the values of working people, working being the key word. We weren't set up as some sort of charity to help the poorest in society".
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...t-Tom-Harris-has-lessons-to-teach-Labour.html


but what about where some of the poorest ARE working? or where the poorest WANT to work?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 18, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but what about where some of the poorest ARE working? or where the poorest WANT to work?


Exactly. They're out of touch cunts. 

They don't want my vote: I get working tax credit, an in-work benefit. But they don't want to represent me. Suits me. They can fuck right off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> It was actually a bit longer than I remembered, but virtually the same words -Tom Harris, Labour MP:
> 
> "We were set up as the party to represent the values of working people, working being the key word. We weren't set up as some sort of charity to help the poorest in society".
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...t-Tom-Harris-has-lessons-to-teach-Labour.html


i see harris is a christian.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 18, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i see harris is a christian.


I'll punch both of his cheeks if that helps.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I'll punch both of his cheeks if that helps.


kick all four of them


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 18, 2015)




----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 18, 2015)




----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2015)

Ed Miliband vows Labour would cap profits of private health companies

Not good enough Ed, not even close. Any service that has been pimped out to private companies need to be returned to public ownership ASAP. No excuses


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Ed Miliband vows Labour would cap profits of private health companies
> 
> Not good enough Ed, not even close. Any service that has been pimped out to private companies need to be returned to public ownership ASAP. No excuses


this is the only sort of cap miliband would dream of wearing.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 27, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Ed Miliband vows Labour would cap profits of private health companies
> 
> Not good enough Ed, not even close. Any service that has been pimped out to private companies need to be returned to public ownership ASAP. No excuses



Including GPs? Supply of medical equipment? Software?


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2015)

Yes to the first, No to the second (as after all the NHS has to purchase from the private sector anyway). Yes to the last. the NHS could save a fortune in software licensing if it went open-source. For an example of the savings to be made, what the city of Munich has done is worth looking at.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 27, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Yes to the first, No to the second (as after all the NHS has to purchase from the private sector anyway). Yes to the last. the NHS could save a fortune in software licensing if it went open-source. For an example of the savings to be made, what the city of Munich has done is worth looking at.



Licensing costs are not TCO, as any fule kno. And whatever the Munich lot have done with open source productivity suites has no bearing on electronic patient records, imaging software, scheduling and payroll software and so on. 

So you want GPs to be salaried NHS employees? That would mean a lot of stuffing mouths with gold and would be quite a big structural change.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 27, 2015)

I struggle to understand how badly local Labour (ward councillors and the Labour menbers of Lambeth council, including Matthew Bennett) can behave while hearing What Chukka Umunna comes out with, let alone what Labour in opposition have said or done (or failed to even attempt).  

I realise this thread is more about Labour in the run up to the general election, but he's so overeager to believe the best spin of the local Labour councillors fed to him that I'm having the political equivalent of losing my religion.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Licensing costs are not TCO, as any fule kno.



No, this fule did not nor did I know what TCO meant but so what? I still reckon that there's a possibility that big savings could be made; it would of course require the will to do so and a lot of effort but considering some of the huge sums wasted on IT projects in the NHS in the past it's definitely worthy of consideration.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 27, 2015)

teqniq said:


> No, this fule did not nor did I know what TCO meant but so what? I still reckon that there's a possibility that big savings could be made; it would of course require the will to do so and a lot of effort but considering some of the huge sums wasted on IT projects in the NHS in the past it's definitely worthy of consideration.



Open source really isn't a panacea. There are lots of reasons why some aspects of NPfIT were unsuccessful and fixing the issues is about much more than the licensing model, or using SMEs, or using agile development.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 27, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Licensing costs are not TCO, as any fule kno. And whatever the Munich lot have done with open source productivity suites has no bearing on electronic patient records, imaging software, scheduling and payroll software and so on.
> 
> *So you want GPs to be salaried NHS employees? That would mean a lot of stuffing mouths with gold* and would be quite a big structural change.



No it wouldn't. It would mean showing a determined commitment to a needs based, socialised, provision of health care.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 27, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No it wouldn't.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



You'd need to buy their surgeries. As in, the built estate. And all their other professional assets.

It's worth thinking about, but there's a shortage of GPs at the moment and it would be very, very tricky to get them to accept new conditions without straightforward bribery.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 27, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> *You'd need to buy their surgeries. As in, the built estate. And all their other professional assets.*
> 
> It's worth thinking about, but there's a shortage of GPs at the moment and it would be very, very tricky to get them to accept new conditions without straightforward bribery.



No you don't. You need to be more open minded as to how popular political choices might be turned into action.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 27, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No you don't. You need to be more open minded as to how popular political choices might be turned into action.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



If it was possible to shoot or imprison any doctors who objected to the new regime things would certainly be easier. _Pulse_ would complain quite a lot, though, and it might even make the broadsheets.


----------



## agricola (Mar 27, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's worth thinking about, but there's a shortage of GPs at the moment and it would be very, very tricky to get them to accept new conditions without straightforward bribery.



In the short term yes, but doing what they did with teachers and offering to pay most/all of a medical students fees in return for a fixed term as a GP would probably sort most of the problem out within a decade or so.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 27, 2015)

agricola said:


> In the short term yes, but doing what they did with teachers and offering to pay most/all of a medical students fees in return for a fixed term as a GP would probably sort most of the problem out within a decade or so.



Yes, that makes sense.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 27, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> If it was possible to shoot or imprison any doctors who objected to the new regime things would certainly be easier. _Pulse_ would complain quite a lot, though, and it might even make the broadsheets.



Silly hyperbole doesn't show that you've thought any harder.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 28, 2015)

Got to say, this 'We'll restrict profits a bit ... ' stuff is falling rather short of my expectations of what 'We'll protect the NHS' should mean ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 28, 2015)

Just in at the Labour shop


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Just in at the Labour shop


they're getting load of 'assisted suicide for all' mugs next week


----------



## rekil (Mar 28, 2015)

A bulldog in a spitfire flying over Dover on the other side.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Just in at the Labour shop




...because "We set up the detention camps in which G4S are abusing refugees who fled sexual violence" is a bit of a mouthful


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 29, 2015)

Also on offer:

Dodgy Dosier Teapot.

90 Day Detention Dinner Set.

Welfare Scrounger? Don't Vote For Us! Champagne Flute.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 29, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Just in at the Labour shop



I presume this is meant to appeal to amongst others, potential UKIP voters. In any event imo they really haven't thought this through.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 29, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I presume this is meant to appeal to amongst others, potential UKIP voters. In any event imo they really haven't thought this through.


Not just UKIP voters - they think we're *all* mugs.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Mar 29, 2015)

Howabout one for teflon tony blair's ID cards and DNA database "We know Who you are"


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Just in at the Labour shop



Be great to see Ed with one of these in a photoshoot


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 29, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Be great to see Ed with one of these in a photoshoot


Maybe in the smaller of his two living rooms.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2015)

Or kitchens


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2015)

Good rant by Liza Mckenzie here:


> “There are professional project bidders who know how to bid for money. They get the money and they don’t implement anything sustainable or long-lasting to create change. They put on a flower-arranging course, make sure everyone says nice things about them and then move on to the next estate.
> 
> “These so-called social enterprises are being run along capitalist lines and they are an absolute waste of time.
> 
> ...


 http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/...g-up-hopefully-more-of-us-will-start-shouting


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2015)

the more I read from her the more I like:



> “I’m sure Polly Toynbee is a lovely person, but it’s time for Toynbee and co to move over,” she fires back. “I and other working-class people can do what they do, but with an authentic voice. I have no apologies about this, and if they don’t move over we’ll take it anyway. As a class, we need to say: ‘Stop writing about us, stop writing at us.
> 
> Put down the sharp elbows because we have got our own people.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2015)

Classic Bone...


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2015)

> Having been a permanent rebel during the New Labour years, McDonnell says that "the climate has changed dramatically within the party and within the PLP". "It’s so much more open and democratic, and, to be honest, friendlier, it’s just friendlier ... It’s a lot more comradely than anything I’ve experienced all through my time in parliament". The 63-year-old, who was elected as the MP for Hayes and Harlington in 1997, remarks with satisfaction that the left has "moved the party on to our agenda". "If you think, seven or eight years ago I was getting up in parliament moving alternative budgets to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair’s administration and I was moving things, for example, like building council houses again, investing in manufacturing, looking at the fair distribution of wealth, including taxation issues ... They’re now addressing that whole agenda."
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ll-miliband-will-have-backtrack-spending-cuts





John McDonnell on Labour and the future, he seems a lot happier with Ed and Co.

he must have missed Rachel Reeves latest comments


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Good rant by Liza Mckenzie here:
> http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-6132-If-more-of-us-start-speaking-up-hopefully-more-of-us-will-start-shouting






> I point out, and she agrees, that working-class people are largely absent from activism on environmental damage — and that is striking, because climate change threatens people of all stripes. How does she explain it?
> 
> “It’s because they’re actively excluded from it, and here’s an example. Everywhere in Nottingham, residents got three bins, two of which are for recycling — apart from those living on St Ann’s estate, who have just one black bin for waste.
> 
> ...






> “Half of this book was written in the new Labour years,” she explains, “when the community centre at St Ann’s was buzzing all the time with various courses and classes. People said the money was working and I was always shouted down on this issue.
> 
> “Then 2010 came, the money disappeared, and nothing happened. No-one could use any of the skills they learnt or get a job.



She seems pretty sharp indeed, and humane..


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2015)

treelover said:


> She seems pretty sharp indeed, and humane..




this is a good bit from her:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/21/estate-working-class-problem-st-anns-nottingham


----------



## bemused (Mar 30, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Or kitchens



Sign of the times that the Leader of a Party claiming to representing ordinary working people lives in a £2 million house, has never had a job outside politics and is too embarrassed to be pictured in his kitchen just in case people work out he's actually rich and privileged.


----------



## andysays (Mar 30, 2015)

bemused said:


> Sign of the times that the Leader of a Party claiming to representing ordinary working people lives in a £2 million house, has never had a job outside politics and is too embarrassed to be pictured in his kitchen just in case people work out he's actually rich and privileged.



It's also a sign of the times that the nature of different party leaders' kitchens is thought worthy of discussion, a sign that there is very little in the way of significant difference when it comes to policies etc.

It's true that Miliband is rich and privileged, but it's always been the case that leaders of the Labour Party have been more rich and privileged than most of those whose votes they've tried to attract.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2015)

you don't have to live on an estate out of a terraced house etc to claim represent the interests of the working classes. You have to actually do so. Tony Benn wasn't short of a few bob, and yet he was still well regarded on the left for walking the walk. The main thrust against Milliband seems to be 'he's a jew geek with a big house'. Like andysays says (double says ftw) its telling, you can't attack a man on policies when they are just 'me too' to your own.


----------



## andysays (Mar 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you don't have to live on an estate out of a terraced house etc to claim represent the interests of the working classes. You have to actually do so. Tony Benn wasn't short of a few bob, and yet he was still well regarded on the left for walking the walk. The main thrust against Milliband seems to be 'he's a jew geek with a big house'. Like andysays says (double says ftw) its telling, you can't attack a man on policies when they are just 'me too' to your own.



There's a danger in criticising Miliband for his house/kitchen/lifestyle that it focusses on the simple fact of it, rather than the exclusivity of it. After the revolution we will *all* live in nice houses and have kitchens like Miliband.


----------



## bemused (Mar 30, 2015)

andysays said:


> It's also a sign of the times that the nature of different party leaders' kitchens is thought worthy of discussion, a sign that there is very little in the way of significant difference when it comes to policies etc.



I don't really care what his kitchen looks like, just that he didn't think the electorate is smart enough to understand if you live in a £2 million house it's going a pretty nice gaffe. I agree with you that the only reason _they _think it's important is because the differences between the actual polices is so minor as to be meaningless.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 30, 2015)

Milband gaffes and Miliband gaffs are distinct political issues.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you don't have to live on an estate out of a terraced house etc to claim represent the interests of the working classes. You have to actually do so. Tony Benn wasn't short of a few bob, and yet he was still well regarded on the left for walking the walk. The main thrust against Milliband seems to be 'he's a jew geek with a big house'. Like andysays says (double says ftw) its telling, you can't attack a man on policies when they are just 'me too' to your own.


The left ain't the class though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The left ain't the class though.


true enough, I'm more tilting towards the point that being born rich and privileged does not mean someone cannot be a committed worker for social equality. hardly a new idea I know!


----------



## rioted (Mar 30, 2015)

andysays said:


> After the revolution we will *all* live in nice houses and have kitchens like Miliband.


What about the Rolls Royce? Surely we'll all have our own Rolls, a private helicopter, a horse or two in the paddock and holidays in the Caribbean two or three times a year. And genuine Burberry, no fakes! You set your sights too low comrade.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2015)




----------



## bemused (Apr 1, 2015)

As much as I giggle at the LibDems I'm not sure what is bad about making it more difficult for police to use DNA, harder to monitor citizens and ending prison sentences for drug possession?


----------



## bemused (Apr 1, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Got to say, this 'We'll restrict profits a bit ... ' stuff is falling rather short of my expectations of what 'We'll protect the NHS' should mean ...



5% margin is pretty low, surely it'll just encourage more complex services contracts where they buy from other companies to reduce their profit; if coffee companies can do it I'm sure health companies can. 

While I'm at it why does the NHS get special attention, if Labour think they can cap profits on NHS contracts why not on all public services contracts? Why not cap profits on road construction, military contracts and public transport outsourcing? 

I really can't see this reducing the cost of contracting on the NHS.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 2, 2015)

As well as that 5% you've still got all the money wasted on the comissioning process. And even 5% is quite a lot if you think about increasing the NHS budget by that amount instead of letting profiteers make off with it.

And yes, I would expect to see daisy-chains of outsourcing from one firm to another. If that's not happening already.

Simply pledging to restrict profits is typical of this current labour lot, and it looks a lot like the energy price freeze thing. No structural change to the system that caused the problem in the first place, just superficial and probably doomed policies which strongly suggest that the people who thought them up don't have the first clue how the world actually works. Policies created by idiots, for idiots.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 2, 2015)

Not mentioned on this thread (that I saw) but the "zero hours" thing:


> "The next Labour government will ban zero-hour contracts for employees who are in practice working regular hours. This absolute new legal right to a regular contract will apply to workers after just 12 weeks"


http://www.theguardian.com/politics...racts-to-get-regular-contracts-after-3-months

So, if you work regular hours in your zero hour contract it will have to be converted to a non zero hour one after 12 weeks. Great. Of course if you _don't_ work regular hours, nope. So basically this encourages companies doing zero hour contracts to give workers even less regular work than they do right now.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 11, 2015)

> Mr. Pink: Hey, why am I Mr. Pink?
> 
> Joe: Because you're a faggot.
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 11, 2015)

Now that's a parade of dickheads


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Now that's a parade of dickheads


it can't be a parade of dickheads without james murphy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 11, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it can't be a parade of dickheads without james murphy.


It does have Dougie Alexander, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> It does have Dougie Alexander, though.


if it doesn't have the biggest dickhead north of the border then it's a pisspoor parade of pricks.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 11, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> if it doesn't have the biggest dickhead north of the border then it's a pisspoor parade of pricks.


yeah but...


> Be thankful you're not Mr. Yellow.
> 
> Mr. Brown: Yeah, but M*r. Brown is a little too close to Mr. Shit*.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 12, 2015)

So, there was I minding my own business and the jumble sale table, when two of the local Labour ward councillors come over and attempt a charm offensive of "come on, we're human beings just like you".

Human beings or not, they've badly let this estate down.  They've reassured us, while not even keeping track of what the council are doing in their name.  They said they weren't happy about what's happened, but had nothing to say about what exactly they'd do to help us or stop 'regeneration'.  They had no idea that only householders (one adult per dwelling) instead of every adult on the electoral roll would be asked for their views.  Again, their main response was "sorry, we didn't know".

Okay.  You didn't know.  You didn't know that Chukka Umunna (Labour) is apparently being led by the nose by Matthew Bennett (Labour), who's on the cabinet for housing and dead set on regeneration across the borough at any cost  - be it social or financial.  You didn't know that Labour have been claiming that they care but are powerless at every single bloody level to do anything at all to help.

You didn't know?  It's been your job to know, and you do now.  Either help, or lose your jobs next month.


----------



## Mad-Martin (Apr 12, 2015)

why complain about Labour and social housing, because under the Tories you'd have it far worse.

they would privatise the lot!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 12, 2015)

Mad-Martin said:


> why complain about Labour and social housing, because under the Tories you'd have it far worse.
> 
> they would privatise the lot!



Why complain about someone breaking all the fingers on your right hand when you could thank them for not breaking any of the fingers on your left hand?


----------



## superfly101 (Apr 12, 2015)

Greebo said:


> So, there was I minding my own business and the jumble sale table, when two of the local Labour ward councillors come over and attempt a charm offensive of "come on, we're human beings just like you".



Bargain hunt staring Maggie T & Chucka (even J. Stathem couldn't couldn't look this hot imho although he might be able to aford my suit) fucking over the rural poor (not in expenses paid central London flats/houses) for 50p and a tea bag?


----------



## Greebo (Apr 12, 2015)

Mad-Martin said:


> why complain about Labour and social housing, because under the Tories you'd have it far worse.
> 
> they would privatise the lot!


Fuck off, you surplus nomark of a rancid pusbucket.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 13, 2015)

So Labour are claiming that they're changing their tune on TTIP. Does anyone believe this is real?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> So Labour are claiming that they're changing their tune on TTIP. Does anyone believe this is real?



the tweet is real. the policy? not so sure.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 13, 2015)

I'm getting the idea that their incredibly expensive political research team is telling them that they need to push out a few last minute left-ish promises on stuff like this if they want to win in some of their target seats or even in some cases to have a chance of winning (e.g. in Scotland)

I'm pretty sceptical that they've experienced a sudden conversion to socialism given that their policy team was moving in quite the opposite direct last year. 

See e.g. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/nick-dearden/labour-and-ttip-things-just-got-worse


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> So Labour are claiming that they're changing their tune on TTIP. Does anyone believe this is real?





If that's the case , this is significant, Labour do seem to be shifting on some N/L shibboleths.

Whether that is a permanent policy change or just electioneering is indeed an open question.


----------



## Libertad (Apr 13, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Fuck off, you surplus nomark of a rancid pusbucket.



You're on form today sweetie


----------



## teqniq (Apr 13, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> So Labour are claiming that they're changing their tune on TTIP. Does anyone believe this is real?



Would be nice if they have changed their tune, I remain unconvinced though.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 13, 2015)

Libertad said:


> You're on form today sweetie


Yesterday, and that was coming out of a migraine; the censor was barely working.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2015)

Seymour appears to have been to the LSE's Wolfgang Streeck lecture...



> Given the success of the rich in lobbying against tax increases, and in avoiding paying tax in the first place, it is increasingly difficult to raise the revenues needed for existing services. Taxes on consumption – which hit the poor hardest – have been implemented, but there is limited political tolerance for these. States are increasingly left with very little room to manoeuvre, while the growing domination of government discourse by neoliberal doctrine tends to suppress policy choices which are not ‘market-friendly’.



and then uses Doran's phrase to describe Labour's 'lose, lose' electoral prospects as "Pasokification"...



> The party is trapped in a spiral of self-destruction, which James Doran, a Labour activist, has called ‘Pasokification’. Greece’s dominant centre-left party implemented austerity and its vote collapsed from 43.9 per cent in 2009 to 4.7 per cent in 2015 – but Pasok’s fate is only an extreme form of the implosion threatening most European social democratic parties, from the German Social Democrats to the French Socialists. The Labour Party faces a dilemma in May. *Defeat will be demoralising and will increase the possibility that the party will ultimately collapse.* There is little evidence that any significant force, other than the Blairites, would be in a position to take advantage of Miliband’s loss, and certainly none that a Labour left with any influence would emerge from the ruins. *Yet if it wins, Labour will be forced to implement an austerity agenda which, while not enough to satisfy Conservative voters, will turn its own remaining voters off in droves.*


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Seymour appears to have been to the LSE's Wolfgang Streeck lecture...
> 
> 
> 
> and then uses Doran's phrase to describe Labour's 'lose, lose' electoral prospects as "Pasokification"...


one thing which could have prevented the collapse or indeed decline of parties like the labour party, french socialists etc is if they were in fact socialist.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 24, 2015)

*Labour to call on Michael Heseltine if it wins election*
The former Conservative deputy prime minister is being lined up by the shadow business secretary, Chuka Umunna, to advise Labour in government

laugh or cry?


----------



## treelover (Apr 24, 2015)

> “Michael was a visionary, there’s no doubt about that and he fought battles with the right of his party like Michael Portillo against active government and I believe in active government, which is different from intervention. Active government is working in partnership with the private sector.”



Chukka the Tory?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 24, 2015)

Deeply unimpressed, albeit unsurprised, about Miliband's criticism of Cameron on foreign policy. His main issue with Cameron on Libya was "post-conflict planning" as if somehow the main issue with the imperialist bombing of Libya or for that matter Iraq, Serbia ad infinitum was throwing a few more resources at controlling the fallout. Vote Labour for a smarter, better imperialism where refugees don't inconvenience us after we are finished bombing them.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 24, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Deeply unimpressed, albeit unsurprised, about Miliband's criticism of Cameron on foreign policy. His main issue with Cameron on Libya was "post-conflict planning" as if somehow the main issue with the imperialist bombing of Libya or for that matter Iraq, Serbia ad infinitum was throwing a few more resources at controlling the fallout. Vote Labour for a smarter, better imperialism where refugees don't inconvenience us after we are finished bombing them.


Wasn't this Farage's line?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Wasn't this Farage's line?



Nah, Farage opposed and still opposes the actual bombing and has made a commitment that he believes that we should give asylum to refugees (albeit only Christian ones) which is more than you can say for Miliband. Depressing that the nearest one to a vaguely humanitarian policy on Libya is the leader of UKIP but that is where we are apparently.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2015)

...you Jane.



> *Lord Heseltine, the former Tory deputy prime minister who championed the regeneration of Britain’s inner cities in the 1980s, is being lined up by the shadow business secretary to advise Labour in government.*
> 
> In a sign of how some Labour figures will try to revive the “big tent” approach of Tony Blair, Chuka Umunna described Heseltine as a visionary who could advise him on plans for the further devolution of power to the English cities and regions.





> “There is no denying it, a lot of people in the Labour movement are quite inspired by what he’s done in rejuvenating cities and regions,” he told the Guardian. *“Just because he is a Tory should not stand in the way of us working with him in the future and I very much hope to do that.”*



'kinnel.

e2a : Sorry...Bishop's Finger post...again.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 25, 2015)

Ed Miliband should stop “sneering” at wealth creators, says Lord Jones of Birmingham, who was a minister from 2007 to 2008 in Gordon Brown’s government.
Criticising the Labour leader, the former trade minister accuses Mr Miliband of being “ignorant at worst and disinterested at best” about the effects of higher taxes.

Fuck off!


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 25, 2015)

The cunt was on LBC (Livingstone and Mellor) this morning too.


----------



## co-op (Apr 25, 2015)

treelover said:


> Chukka the Tory?



On another thread...




co-op said:


> He's a total careerist and not anywhere near as smart as he thinks. He only got into Parliament because he was running against the odious Steve Reed for the Labour candidacy in Streatham and Reed (who has a gift for pissing people off) pissed what's left of the local Labour Party off even more than before by acting as though it was a coronation. Chuka got lucky, or more likely he's just got a careerists nose for an opportunity. He's the grandson of a High Court Judge, went to private schools and has said he'd send his children to the same. His main asset is having a few drops of African blood so he can make all his upper-middle class chums feel excitingly non-racist.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 25, 2015)

Also very unimpressed, and unsurprised, by Oliver Coppard's no show at the anti-privatisation of the NHS march in Sheffield Hallam today. Great march with hundreds of positive but angry people, loads of support from passersby (including drivers who were held up by the march) but Oliver Coppard couldn't even be bothered to show up and instead came about 30 minutes afterwards to canvass stragglers walking back from it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 25, 2015)

Seems mad to to make use of an opportunity like that, I mean anti-privitisation of the NHS is supported by voters of all parties.


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2015)

I watched Ed this morning on the Andy Marr show saying he won't be doing any deals with the SNP. In about six weeks that's going to be a very repeatable clip.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 26, 2015)

I refuse to call Labour scum, they don't always rise to the top.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2015)

bemused said:


> I watched Ed this morning on the Andy Marr show saying he won't be doing any deals with the SNP. In about six weeks that's going to be a very repeatable clip.


Maybe, maybe not.

If he gets the chance to put a QS to parliament the ball will be in Sturgeon's court. It will be up to her whether or not go into the division with Lab.


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> If he gets the chance to put a QS to parliament the ball will be in Sturgeon's court. It will be up to her whether or not go into the division with Lab.



I can see his line which is 'don't support me and you let Cameron in.' however she could simply say she'll support him on votes that only impact Scotland and completely screw him.

There is no way he won't make a deal.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2015)

bemused said:


> I can see his line which is 'don't support me and you let Cameron in.' however she could simply say she'll support him on votes that only impact Scotland and completely screw him.
> 
> There is no way he won't make a deal.


She can say what she likes, but the QS is a VoC; that's a yes/no decision.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2015)

bemused said:


> I watched Ed this morning on the Andy Marr show saying he won't be doing any deals with the SNP. In about six weeks that's going to be a very repeatable clip.


yeh as his refusal lets in the tories


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> She can say what she likes, but the QS is a VoC; that's a yes/no decision.


sadly the queen remains


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2015)

bemused said:


> I can see his line which is 'don't support me and you let Cameron in.' however she could simply say she'll support him on votes that only impact Scotland and completely screw him.


As brogdale says that won't work. If neither the Tories or Labour can get a QS passed we'll have a new general election. I can't see the SNP, or any of the minor parties, wanting that. Assuming any QS by a pro-Tory block is voted down, the SNP have to vote for (or at least enable) a Lab QS or have a new election.



bemused said:


> There is no way he won't make a deal.Well it depends what you mean by a deal.


There won't be a formal Lab-SNP coalition, neither party wants it (sensible decision from the view of both parties), I can also see a situation where there is no formal deal on supply-and-demand, but lots of politicking by a Labour minority gov. If fact that looks like what Labour are ultimately going for.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 26, 2015)

Apparently the NF in Kent thought the same too, with their intimidation & harassment of female Lab canvassers yesterday;

https://www.facebook.com/SLATUKIPThree/videos/vb.324019817743758/691793360966400/?type=2&theater


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> As brogdale says that won't work. If neither the Tories or Labour can get a QS passed we'll have a new general election. I can't see the SNP, or any of the minor parties, wanting that. Assuming any QS by a pro-Tory block is voted down, the SNP have to vote for (or at least enable) a Lab QS or have a new election.



I've no doubt they'll pass his QS but that's not a promise of ongoing support.

Personally I'd like to see the SNP propping up a Labour government because it'll put how England is governed front and center. Whilst power has been devolved into Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland it's been centralised in England into Westminster. It would be nice to see local democracy start to return in England .... sadly I can't see that happening. 

I still hold the opinion that Ed's promise of 'no deals' is a fib. He'll be wheeling and dealing with them and the SNP will be very vocal about it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2015)

bemused said:


> I've no doubt they'll pass his QS but that's not a promise of ongoing support.


But why would they need a promise of ongoing support, they can simply use the fact that SNP won't support a Tory gov as a way to manoeuvre.


----------



## treelover (Apr 26, 2015)

Labour to cap rents even more than planned, penalise rubbish landlords, if it happens, a big if, slowly there is something to vote for in their case.


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> But why would they need a promise of ongoing support, they can simply use the fact that SNP won't support a Tory gov as a way to manoeuvre.



The SNP will need to demonstrate that they leveraged their influence in Westminster the threat not to vote on English only measures making Labour's life very difficult is going to force a deal. The SNPs lkey message is vote for us and we'll influence the Labour Party


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 26, 2015)

you've been talking yourself into a labour vote for a few weeksa tho tree


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> Labour to cap rents even more than planned, penalise rubbush landlords, if it happens slowly there is something to vote for in their case.


yes tory cuts with a labour face


----------



## bemused (Apr 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> Labour to cap rents even more than planned, penalise rubbush landlords, if it happens slowly there is something to vote for in their case.



Listening to some experts on the radio this morning they seem to be suggesting that this is just going to mean landlords jack up the rents prior to lease and on the renewals. 

These guys seem to make a good point http://www.generationrent.org/why_labour_s_rent_cap_won_t_make_your_rent_cheaper


----------



## treelover (Apr 26, 2015)

Yes, I know that, I am concerned it could happen to me, but at least a precedent would be set and safeguards could be developed


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2015)

bemused said:


> Listening to some experts on the radio this morning they seem to be suggesting that this is just going to mean landlords jack up the rents prior to lease and on the renewals.
> 
> These guys seem to make a good point http://www.generationrent.org/why_labour_s_rent_cap_won_t_make_your_rent_cheaper


aw don't throw treelover down to the ground


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> Yes, I know that, I am concerned it could happen to me, but at least a precedent would be set and safeguards could be developed


oh please think before you post, it would be so refreshing


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Apparently the NF in Kent thought the same too, with their intimidation & harassment of female Lab canvassers yesterday;
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/SLATUKIPThree/videos/vb.324019817743758/691793360966400/?type=2&theater



Bunch of worthless mob-handed wankers.
No change there, then!


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bunch of worthless mob-handed wankers.
> No change there, then!


 
'Uneducated' and 'probably dole dossers' according to some of the comments on that page.

I haven't the strength... 

(The far right are on dodgy ground going on about paedophiles given the number in their ranks too)


----------



## treelover (Apr 26, 2015)

'Uneducated' seems to be the epithet of choice for liberals when describing the EDl, etc, no self awareness that they have been lucky or affluent enough to get one.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 26, 2015)




----------



## articul8 (Apr 26, 2015)

ska invita said:


> *Labour to call on Michael Heseltine if it wins election*
> The former Conservative deputy prime minister is being lined up by the shadow business secretary, Chuka Umunna, to advise Labour in government
> 
> laugh or cry?


Cry


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Cry


Cry and stay in the party?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 26, 2015)

.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 26, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Cry_ havoc and let slip the dogs of classwar_


Corrected for you.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 27, 2015)

.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 28, 2015)

Labour aren't against zero hours contracts, only "exploitative zero hours contracts": 

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/zerohours-contracts-exploitative/9437


----------



## Greebo (Apr 28, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Labour aren't against zero hours contracts, only "exploitative zero hours contracts" <snip>


Is Labour (or any other party) in favour of zero hours rent and utility bills?  As long as these remain a more or less set amount, unvaried by the amount of work your employer gave you, zero hour contracts do not equal a living wage.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 28, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Labour aren't against zero hours contracts, only "exploitative zero hours contracts":
> 
> http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/zerohours-contracts-exploitative/9437



There are non-exploitative uses of them.  As an example the company I work for has someone who has retired but will occasionally provide some support when required since they have a lot of valuable knowledge/experience.  They're kept on the books on a zero hour contract so they can be paid when they do this work, with the advantage that they don't have to go through the hassle of setting themselves up as a consultant and deal with all their own tax affairs (and it's simpler for the company too).  I can't see anything wrong with this, and don't think a blanket ban would make much sense if it stopped these kind of simple arrangements.  

At the same time I don't think examples like my one should be used to argue against any restriction on their use, companies like Sports Direct need to be hung out to dry.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Apr 28, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> There are non-exploitative uses of them.  As an example the company I work for has someone who has retired but will occasionally provide some support when required since they have a lot of valuable knowledge/experience.  They're kept on the books on a zero hour contract so they can be paid when they do this work, with the advantage that they don't have to go through the hassle of setting themselves up as a consultant and deal with all their own tax affairs (and it's simpler for the company too).  I can't see anything wrong with this, and don't think a blanket ban would make much sense if it stopped these kind of simple arrangements.
> 
> At the same time I don't think examples like my one should be used to argue against any restriction on their use, companies like Sports Direct need to be hung out to dry.




That really could open a can of worms like the idea you can call on a retired person with valuable knowledge but the "Zero Hours" contract we all know of as a way of earning your weekly wage and not knowing how much you are gonna get so as to plan a weekly budget needs to be stamped on hard [And I can see more than one company getting rid of effective TU or Health and safety reps using zero hour contracts]


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 28, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> There are non-exploitative uses of them.


Labour thinks the ones they use are non-exploitative.  Like the people in the report who were employed for Glasgow Council on zero hours contracts, to put up the stage settings saying "ban exploitative zero hours contracts".

When asked, neither Ed Balls nor Jim Murphy thought this was hypocritical.

Video here:

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10152892648836939/


----------



## articul8 (Apr 28, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Labour aren't against zero hours contracts, only "exploitative zero hours contracts":
> 
> http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/zerohours-contracts-exploitative/9437


the critical thing is determining what counts as "non-exploitative" - the bottom line is people should only be working on zero hours contracts out of positive choice, and not just "choice" in the absence of any better options.


----------



## andysays (Apr 28, 2015)

articul8 said:


> the critical thing is determining what counts as "non-exploitative" - the bottom line is people should only be working on zero hours contracts out of positive choice, and not just "choice" in the absence of any better options.



This is nonsense - *all* employment contracts are exploitative, because of the structural power difference between employer and employee. Zero-hours contracts are simply *more* exploitative than others, because the employee has no control over what hours they work and thus no guarantee of achieving a particular wage in any given week.

And the idea that an employee can enter into *any* contract of employment out of "positive choice" rather than economic necessity, let alone a zero-hours contract, is just the sort of simplistic and economically illiterate bollocks we'd expect from both the Labour party and from you.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> This is nonsense - *all* employment contracts are exploitative, because of the structural power difference between employer and employee. Zero-hours contracts are simply *more* exploitative than others, because the employee has no control over what hours they work and thus no guarantee of achieving a particular wage in any given week.
> 
> And the idea that an employee can enter into *any* contract of employment out of "positive choice" rather than economic necessity, let alone a zero-hours contract, is just the sort of simplistic and economically illiterate bollocks we'd expect from both the Labour party and from you.


This is also partially why "banning" zero hours contracts is basically pointless. Because unless they're going to ban casual work altogether then the same situation is going to exist with a different name.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> And the idea that an employee can enter into *any* contract of employment out of "positive choice" rather than economic necessity, let alone a zero-hours contract, is just the sort of...


Yes, ok point taken - it remains true though that some people eg. people who have taken early retirment that might want a few hours showing visitors round a museum every week, actually quite like the freedom of a zero hours contract.  What's totally wrong is to imply that this represents the situation of most zero hours contract workers, who are on them only because employers aren't offering enough jobs with a minimum number of guaranteed hours.  It's the latter category of people that are on "super-exploitative" contracts that should be helped in the first instance.


----------



## andysays (Apr 28, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Yes, ok point taken - it remains true though that some people eg. people who have taken early retirment that might want a few hours showing visitors round a museum every week, actually quite like the freedom of a zero hours contract.  What's totally wrong is to imply that this represents the situation of most zero hours contract workers, who are on them only because employers aren't offering enough jobs with a minimum number of guaranteed hours.  It's the latter category of people that are on "super-exploitative" contracts that should be helped in the first instance.



It's you and your party who are arguing that there are significant "non-exploitative" examples of zero-hours contracts, whereas in reality they are, I suggest, a tiny and ultimately statistically insignificant number of the ever-growing number. To even attempt to make this distinction in the current economic climate is simply to demonstrate that you are the unscrupulous employers' friends.

And surely if there is scope for your "people who have taken early retirment that might want a few hours showing visitors round a museum every week" then someone can and should be employed to do that work on a properly contracted regular basis?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> And surely if there is scope for your "people who have taken early retirment that might want a few hours showing visitors round a museum every week" then someone can and should be employed to do that work on a properly contracted regular basis?



Not if they don't want to - they might want the flexibility of not working many hours one week, if they're looking after the grandkids at half term etc.  In no way am I saying this justifies the rampant casualisation of the labour market in general.  Labour should, and hopefully will, end the imposition of zero hours contracts across whole sectors of the economy.  The key is issue is that the flexibility should be on the workers' side, not the bosses'.


----------



## andysays (Apr 28, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Not if they don't want to - they might want the flexibility of not working many hours one week, if they're looking after the grandkids at half term etc.  In no way am I saying this justifies the rampant casualisation of the labour market in general.  Labour should, and hopefully will, end the imposition of zero hours contracts across whole sectors of the economy.  The key is issue is that the flexibility should be on the workers' side, not the bosses'.



I'm talking about employing someone who isn't retired, with proper terms and conditions rather than having someone who is retired on call as a way of avoiding having to avoid employing someone on a regular basis, with regular and guaranteed hours of work.

But even focussing on this tiny number, rather than the vast majority who are working with zero-hour contracts out of absolute necessity, is to distort the issue and the arguments around it, as is bringing up the spurious notion of flexibility. 

All the flexibility in zero-hours contracts is in favour of the employer - the employee doesn't have any choice in how many hours they work or when those hours are - that is the whole point of such contracts. Only someone who is effectively insulated from such practices could make the mistake of thinking that flexibility and choice have anything to do with an employee's experiences of zero-hours contracts.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> All the flexibility in zero-hours contracts is in favour of the employer - the employee doesn't have any choice in how many hours they work or when those hours are - that is the whole point of such contracts. Only someone who is effectively insulated from such practices could make the mistake of thinking that flexibility and choice have anything to do with an employee's experiences of zero-hours contracts.


Of course that's the case in most instances - but not in *all* instances, that is my point.  That is why the government can always point to a few people who actively welcome the flexibility of zero hours contracts (in my example, of the semi-retired person wanting the option of a few hours of relatively enjoyable work here or there without having to do a minimum each week - _that's_ the very limited circumstance of when there's no reason to ban the arrangement).  *of course* I'm not saying that is in any way how most zero hours contracts work or should be judged - which is why Labour wants exploitation on zero hours contracts to end.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 28, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Not if they don't want to - they might want the flexibility of not working many hours one week, if they're looking after the grandkids at half term etc.  In no way am I saying this justifies the rampant casualisation of the labour market in general.  Labour should, and hopefully will, end the imposition of zero hours contracts across whole sectors of the economy.  The key is issue is that the flexibility should be on the workers' side, not the bosses'.



That sort of flexibility is not actually delivered by a ZHC, is it? Your boss can still insist that any day of work is vital to the role and tell you to work it or find another job, just like they could if you had a regular part-time contract. 

Similarly if you have a regular part-time contract it's perfectly possible to arrange periods of leave, either by using your holiday entitlement, working extra hours and accruing TOIL or by just negotiating unpaid leave. 

The only thing the ZHC does is protect the employer from potentially having to pay you when they don't want to.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> That sort of flexibility is not actually delivered by a ZHC, is it? Your boss can still insist that any day of work is vital to the role and tell you to work it or find another job, just like they could if you had a regular part-time contract.



It's appears to some people to be delivered to an extent - but it's not *guaranteed*, no.  But then it would be only ever appeal to those for whom paid working hours are relatively discretionary - which obviously isn't the case for most ZHC workers.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 28, 2015)

articul8 said:


> It's appears to some people to be delivered to an extent - but it's not *guaranteed*, no.  But then it would be only ever appeal to those for whom paid working hours are relatively discretionary - which obviously isn't the case for most ZHC workers.



I mean the reality is unless your employer is understanding about your need for flexibility in that situation it doesn't matter what kind of contract you're on. And if they are that understanding, then it doesn't matter what kind of contract you're on either!


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 29, 2015)

I'm not sure how to argue with these SCLV types anymore. On one hand they concede that labour has never been a properly socialist party. On the other hand they don't want a return to Keynesian policies. They want to squeeze concessions out of the bourgeoisie. For them trade unions seem to be pro-working class institutions, merely with a vacillating bureaucracy that mediates between labour and capital. When I argued that unions are more atomised and fragmented than they'd like to believe, it's chalked down to a low level of class struggle, not their philistine reformist marxism desperately in search of postmodern theological solace. They also seem to be against other methods of self-organisation. Quick, bring the commissars in. Any objections are either tossed aside as lazy left-communist/ultraleft handringing or anarcho-syndicalism. 

Has any of this actually been thought out? 

Any contemporary literature on this topic or at least since the 1980s? butchersapron Knotted Pickman's model chilango


----------



## Oliver Queen (Apr 29, 2015)

Anyone who votes for Labour is knowingly condoning a political party turning a blind eye to child abuse. If you think that is perfectly fine, as many brainwashed Labourites do, then vote for them as you're more than welcome to one another. I, and many others, were appalled at the events in Rotherham and other cities and towns in the UK and will be voting for the only party pragmatic enough to stamp it out, UKIP.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 29, 2015)

i guess what I'm trying to get across to these Trots is that trade unions are inherently bureaucratic institutions because they operate like businesses and use managerial structures (they should answer how 50% of union members are in well off professionalised jobs and less than 20% of unskilled workers are unionised.) To say that we'll vote for labour and push for a (nonexistent) labour left really doesn't take note of how economism is the dominant mode of struggle at the moment. And then you get accused of having no strategy for achieving socialism/communism. Well neither do you, on further inspection, sunshine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2015)

articul8 said:


> the critical thing is determining what counts as "non-exploitative" - the bottom line is people should only be working on zero hours contracts out of positive choice, and not just "choice" in the absence of any better options.


you daft twat. *all* employer - employee relationships are exploitative, as any novice marxist could tell you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2015)

Oliver Queen said:


> Anyone who votes for Labour is knowingly condoning a political party turning a blind eye to child abuse. If you think that is perfectly fine, as many brainwashed Labourites do, then vote for them as you're more than welcome to one another. I, and many others, were appalled at the events in Rotherham and other cities and towns in the UK and will be voting for the only party pragmatic enough to stamp it out, UKIP.


pragmatic. but not, i note, principled.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 29, 2015)

I don't know why Labout are scum, but I can tell you how:  Chuka Umunna, the local MP here has taken to badmouthing an entire council housing estate, as well as his closest rivals (the Green party).  You can read about it on other threads, but basically if he and other people in his party had done a little more for this estate, they'd have nothing to fear in this Labour safe seat.  As it is, his (and their) behaviour is likely to be a vote loser.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you daft twat. *all* employer - employee relationships are exploitative, as any novice marxist could tell you.



Dear lord. And I thought most Trots were absolutely fucking shit at Marxism... This takes the cake...


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you daft twat. *all* employer - employee relationships are exploitative, as any novice marxist could tell you.


I've already agreed as much in response to andysays - still, wouldn't expect you to entertain an original thought


----------



## andysays (Apr 29, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I've already agreed as much in response to andysays - still, wouldn't expect you to entertain an original thought



A bit of an equivocal agreement as I remember, still insisting on the appropriateness of Labour's distinction between exploitative and non-exploitative zero-hours contracts - still, wouldn't expect you to entertain the possibility of actually recognising that the Labour party is utterly dominated by nonsense such as that employment contracts can be something other than exploitative and will therefore always be merely reformist, even though that can hardly be described as an original thought on my part...


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2015)

So your critique amounts to Labour not promising to abolish labour power as a commodity...?


----------



## andysays (Apr 29, 2015)

More nonsensical misrepresentation of argument by the self regarding master philosopher


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I've already agreed as much in response to andysays - still, wouldn't expect you to entertain an original thought


i never said i thought i was original. in fact i thought i made clear the notion at least 150 years auld.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> More nonsensical misrepresentation of argument by the self regarding master philosopher


master debater


----------



## Greebo (Apr 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> master debater


I'm afraid there's already a claimant for that title.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2015)

Greebo said:


> I'm afraid there's already a claimant for that title.


no, dwyer's a mass debater


----------



## Greebo (Apr 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> no, dwyer's a mass debater


Luckily for us, into the arts and not the sciences, or he'd be a maths debater.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2015)

[.] probably better on another thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2015)

articul8 said:


> [.] probably better on another thread


probably better not posted at all.


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2015)

> Back in Cardiff, *Ed Miliband *has just announced that Labour would effectively cancel the bedroom tax on its first day in office. It would do that by making funds available to councils to allow them to compensate people for the cost of the bedroom tax in full.



From Guardian Election update

Pretty impressive,


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2015)

piss weak more like- why top up councul funds rather than just get rid of the iniquitous tax all together? Because that sounds like welfare reform, and not the sort the r/w rags like.


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2015)

I think they mean that is the first step to abolishing it.


----------



## Greebo (May 1, 2015)

treelover said:


> I think they mean that is the first step to abolishing it.


I hope so, but it comes across more as offering bandages and painkillers to people who've been mugged, instead of catching the muggers (or preventing the attacks in the first place).


----------



## Duncan2 (May 1, 2015)

Going back to zero hours contracts I can't see what would prevent employers using Agency in place of the former zhc employees??Are not the legions of temporary workers on zero hours contracts by another name and if so I can't see how Labour's promised ban would make much difference unless ,as is possible,I am missing some bleeding obvious distinction.


----------



## tbtommyb (May 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> piss weak more like- why top up councul funds rather than just get rid of the iniquitous tax all together? Because that sounds like welfare reform, and not the sort the r/w rags like.


You'd need to introduce legislation so it would take a bit. This means there would be no net changes for councils due to the bedroom tax.

Not that I disagree with saying labour is piss weak in general


----------



## rioted (May 1, 2015)

treelover said:


> From Guardian Election update
> 
> Pretty impressive,


Isn't that just copying what the SNP do in Scotland?


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2015)

Duncan2 said:


> Going back to zero hours contracts I can't see what would prevent employers using Agency in place of the former zhc employees??Are not the legions of temporary workers on zero hours contracts by another name and if so I can't see how Labour's promised ban would make much difference unless ,as is possible,I am missing some bleeding obvious distinction.




Tony Blair's beloved 'flexible labour markets', yes, I think I agree with you on the agencies.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 2, 2015)

Ed Miliband said:
			
		

> Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess on the birth of their daughter. Wishing them lots of joy and happiness - and hopefully some sleep!



Chasing royalist votes now? What happened to the 35% strategy, you whore?


----------



## treelover (May 2, 2015)

> How to win the future: why Blue Labour is the way forward
> *In a world so highly individualised, what we need is a cultural rather than an economic politics.
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/how-win-future-why-blue-labour-way-forward*



Looks like Blue Labour are on manoeuvres again,


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 2, 2015)

treelover said:


> Looks like Blue Labour are on manoeuvres again,



It's not Blue Labour on manoeuvres when the piece is written by Blond, ffs. It's Red Tories, utterly marginalised by their party, desperately seeking relevance.


----------



## bi0boy (May 3, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (May 3, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> View attachment 71026


He's going to regret that...a credit-card sized card would have been way more practical.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 3, 2015)

It's going to be so widely parodied and photoshopped. It's like Cameron's stupid airbrushed head from last time round all over again.*


They really don't think these things through.

*incidentally, I can't remember seeing any big billboard posters - are they not doing them this time?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 3, 2015)

It's so weak it's not even worth taking the piss out of it. Though I do like* the way #4 is just thrown in apparently without any connection to anything else.

* not really like as such


----------



## Dogsauce (May 3, 2015)

Piss-taking is already well underway:


----------



## bemused (May 3, 2015)

What the actual fuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> View attachment 71026


that's a very weak signature


----------



## red & green (May 3, 2015)

Is that a tombstone?


----------



## teqniq (May 3, 2015)

It might as well be


----------



## Indeliblelink (May 3, 2015)

shame it didn't fall on him


----------



## bemused (May 3, 2015)

I'm surprised (and disappointed) Tom Watson seems to be keeping quite about a politic meeting he attended where the women were asked to sit away from the men.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/574616/Labour-Left-speakers-segregated-rally

Granted this is the sort of stuff that racist halfwits jump on and and I doubt he knew that arrangement had been made but it's a shame it's not been commented on and he seems to be a courageous chap.

I guess it's too close to the election to want to piss people off.


----------



## Tankus (May 3, 2015)

Wasn't just watson


----------



## treelover (May 4, 2015)

Dromey's there, wonder what Harriet will think of that?


----------



## treelover (May 4, 2015)

bemused said:


> I'm surprised (and disappointed) Tom Watson seems to be keeping quite about a politic meeting he attended where the women were asked to sit away from the men.
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/574616/Labour-Left-speakers-segregated-rally
> 
> ...



'Labour Left', the Express is having a laugh.


----------



## bi0boy (May 4, 2015)

Apparently Downing Street is Grade I listed so Milliband's pledge to install his pledge stone in the garden may not be too easy to keep. 

*If Miliband erects his pillar in the Rose Garden he may be sent to prison*


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 4, 2015)

I thought for one glorious moment that was along the lines of

He played _second_ _euphemism_ in a local _horn band_


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 4, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Apparently Downing Street is Grade I listed so Milliband's pledge to install his pledge stone in the garden may not be too easy to keep.
> 
> *If Miliband erects his pillar in the Rose Garden he may be sent to prison*




IANAL. But that sounds like a lot of bollocks.

Sadly, it's much more likely that Cameron and Clegg will get another five years and that Miliband will end up with a brand new and rather impressive limestone work surface in one of his kitchens.


----------



## treelover (May 4, 2015)

Lots of the commentariat may not like the stone thing, and in many ways its ridiculous and indeed a hostage to fortune, but speaking to people I know they like the idea, they say it may bring back some trust in politics,


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> Lots of the commentariat may not like the stone thing, and in many ways its ridiculous and indeed a hostage to fortune, but speaking to people I know they like the idea, *they say it may bring back some trust in politics*,



How exactly? Load of old bollocks.


----------



## treelover (May 4, 2015)

> *Eddie Izzard and Jim Murphy abandon Glasgow rally due to anti-Labour protests*
> Mark Smith
> 
> Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy and Eddie Izzard have been forced to abandon a rally on the streets of central Glasgow, as they were shouted down by nationalists chanting “Red Tories out!”.
> ...



Not sure what I feel about this, they are a legitimate party, entitled to a rally, etc.

may have been much more minor incident than reported though


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> Not sure what I feel about this, they are a legitimate party, entitled to a rally, etc.
> 
> may have been much more minor incident than reported though



And people are entitled to protest if they want to. And given the amount of coverage given to Jim Bloody Murphy and the egg throwing, it likely was a minor incident. Surely of more interest is the leader of Labour in Scotland, in *Glasgow* FFS getting that kind of reception. And easy to say it was nationalists -- could be pretty much anyone tbh.


----------



## belboid (May 4, 2015)

Sue said:


> And easy to say it was nationalists -- could be pretty much anyone tbh.


given the polling figures, 2-1 it was the nats tho 

And fair play to them.


----------



## bemused (May 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> Not sure what I feel about this, they are a legitimate party, entitled to a rally, etc.



People counter demonstrated stuff all the time. It's indicative of how dull this election has been that he felt the need to scamper away when the people their didn't agree with him.

Politicians only seem to talk to invited audiences nowadays.


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> given the polling figures, 2-1 it was the nats tho
> 
> And fair play to them.



Depends what you mean by nats I guess -- people voting SNP are not necessarily nationalists and there are plenty of people who are't voting SNP who hate Murphy/Labour.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 4, 2015)

bemused said:


> People counter demonstrated stuff all the time. It's indicative of how dull this election has been that he felt the need to scamper away when the people their didn't agree with him.
> 
> Politicians only seem to talk to invited audiences nowadays.



This is why the Tories only ever appear in stage-managed factory settings, with workers made to stand there in respectful silence under threat of discipline. I'd love to see George Osborne try and stand up in public in Glasgow. It'd be more than eggs.


----------



## bemused (May 4, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> This is why the Tories only ever appear in stage-managed factory settings, with workers made to stand their in respectful silence under threat of discipline. I'd love to see George Osborne try and stand up in public in Glasgow. It'd be more than eggs.



Large groups of voters scare them without the threat of a P45 to keep them in line.

Good luck to the SNP, I do remember Labour teasing the Tories when they were all but killed off in Scotland ... karma...


----------



## gosub (May 5, 2015)

“_I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the fact that he’s carved them into stone means, you know, means that he will absolutely, you know, not going to break them or anything like that.”  Lucy Powell Labour Election strategist._
_








  Which of the vague "promises" is she worried they won't be able to deliver?_


----------



## bemused (May 5, 2015)

gosub said:


> _  Which of the vague "promises" is she worried they won't be able to deliver?_



#2 is a bit iffy, also seems to suggest a but fuck you if you don't have a job.


----------



## captainmission (May 7, 2015)

My local labour council has obtained an injunction against homeless people using the central library following a protest camp set up by homeless people outside the town hall/library. 

A few months ago a group of homeless young people from the place i volunteer went down to anti G4S demo at the townhall. A labour party rally was taking place, so they went to heckle the speakers about welfare reform. They were quickly encircled by labour party supports who chanted scum at them.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2015)

captainmission said:


> My local labour council has obtained an injunction against homeless people using the central library following a protest camp set up by homeless people outside the town hall/library.
> 
> A few months ago a group of homeless young people from the place i volunteer went down to anti G4S demo at the townhall. A labour party rally was taking place, so they went to heckle the speakers about welfare reform. They were quickly encircled by labour party supports who chanted scum at them.


if in the break between their 'scums' you shout 'labour' you undermine their message and ime they shut up very quickly.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2015)

gosub said:


> “_I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the fact that he’s carved them into stone means, you know, means that he will absolutely, you know, not going to break them or anything like that.”  Lucy Powell Labour Election strategist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


they've delivered a cardboard cutout of edward miliband


----------



## Pickman's model (May 7, 2015)

Sue said:


> How exactly? Load of old bollocks.


it is a treelover post and therefore by definition a load of auld bollocks.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (May 7, 2015)

Ah the campaigning student Ed Miliband:






"These rent increases are wrong at a time when negotiations are still going on. Students and the university have been let down by both sides because landlords have acted in a reckless and provocative manner. After the latest rent increases, I would urge both sides to put aside the rhetoric, get round the negotiating table and stop it happening again."


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2015)

'Ted' as he was called then


----------



## binka (May 7, 2015)

be interesting to see how my dad's constituency labour candidate does today, my dad (and two others) had been suspended on completely false charges so that they couldn't stand for selection in the locals to make sure the preferred ones (professionals, managers, solicitors, none of these awful working class trade union types!) got the plum wards. anyway turns out my dad is one of signatures on the branch cheque book and he refused to let them have the two grand in the account to use for campaigning. he's also refused to campaign for them (as have a dozen or so others in the local party - seems solidarity does still exist!) which probably means lots of leaflets have gone undelivered and there won't be much knocking up going on tonight.


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2015)

They ever allowed a situation like this to happen....


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 11, 2015)

Good riddance. Twat. Mind you, they'll probably go whoring after someone from Dragon's Den now.


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2015)

new members...lol

...probably masses to tory stooges desperately trying to get Diane Abbot elected as leader


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Good riddance. Twat. Mind you, they'll probably go whoring after someone from Dragon's Den now.


Balltyne. The bluff scottish one. Meaden and Jones bleed tory.

Theo might be a sly labour man, but who can say.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Balltyne. The bluff scottish one. Meaden and Jones bleed tory.
> 
> Theo might be a sly labour man, but who can say.



Yes, you're right, a policy sinecure for a Scot would send a good message. How about Pocket and Sweet? They are retail entrepreneurs from Balamory, and would signal to a younger generation that Labour supports their aspirations.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2015)

brogdale said:


> new members...lol
> 
> ...probably masses to tory stooges desperately trying to get Diane Abbot elected as leader



is boris johnson being bought off with a role in cabinet? the headlines suggest it but the text says he's just attending a meeting. Fucking journos.


----------



## belboid (May 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> is boris johnson being bought off with a role in cabinet? the headlines suggest it but the text says he's just attending a meeting. Fucking journos.


not while he's still mayor of some city or other, it'd look too much like taking the piss


----------



## treelover (May 11, 2015)

brogdale said:


> new members...lol
> 
> ...probably masses to tory stooges desperately trying to get Diane Abbot elected as leader




Happened last time, same is happening with the LD's, enthusiasm will soon be knocked out of them


----------



## treelover (May 11, 2015)

Rachel Reeves, still Shadow Works and Pensions


----------



## co-op (May 11, 2015)

brogdale said:


> They ever allowed a situation like this to happen....




"P.S I'm keeping the peerage"


----------



## gosub (May 11, 2015)

treelover said:


> Rachel Reeves, still Shadow Works and Pensions


Not sure her position is set in stone


----------



## gosub (May 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> is boris johnson being bought off with a role in cabinet? the headlines suggest it but the text says he's just attending a meeting. Fucking journos.


Who,  apart from the London electorate, would give him something responsible to do?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 11, 2015)

co-op said:


> "P.S I'm keeping the peerage"



Labour could simply refuse to accept Sugar's resignation; like Farage, he would have no option but to stay unhappily with the status quo.


----------



## co-op (May 11, 2015)

gosub said:


> Who,  apart from the London electorate, would give him something responsible to do?



To be fair to the London electorate, the boundaries of Greater London were gerrymandered way back at the beginning of the GLC to include some pretty rural bits of the home counties and Johnson was elected by the outer 'doughnut'. Central and even suburban London is pretty amazingly Labour right now.


----------



## belboid (May 11, 2015)

veteran leftie Christine Shawcross suspended from the party for the heinous crime of saying the sacking of Lutfur Rahman was 'highly political,' and wrong.  Others (like the more popular ken Livingstone) who have said the same thing, haven't been,m funnily enough

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets?CMP=share_btn_fb


----------



## gosub (May 11, 2015)

co-op said:


> To be fair to the London electorate, the boundaries of Greater London were gerrymandered way back at the beginning of the GLC to include some pretty rural bits of the home counties and Johnson was elected by the outer 'doughnut'. Central and even suburban London is pretty amazingly Labour right now.



I've worked that out from facebook, from the number of London friends incensed by the "idiots" that didn't buy into Mr Milliband was going to turn the UK into the land of milk and honey


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Labour could simply refuse to accept Sugar's resignation; like Farage, he would have no option but to stay unhappily with the status quo.



He resigned from his actual job (business czar or something) within a couple of months of being given it. He kept his peerage though of course.


----------



## rioted (May 11, 2015)

Does anybody believe this bollocks about 20,000+ new members since Friday morning?


----------



## oryx (May 11, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Labour could simply refuse to accept Sugar's resignation; like Farage, he would have no option but to stay unhappily with the status quo.


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

Jim 'Shiraz Socialist' Denham (AWL) has a hilarious blog piece about how vital it is for unions to retain Labour affiliation.  He's gobbing off about how TUSC are scum for losing Labour Gower constituency too

https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/ 2015/05/12/keep-unite-affiliated-no-new-popular-front/ (link broken for the usual reasons)


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2015)

Have to say that I'd missed this contribution to the "leadership debate" from Trissy...


> Tristram Hunt, the Labour MP and historian who last week pulled out of the race to lead his party, described them as *the “John Lewis community” voters *whom Labour needs to attract if it is to stand any chance of winning back power.
> 
> *The MP for Stoke-on-Trent* said the party had to gain the support of more affluent and aspirational voters if it was ever to recover from this month’s general election defeat and Labour’s worst performance since 1983.
> 
> *Mr Hunt said that Labour needed to show it was “also on the side of families who want to shop at John Lewis, go on holiday and get a new extension”.*


​
A new low?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 24, 2015)

he should be drowned in an unflushed jon lewis toilet


----------



## Libertad (May 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> he should be drowned in an unflushed jon lewis toilet



But then our cleaning comrades would have to shift a double shit.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Have to say that I'd missed this contribution to the "leadership debate" from Trissy...
> 
> ​
> A new low?


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> View attachment 71798


)))Hairs on back of neck moment(((


----------



## xslavearcx (May 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Have to say that I'd missed this contribution to the "leadership debate" from Trissy...
> 
> ​
> A new low?


Jeez never knew shopping at john Lewis was a signifier for middle class aspiration... I just thought it was a shop were u bought stuff.... Eg when looking for Xmas shopping for relatives...


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> Not sure her position is set in stone



Setting things in stone hasn't been working that well for labour lately.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 24, 2015)

xslavearcx said:


> Jeez never knew shopping at john Lewis was a signifier for middle class aspiration... I just thought it was a shop were u bought stuff.... Eg when looking for Xmas shopping for relatives...


John Lewis is PFMC.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 24, 2015)

rioted said:


> Does anybody believe this bollocks about 20,000+ new members since Friday morning?



I considered joining so I could vote for the most left wing candidate for leader, but there's not even a least right wing candidate. Everyone is saying the same thing, poverty is caused by lack of aspiration so the poor can fuck off. We must be the party of middle management, the party of people who think a waitrose apple is somehow different from the apples down the market, the party of people whose 4x4 goes up mountains in the advert but rarely gets further than Maidenhead in real life, the party of people who guilt trip their kids about the sacrifices they've had to make to afford the fees for the school they fucking hate, the party of those whose biggest problem is a lack of real problems. The party, in short, of cunts.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2015)

TBF, the apples at waitrose are nicer than the apples they sell at my local market. Otherwise I'm with you.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2015)

They've tightened up on the old free coffee now; you have to get your card read to access the freebies....so no more multiple drinks per day. Unless you have more than one card; I'm up to 4.


----------



## seventh bullet (May 25, 2015)

In a PD group self-criticism session I admitted owning John Lewis lamp shades and a kitchen roll holder.


----------



## Libertad (May 25, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> In a PD group self-criticism session I admitted owning John Lewis lamp shades and a kitchen roll holder.



*Adds name to list*


----------



## seventh bullet (May 25, 2015)

I was helped back onto the correct path by my comrades at the local branch.  I still use my Habitat coffee table,  though.


----------



## Libertad (May 25, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> I was helped back onto the correct path by my comrades at the local branch.  I still use my Habitat coffee table,  though.



*Convenes People's Tribunal*


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> I was helped back onto the correct path by my comrades at the local branch.  I still use my Habitat coffee table,  though.



Glass-topped, Mr. Oaten?


----------



## Libertad (May 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Glass-topped, Mr. Oaten?



Eew


----------



## Coolfonz (May 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Have to say that I'd missed this contribution to the "leadership debate" from Trissy...
> 
> ​
> A new low?



I thought they had lost touch with working class voters who defected to Ukip in the north?
And lost touch with the Scots who just hate them for being Tories?
Given that they did pretty well in London I'd say a lot of their voters are fully Waitrose-handed already.
Maybe the fact that they will be out of power quite possibly for good, has meant they have lost touch with their own minds...


----------



## Nylock (May 26, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> John Lewis is PFMC.


PFMC?


----------



## andysays (May 26, 2015)

Nylock said:


> PFMC?



Positively Frightfully Middle Class


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> Positively Frightfully Middle Class


Oh yes, but their free cream teas are quite an important part of my overall diet atm. All of the "8 people" in my household have a card (on different hotmail accounts)...so its scone, jam and clotted cream (with pot of tea) pretty much every time I wander past JL@Home on the scenic Purley Way!


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 26, 2015)

Explain more about these free cream teas


----------



## andysays (May 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Oh yes, but their free cream teas are quite an important part of my overall diet atm. All of the "8 people" in my household have a card (on different hotmail accounts)...so its scone, jam and clotted cream (with pot of tea) pretty much every time I wander past JL@Home on the scenic Purley Way!



In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that I embraced my inner PFMCness yesterday by ordering a new fridge from the JL website.

Can't argue with free express delivery within 48 hours, removal of old fridge and the "never knowingly undersold" thing - even if it makes me the class enemy to some...


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Explain more about these free cream teas


Here


----------



## Libertad (May 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that I embraced my inner PFMCness yesterday by ordering a new fridge from the JL website.
> 
> Can't argue with free express delivery within 48 hours, removal of old fridge and the "never knowingly undersold" thing - even if it makes me the class enemy to some...



*Amends list*


----------



## Dogsauce (May 26, 2015)

I get all my middle-class furnishings and white goods second-hand off gumtree/ebay.  Feed off the scraps, but make sure they're good scraps.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 26, 2015)

Nylock said:


> PFMC?



Pretty fucking middle class.


----------



## emanymton (May 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that I embraced my inner PFMCness yesterday by ordering a new fridge from the JL website.
> 
> Can't argue with free express delivery within 48 hours, removal of old fridge and the "never knowingly undersold" thing - even if it makes me the class enemy to some...


Humanity will not be free until the last capitalist is hung by the entrails of the last John Lewis customer.


----------



## Libertad (May 26, 2015)

emanymton said:


> Humanity will not be free until the last capitalist is hung by the entrails of the last John Lewis customer.



Quite so Cmbbe.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 26, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Pretty fucking middle class.



Actually, Proper Fucking Middle Class would be better.


----------



## Nylock (May 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> Positively Frightfully Middle Class





cynicaleconomy said:


> Pretty fucking middle class.





cynicaleconomy said:


> Actually, Proper Fucking Middle Class would be better.



Got it 

cheers


----------



## gosub (May 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that I embraced my inner PFMCness yesterday by ordering a new fridge from the JL website.
> 
> Can't argue with free express delivery within 48 hours, removal of old fridge and the "never knowingly undersold" thing - even if it makes me the class enemy to some...


By supporting a co operative business model?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2015)

emanymton said:


> Humanity will not be free until the last capitalist is hung by the entrails of the last John Lewis customer.


hanged. hanged by the entrails of the last john lewis customer.


----------



## andysays (May 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> hanged. hanged by the entrails of the last john lewis customer.





> Humanity will not be free until the last capitalist is hanged by the entrails of the last pedant.


----------



## teqniq (May 28, 2015)

What are they for anymore? Nothing much except maybe somewhere to heap contempt and derision upon.

Labour moves to support Tories' lower benefit cap despite 'children on breadline' warnings


----------



## articul8 (May 28, 2015)

it is desperate - the crisis in w/c representation couldn't be clearer.  Question is how can a viable alternative be built?


----------



## Duncan2 (May 28, 2015)

teqniq said:


> What are they for anymore? Nothing much except maybe somewhere to heap contempt and derision upon.
> 
> Labour moves to support Tories' lower benefit cap despite 'children on breadline' warnings


Quite ,you only had to see Chukka Ummuna on the news last night to see that they have effectively been castrated by the SNP ,just like the woeful Libdems its all 'well on the one hand we want to do this but on the other hand we quite see the importance of doing that.It was because they were perceived to be so spineless anyway that they now feel obliged to carry on like this .Awful.


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2015)

They don't have a leader, who is endorsing this?


----------



## teqniq (May 28, 2015)

treelover said:


> They don't have a leader, who is endorsing this?



from the article 'interim leader Harriet Harman.'


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2015)

articul8 said:


> it is desperate - the crisis in w/c representation couldn't be clearer.  Question is how can a viable alternative be built?


You've answered this years ago.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 29, 2015)

The party has knocked back an attempt by the King Beyond the Wall to rejoin the party. Very short sighted and typical suppression of an authentic w/c voice.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32909887


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (May 29, 2015)

articul8 said:


> it is desperate - the crisis in w/c representation couldn't be clearer.  Question is how can a viable alternative be built?



Blair's at a loose end nowadays.


----------



## brogdale (May 29, 2015)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Blair's at a loose end nowadays.


----------



## andysays (May 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 72025



I'm pretty sure that shows Blair being at the end of rope, the rope in question being tight, so the very opposite of "at a loose end".

I know which one I prefer...


----------



## brogdale (May 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> I'm pretty sure that shows Blair being at the end of rope, the rope in question being tight, so the very opposite of "at a loose end".
> 
> I know which one I prefer...


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2015)

Labour dies again



> Labour could have done better in England, even so. It did badly in marginal seats, but it almost certainly did not lose them because its timidly redistributive programme was too left-wing, as the Blairites are now claiming. As far as we can tell there were three reasons for Labour’s poor performance in England. One was Miliband’s personality. People agreed that he had a good election, but he still seemed somehow not ‘prime ministerial’, the fate of many opposition leaders. More damaging was the reputation of the last Labour government for economic incompetence. Although Labour’s supposed overspending did not cause what happened in 2008, the Conservatives have succeeded in making people believe their version of events. The third reason was the desire for stability. The Tories always play to this even when they have failed to provide it. In this election, after the opinion polls suggested a hung parliament and the possibility of a Labour government dependent on SNP support, stability as against chaos really did become an issue and the triumphalism of the SNP didn’t help. The fear of chaos (drummed up not just by the Tory press), together with a suspicion of the SNP, threw Labour very much on the defensive. The scare tactics worked, affecting Labour both directly and indirectly. Indirectly because the predicted electoral landslide in Scotland was probably one reason for the fall of the Lib Dems in England: former Lib Dem voters voted for stability, which meant voting Tory.
> 
> 
> The press treated Miliband even more viciously than they did Kinnock in 1992. Most of the Tory papers became propaganda sheets designed to protect the interests of their owners. Rupert Murdoch certainly seems to have thought that his media interests would not survive a Miliband government intact. Miliband hasn’t been forgiven for his attitude to phone hacking, press regulation, monopoly ownership and non-dom tax status. Much of the abuse will have been discounted, and the overkill excited some sympathy for Miliband (the #milifan craze on Twitter was one unlikely development). It is unlikely, however, that all of it was discounted. Any reader of the Tory press would have concluded that Miliband was a ridiculous figure who couldn’t be trusted in government. It’s also true that what the press doesn’t say is as damaging as what it does. More important, the press and television were responsible for deficit fetishism: the almost universal belief that the elimination of the budget deficit is essential for the well-being of the country and should therefore be the first task of any responsible government. This view justifies the Tories’ insistence on austerity. In seeking ‘expert’ opinion, as Simon Wren-Lewis pointed out in the LRB of 19 February, the media turn to City economists who ‘have a set of views and interests that do not reflect the profession’ and who cheerfully support deficit fetishism. I doubt that Cameron or Osborne care two hoots about the deficit; nor do the editors of the financial press. Cameron and Osborne use the deficit to justify a drastic reshaping of the welfare state; the editors to ensure that their kind of people stay in charge. Unfortunately, the Labour Party nervously acquiesced in deficit fetishism, and so gave the game to the government. Miliband and Balls should never have allowed the Tories’ claims to go unchallenged.


----------



## treelover (May 29, 2015)

I have relatives who are literally terrified of instability, for them their pensions, home and ability to have foreign holidays are sacrosanct.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2015)

articul8 said:


> it is desperate - the crisis in w/c representation couldn't be clearer.  Question is how can a viable alternative be built?


you've had your turn. and you fucked it up. time for someone else to have a go.


----------



## articul8 (May 29, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You've answered this years ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2015)

articul8 said:


>


you'd make better political points if that emoticon was all you ever posted.


----------



## killer b (May 29, 2015)

treelover said:


> I have relatives who are literally terrified of instability, for them their pensions, home and ability to have foreign holidays are sacrosanct.


Are these unreasonable things to hold sacrosanct?


----------



## treelover (May 29, 2015)

No, but to keep them they will vote accordingly


----------



## killer b (May 29, 2015)

Do you agree with them that voting tory serves their best interest wrt those things then?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 29, 2015)

Seriously though, articul8, are you still under the illusion that you can change the Labour party from within?


----------



## articul8 (May 29, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Seriously though, articul8, are you still under the illusion that you can change the Labour party from within?


Not in the foreseeable future.  The question is what other forms of organisation can make a political alternative viable, and whether the affiliated unions - Unite in particular - are willing to break.  It's certainly the case that there's a crisis of representation.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Not in the foreseeable future.  The question is what other forms of organisation can make a political alternative viable, and whether the affiliated unions - Unite in particular - are willing to break.  It's certainly the case that there's a crisis of representation.


so you've been wasting your time the past however many years its been since you joined that foul cabal.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 29, 2015)

articul8 said:


> The question is what other forms of organisation can make a political alternative viable, and whether the affiliated unions - Unite in particular - are willing to break.



What is your answer to these questions?


----------



## treelover (May 29, 2015)

> Liz Kendall 'will back white working-class young'
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/29/liz-kendall-will-back-white-working-class-young



Mmm, devil is in the detail, she is a full on Blairite, she will support benefit caps, etc.


----------



## treelover (May 29, 2015)

> Burnham, the shadow health secretary, who is trying to dispel his image as the candidate of the left and of the unions, said there were three areas in which Labour needed to win back people’s trust: welfare, immigration and economic competence.



Meanwhile, Burnham looks like he is going to get tough(again?) on welfare, so a further race to the bottom.

How can people stay in this party?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 29, 2015)

treelover said:


> Mmm, devil is in the detail, she is a full on Blairite, she will support benefit caps, etc.



First line from that article:



> Children from white working class backgrounds in particular need to be taught more about aspiration


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 29, 2015)

> "You’ve said you would scrap the mansion tax, consider welfare cuts, we know you want to tackle immigration and you now love wealth creators - why don’t you join the Conservative party?"



Krishnan Guru Murthy to Andy Burnham on C4 news this evening


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 30, 2015)

> Children from white working class backgrounds in particular need to be taught more about aspiration



Can these people even hear themselves when they talk?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 30, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Seriously though, articul8, are you still under the illusion that you can change the Labour party from within?



He's still on phase one, that of lulling the Blairites into a false sense of security. Another few centuries of that and he'll be ready to pounce.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 30, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Krishnan Guru Murthy to Andy Burnham on C4 news this evening



Did he have an answer to that?


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Did he have an answer to that?


Yes. A very long rambling account of how he was Labour to his core...whippets, black pudding, brass bands and clogs.....


----------



## Libertad (May 30, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2015)

when even treelover asks how people can remain in the labour party articul8 you should think of leaving


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> He's still on phase one, that of lulling the Blairites into a false sense of security. Another few centuries of that and he'll be ready to pounce.


by 2020 he will no longer even pretend to be a socialist


----------



## Stay Beautiful (May 30, 2015)

45,000 now joined the Labour Party in the last three weeks...  Yes, I don't get it either and I'm a member!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> 45,000 now joined the Labour Party in the last three weeks...  Yes, I don't get it and I'm a member!


rats swimming to a sinking ship


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2015)

i wonder how many have left the labour party in the last three weeks


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> 45,000 now joined the Labour Party in the last three weeks...  Yes, I don't get it either and I'm a member!


John Lewis will be chuffed.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 30, 2015)

Thing is though, it's probably not a sinking ship from the perspective of middle-class careerists.

Unless the next 5 years are actually so bad (plus a bunch of other factors) that Pasokification results, it's probably an excellent time for aspiring servants of Capital to join the UK's "Democrat Party"

Edited to add: ... the 'rats' part is dead on though.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (May 30, 2015)

So there is a bloke calling himself a democratic socialist running to be the Democrat nominee for president in the US... but there isn't even a social democrat running to be leader of the Labour party in Britain!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 30, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> So there is a bloke calling himself a democratic socialist running to be the Democrat nominee for president in the US...



Yeah but didn't Miniwank call himself one of of those at some point during the election campaign?


----------



## Stay Beautiful (May 30, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Yeah but didn't Miniwank call himself one of of those at some point during the election campaign?



He did but I don't remember if he did so during the campaign. Blair also called himself a socialist


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> He did but I don't remember if he did so during the campaign. Blair also called himself a socialist


no one else did tho


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 30, 2015)

Won't somebody please think of the white people?


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2015)

If you don't dispossess and demonise the poor then you are out of touch with them and hate them. Good god the use of language in this country is starting to resemble Newspeak.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2015)

Talking of which, I heard that vile little shit Parsons talking about his 'concept' of the "_*anything but working class" *_on R4 this morning. I know, I know...it's my own fault and all that...I do normally turn over to R6 before that fucking smug vicar's programme...but today I obviously forgot.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2015)

Wealth creation = Rentier Capitalism
Aspiration = Hatred of the unemployed, disabled and working poor
Choice = Wealth transfer from the poor to the rich
Freedom = well you get the idea...


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2015)

> *Children from white working class backgrounds in particular need to be taught more about aspiration and the chance to improve their lives, Liz Kendall, one of the Labour leadership candidates, has said.*



Jesus


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 30, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Aspiration = Hatred of the unemployed, disabled and working poor



Yup, the implication is crystal clear. If you're poor, it's because you don't have enough aspirations. Never mind Blairism, it's pretty much unreconstructed Thatcherism. The next square in the big game of catchphrase bingo is 'a rising tide raises all boats'.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Jesus


why doesn't she call us all chav scum and have fucking done with it


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 30, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yup, the implication is crystal clear. If you're poor, it's because you don't have enough aspirations. Never mind Blairism, it's pretty much unreconstructed Thatcherism. The next square in the big game of catchphrase bingo is 'a rising tide raises all boats'.



People over thirty who catch buses are losers, apparently.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2015)

Meanwhile Burnham said...


> .....*he wanted to counter the perception that Labour gave an easy ride to some people in society who “did not want to help themselves”.* He said Labour was right to challenge “indiscriminate welfare cuts”, including the bedroom tax, but *he suggested there should be further cuts at some level short of the Tory proposal for £12bn of savings.*
> 
> *It should be probably somewhere in between [zero and £12bn], shouldn’t it?”* he said. “These are things we’re going to look at. I’ve not today got specifics. But I am saying Labour does need to win back those people who have that feeling about us.”


----------



## treelover (May 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Talking of which, I heard that vile little shit Parsons talking about his 'concept' of the "_*anything but working class" *_on R4 this morning. I know, I know...it's my own fault and all that...I do normally turn over to R6 before that fucking smug vicar's programme...but today I obviously forgot.



I heard that, and his spiel about the 'benefits culture' he pontificates about in The Sun,(does he still know anyone on benefits)he really is a reactionary shit isn't he, like that former WRP member John Bird.


----------



## treelover (May 30, 2015)

> He says this applied to a whole series of policy areas. In rail, Labour’s pledge to allow the state to bid for franchises strayed too close to nationalisation. In banking, its pledge to impose limits on individual banks’ market share smacked of clunky state intervention.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-shadow-chancellor-election#comment-53018042



Chris Leslie this time, FFs, nationalising the railways is a popular policy.

Update
Meanwhile on Owen Jones twitter he is quoting Caroline Flint as saying in a Sun article "we must attack benefit scroungers"

no link, I really hope he has misinterpreted her, but unlikely


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2015)

Apparently the Labour Party has nothing better to do than monitor social media to kick people supportive of Scottish Nationalism out of the party







Nice party.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2015)

Also, 'Compliance Officer'? I know that these 'people' exist in financial services and so on but I was totally unaware that they had equivalents in political parties. Just another way in which there is increasingly little distinctions between political parties and corporations.

Apparently this is part of a wider crackdown on support for the SNP, Labour Party expels members who tweeted support for 'Scottish Nationalist Party' during general election


----------



## CNT36 (May 30, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Apparently the Labour Party has nothing better to do than monitor social media to kick people supportive of Scottish Nationalism out of the party
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting that they mentioned the reapplication shit as though they be receiving anything from this person that hasn't been ejected from there body. Cheeky fucks. I wonder if any of the statements made by party members here would be enough to get them the boot.


----------



## J Ed (May 30, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Interesting that they mentioned the reapplication shit as though they be receiving anything from this person that hasn't been ejected from there body. Cheeky fucks. I wonder if any of the statements made by party members here would be enough to get them the boot.



Also are Labour party members who urged votes for the Tories to keep the SNP out going to be expelled?

I'd compare this to a political crackdown but honestly it's more like Barclays' Compliance Officer trawling through social media to find employees moaning about their day at work in order to sack them.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 30, 2015)

shit version of kinnocks purge?


----------



## CNT36 (May 30, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Also are Labour party members who urged votes for the Tories to keep the SNP out going to be expelled?
> 
> I'd compare this to a political crackdown but honestly it's more like Barclays' Compliance Officer trawling through social media to find employees moaning about their day at work in order to sack them.


Hopefully they'll be quietly disappeared by a man in a twenty year old Mondeo.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 30, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> 45,000 now joined the Labour Party in the last three weeks...  Yes, I don't get it either and I'm a member!



It'll be that cheap/free membership that allows people to vote on the leadership. How many will be Tory troublemakers signing up to vote for the shittest candidate? (admittedly, in a bucket of turd, it must be a difficult choice to pick the turdiest).


----------



## killer b (May 30, 2015)

It's standard to boot out members found campaigning for other parties isn't it? Don't see anything particularly weird about that letter.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2015)

McLean = unperson.

Doubleplusungood.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> It's standard to boot out members found campaigning for other parties isn't it? Don't see anything particularly weird about that letter.


The letter referred to his expressed voting intention (reported by a social media informant to the 'compliance officer'). That's not really 'campaigning', is it? Just a bit shit...even for a political party.


----------



## Favelado (May 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> It's standard to boot out members found campaigning for other parties isn't it? Don't see anything particularly weird about that letter.



It doesn't say they were campaigning. They might have been, they might not.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> It's standard to boot out members found campaigning for other parties isn't it? Don't see anything particularly weird about that letter.


 On reflection, you may well have a point.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/616451948501538/?pnref=lhc


----------



## killer b (May 30, 2015)

support, campaign, whatever - it's a bit vindictive, but not particularly out of the ordinary. And there's no trawling needed - another party member who's friends with him on twitter will have just reported him is all.


----------



## killer b (May 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


> On reflection, you may well have a point.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/616451948501538/?pnref=lhc


oh, I see. well, there's some context that was missing.


----------



## Favelado (May 30, 2015)

A letter saying that they are sorry he feels disillusioned and asking him to take part in changing Labour's future a better strategy surely? Even if futile in this case, you shouldn't go round sending arsey letters that end up on political forums (for example), when your popularity is at an all time low. A bit of emotional intelligence at least.


----------



## Favelado (May 30, 2015)

OH WAIT


----------



## treelover (May 30, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Apparently the Labour Party has nothing better to do than monitor social media to kick people supportive of Scottish Nationalism out of the party
> 
> 
> 
> ...



'Head of compliance Unit, mmm nice term, are they the DWP?


----------



## Favelado (May 30, 2015)

Yes. Context.


----------



## CNT36 (May 30, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> It'll be that cheap/free membership that allows people to vote on the leadership. How many will be Tory troublemakers signing up to vote for the shittest candidate? (admittedly, in a bucket of turd, it must be a difficult choice to pick the turdiest).


If there was an actual left wing candiadate a few thousand tory saboteurs would be a good thing.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Apparently the Labour Party has nothing better to do than monitor social media to kick people supportive of Scottish Nationalism out of the party
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Way to get those former Labour voters who SNP in 2015 back.


----------



## andysays (May 31, 2015)

Leadership contenders and other senior people now queuing up to junk various mildly social democratic policies by which the Miliband-led party sought to differentiate itself from the Tories.

How Labour politicians disowned the party’s key policies - Manifesto pledges hurriedly dropped or finessed after the general election defeat


> Labour figures have disowned their party’s key policies with almost indecent haste since their general election drubbing. Here are the key manifesto pledges that have been dropped or finessed since 7 May:
> 
> Mansion tax
> Free schools
> ...


----------



## steeplejack (May 31, 2015)

why don't they all just join the Tory party? Liz Kendall in particular really would look the part as a minister of state under IDS. A League One Anne Widdecombe.


----------



## steeplejack (May 31, 2015)

right wing commentators refer to Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto as "the longest suicide note in history".

If that's true then this leadership camapign is nothing more than an extended funeral oration for the party. A desperately mediocre Dutch auction of mean spirited right wing politics, fronted by abolsute nobodies.

At this moment in time it really is hard to see how Labour will ever govern again. As othes have said, if you want mean spirited right wing politics and crony-capitalist corruption, the Tories are much more efficient in delivering it. If the route to power is to become more like the Tories, then one has to ask, what is the purpose of power in the first place- why bother?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2015)

steeplejack said:


> right wing commentators refer to Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto as "the longest suicide note in history".
> 
> If that's true then this leadership camapign is nothing more than an extended funeral oration for the party. A desperately mediocre Dutch auction of mean spirited right wing politics, fronted by abolsute nobodies.
> 
> At this moment in time it really is hard to see how Labour will ever govern again. As othes have said, if you want mean spirited right wing politics and crony-capitalist corruption, the Tories are much more efficient in delivering it. If the route to power is to become more like the Tories, then one has to ask, what is the purpose of power in the first place- why bother?



The sad thing being that the absolute nobodies see themselves as better propositions than Miliband, and they are.
For capitalism.


----------



## Libertad (May 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The sad thing being that the absolute nobodies see themselves as better propositions than Miliband, and they are.
> For capitalism.



Shills, the fucking lot of them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 31, 2015)

It's quite a shock to find out that Miliband actually was the most left wing of all of them.

Apparently most of the Labour party didn't even support their own policies, and they wonder why they lost the election.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Shills, the fucking lot of them.



Yep. A bunch of ideologically and morally flexible mannequins willing to hang any policy around themselves that might get them into power (hence supporting their corporate friends' interests).

Kill them all. Let their friend Mammon sort the righteous from the sinners. Methinks Heaven won't be over-burdened.


----------



## CNT36 (May 31, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's quite a shock to find out that Miliband actually was the most left wing of all of them.
> 
> Apparently most of the Labour party didn't even support their own policies, and they wonder why they lost the election.


That fag paper between the two under Milliband is starting to look like Springfield gorge. I can see the Labour party having a familiar fate as they cross it.


----------



## J Ed (May 31, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's quite a shock to find out that Miliband actually was the most left wing of all of them.
> 
> Apparently most of the Labour party didn't even support their own policies, and they wonder why they lost the election.



This presupposes that they have any actual beliefs of their own beyond self-enrichment and the acquisition of power. I see little evidence that they do.


----------



## Duncan2 (May 31, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Way to get those former Labour voters who SNP in 2015 back.


they won't be back


----------



## articul8 (May 31, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> What is your answer to these questions?


I don't see UNITE breaking in the sense of Len issuing a call and leading the troops out.  It might happen in stages - with Scotland voting to disaffiliate from Scottish Labour, and triggering a wider debate.  

More broadly, I think the reality is that building a new party is not a short term prospect - but that the demand for a political alternative is clearly out there, and new forms of organisation are needed to give expression to it.   The idea that we'll just have one-off national (ie London) based set-piece mobilisations and then go home again until the next one is just as depressing.


----------



## campanula (May 31, 2015)

I am fairly sure that any political alternative will not be realised through the moribund Labour (ha) party


----------



## Favelado (May 31, 2015)

steeplejack said:


> right wing commentators refer to Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto as "the longest suicide note in history".
> 
> If that's true then this leadership camapign is nothing more than an extended funeral oration for the party. A desperately mediocre Dutch auction of mean spirited right wing politics, fronted by abolsute nobodies.
> 
> At this moment in time it really is hard to see how Labour will ever govern again. As othes have said, if you want mean spirited right wing politics and crony-capitalist corruption, the Tories are much more efficient in delivering it. If the route to power is to become more like the Tories, then one has to ask, what is the purpose of power in the first place- why bother?




There's no hopefor Labour in terms of being a force for change because the mentality is set in stone now. Blair became leader in 94, so unless you're at least in your 30's, Labour being this right-wing doesn't even seem wrong to you. "Left-wing" doesn't mean collective ownership of the means of production to the young, it means not being rabidly anti-immigration and being pro-NHS. Labour have given in to the Tories to such an extent that their government, policy and even language has been colonised beyond the point of repair. Imagine what a bunch of cunts the next generation of Labour MPs will be. There won't even be the slightest memory for them as Labour as a socially democratic party, let alone a socialist one. Anyone vaguely principled will run a mile from them.


----------



## campanula (May 31, 2015)

Yes exactly Favelado - when Clause 4 was dismantled, the writing was on the wall...and the whole idea of a political class (or a media or legal class or in fact, any grouping with any percieved smidgeon of power) has been a further segregation of the privately educated and socially connected middle classes while we, the labouring masses are simply reduced to human capital.

Of course, any organic system will ultimately be scuppered by lack of diversity and failure to adapt so therein lies a window of opportunity for creative and pragmatic solutions from the despised underclass...but without any sort of collective solidarity, people are always vulnerable to corruption, blandishments and gestures of acceptance from those with power...as the current crop of mediocre (but greedy) politicians (of any stripe) merely illustrates. One of 'us' indeed.


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's quite a shock to find out that Miliband actually was the most left wing of all of them.


Is it? I thought it was fairly obvious Miliband was as far left as Labour was allowed to go. The post-election swing to the right was entirely predictable.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 1, 2015)

Favelado said:


> There's no hopefor Labour in terms of being a force for change because the mentality is set in stone now. Blair became leader in 94, so unless you're at least in your 30's, Labour being this right-wing doesn't even seem wrong to you. "Left-wing" doesn't mean collective ownership of the means of production to the young, it means not being rabidly anti-immigration and being pro-NHS. Labour have given in to the Tories to such an extent that their government, policy and even language has been colonised beyond the point of repair. Imagine what a bunch of cunts the next generation of Labour MPs will be. There won't even be the slightest memory for them as Labour as a socially democratic party, let alone a socialist one. Anyone vaguely principled will run a mile from them.



I wonder if there'll come a time (after another electoral kicking perhaps) when they declare that the problem is the name of the party, and that they need something more modern. 'Democratic Party' perhaps...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 1, 2015)

But with the name 'Labour' they can still blather on about how 'they' invnted the NHS and the welfare state etc. One thing these cunts do care about is branding, and they know they've got a marketable brand here. 

And how would they come up with another name when they stand for abosultly nothing? They can't be the 'we want to be in power so we can get all those lucrative non-executiv directorships we've been promised' party can they?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 1, 2015)

Andy Burnham has said we should boycott the 2018 world cup, which just goes to show that his PR man has told him to pretend to care and that he wants people to see the name 'Andy Burnham' in the papers.

Surely those dead migrant workers only have themselves to blame Andy? For not being aspirational enough?


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 1, 2015)

If a fuck was given about migrant workers it would be 2022. This is tough guy shit standing up to this weeks bogeyman.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jun 3, 2015)

Burnham in his speech at Ernst and Young:

"Far too rarely over the last few years has Labour spoken up in praise of the everyday heroes of our society. The small businessman or woman. The sole trader. The innovator, the inventor, the entrepreneur. The businesses that *feed us, cloth us, keep our houses warm, get us to work, entertain us*"

Miliband just didn't gobble you lot enough... I'll show him how it is done!


----------



## Favelado (Jun 3, 2015)

Everyday bat-people.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jun 3, 2015)

If ye didnae laugh you would cry...


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jun 3, 2015)

Next time I eat out I'm going to make sure to follow Andy's lead and tell the worker to pass on my thanks to the owner for ensuring I was able to eat. Where would be without their incredible philanthropy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> Next time I eat out I'm going to make sure to follow Andy's lead and tell the worker to pass on my thanks to the owner for ensuring I was able to eat. Where would be without their incredible philanthropy?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jun 3, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> Next time I eat out I'm going to make sure to follow Andy's lead and tell the worker to pass on my thanks to the owner for ensuring I was able to eat. Where would be without their incredible philanthropy?


As much as I love my gridiron football it does irk me no end when once a team wins the supebowl - the trophy gets handed to the owner first ...


----------



## Favelado (Jun 3, 2015)

Thanks to the entrepreneurs who have always made sure they lived in lovely houses while keeping me on the breadline. May they continue to scatter their crumbs of mercy into my ever open mouth.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Thanks to the entrepreneurs who have always made sure they lived in lovely houses while keeping me on the breadline. May they continue to scatter their crumbs of mercy into my ever open mouth.


favelado - those aren't crumbs they're dropping in your mouth.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 3, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> "Far too rarely over the last few years has Labour spoken up in praise of the everyday heroes of our society. The small businessman or woman. The sole trader. The innovator, the inventor, the entrepreneur. The businesses that *feed us, cloth us, keep our houses warm, get us to work, entertain us*"



And the landlord who keeps a roof over your head I suppose


----------



## Libertad (Jun 3, 2015)

Capitalists, they have fed us for a thousand years.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> Burnham in his speech at Ernst and Young:
> 
> "Far too rarely over the last few years has Labour spoken up in praise of the everyday heroes of our society. The small businessman or woman. The sole trader. The innovator, the inventor, the entrepreneur. The businesses that *feed us, cloth us, keep our houses warm, get us to work, entertain us*"
> 
> Miliband just didn't gobble you lot enough... I'll show him how it is done!


Huff had this text of Burnham's E&Y speech....not sure if it's what he said or pre-release stuff. Either way...pretty shocking, even by their own piss-poor 'standards'.


> "Far too rarely over the last few years has Labour spoken up in praise of the everyday heroes of our society. The small businessman or woman; the sole trader; the innovator, the inventor, the entrepreneur. *The small businesses that become big businesses.*
> 
> "The people with the creative spark to think of a new idea and the get-up-and-go to make it work. Who often have to fight against the odds to succeed, but put in the hours, the sweat and the hard graft to do it.
> 
> "*So I want this message to go out loud and clear today: in a Labour Party I lead, they will be as much our heroes as the nurse or the teacher."*


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 3, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Capitalists, they have fed us for a thousand years.



They have paid us in our own coin and expected gratitude in return.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 3, 2015)

> "The people with the creative spark to think of a new idea and the get-up-and-go to make it work. Who often have to fight against the odds to succeed, but put in the hours, the sweat and the hard graft to do it.
> 
> "*So I want this message to go out loud and clear today: in a Labour Party I lead, they will be as much our heroes as the nurse or the teacher."*


*
*
Translation: fuck you nurses and teachers.


----------



## golightly (Jun 3, 2015)

Well, well, Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leader.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 3, 2015)

I'm glad someone's got aspiration. I'd just lay here eating grass if it wasn't for whizz kid go-getters.


----------



## treelover (Jun 3, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I don't see UNITE breaking in the sense of Len issuing a call and leading the troops out.  It might happen in stages - with Scotland voting to disaffiliate from Scottish Labour, and triggering a wider debate.
> 
> More broadly, I think the reality is that building a new party is not a short term prospect - but that the demand for a political alternative is clearly out there, and new forms of organisation are needed to give expression to it.   *The idea that we'll just have one-off national (ie London) based set-piece mobilisations and then go home again until the next one is just as depressing*.



That's how Rees and German and Co, operate, its as if they want to dampen down opposition.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 3, 2015)

there was a poster on here, and thanks to him I can never get the associated linguistic twist out of my head. He'd always spell it 'ass-piration'

poster 38234 or something. Miserable he was.


----------



## treelover (Jun 3, 2015)

golightly said:


> Well, well, Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leader.



Corbyn is obsessed with internationalism, anti-imperialism, nuclear disarmanent, afaik, he hasn't done much on 'basics' social security, housing, etc, willing to be put right though.

shame John McDonnell isn't on it again


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2015)

golightly said:


> Well, well, Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leader.


His bro has checked out the "solar weather" and predicts he will win. Wonder if the Express will run that on their front page?


----------



## andysays (Jun 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> His bro has checked out the "solar weather" and predicts he will win. Wonder if the Express will run that on their front page?





I seem to remember his brother's weather predictions are/were quite accurate, but I reckon he'd better stick to what he knows rather than trying to branch out into political punditry...


----------



## articul8 (Jun 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is obsessed with internationalism, anti-imperialism, nuclear disarmanent, afaik, he hasn't done much on 'basics' social security, housing, etc, willing to be put right though.
> 
> shame John McDonnell isn't on it again


No that's not right - he is a big internationalist (and good on him) but he's also done quite a bit on the housing crisis in London and calling for rent controls and council house building.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 4, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> poster 38234 or something. Miserable he was.



He was an incredibly miserable fucker. He once had a thread claiming that workmates brought their babies into the office solely to taunt him about his childlessness


----------



## treelover (Jun 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> No that's not right - he is a big internationalist (and good on him) but he's also done quite a bit on the housing crisis in London and calling for rent controls and council house building.




As I said ready to be corrected, and nothing wrong with internationalism, its crucial, but basic issues are crucial too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> As I said ready to be corrected, and nothing wrong with internationalism, its crucial, but basic issues are crucial too.


internationalism not a basick issue for you then. you more of, er, a national socialist than an international one i suppose.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> Corbyn is obsessed with internationalism, anti-imperialism, nuclear disarmanent, afaik, he hasn't done much on 'basics' social security, housing, etc, willing to be put right though.
> 
> shame John McDonnell isn't on it again


it is a pity you are so often wrong


----------



## killer b (Jun 4, 2015)

anyone read this yet? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election


----------



## treelover (Jun 4, 2015)

Ed's back in the chamber for the attack on Osbornes 5% cuts in non protected dept's to be announced today.

Re: above link to article that's by Wintour, he is a Blairite/Tory.

Oh, and Chris Leslie describes the new 23,000 benefit cap as 'necessary'

Update: Milliband has come out fighting, defending benefit claimants, challenging the 12 billion cuts form the most vulnerable.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 8, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33046059


> Many Labour supporters were relieved the party did not win the election, acting leader Harriet Harman has said.
> 
> She said people lacked confidence in Labour's leadership abilities and economic credibility, and felt it had the "wrong message".





> As part of its election campaign Labour held six million conversations with voters across the UK - something which was hailed by Mr Miliband on the eve of the election.
> 
> But Ms Harman said many voters felt its message was not relevant to them, saying it was seen as on the side of "people on benefits" and not those who "work hard".
> 
> "It doesn't matter how many leaflets you deliver if the message is not right," she added.



Fuck off.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 8, 2015)

> Many Labour supporters were relieved the party did not win the election, acting leader Harriet Harman has said.



Yup, nothing Labour supporters love more than ten years of Tory government. 

A general piece of advice for Labour party types: before you say anything in public, write it down and read it back to yourself. Ask yourself, is what I'm saying here ridiculous deranged bullshit and/or completely meaningless drivel? If the answer is yes, tear it up and think of something else to say. Or just kill yourself.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 8, 2015)

> But Ms Harman said many voters felt its message was not relevant to them, saying it was seen as on the side of "people on benefits" and not those who "work hard".



Then maybe you should have made the point that most benefits go to working or retired people who wouldn't need them if their employers paid them decent wages and gave them decent pension schemes.


----------



## oryx (Jun 8, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Then maybe you should have made the point that most benefits go to working or retired people who wouldn't need them if their employers paid them decent wages and gave them decent pension schemes.



Excellent point.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 8, 2015)

oryx said:


> Excellent point.



And I'm not a politician or anything, so how come these cretins who supposedly do this for a living can't comprehend the basic principles of how society works?


----------



## oryx (Jun 8, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> And I'm not a politician or anything, so how come these cretins who supposedly do this for a living can't comprehend the basic principles of how society works?



I think they do comprehend but are just pandering to the Daily Mail mentality of many people about benefit recipients - which makes it even worse.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 9, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...eered-labour-leadership-hustings-benefits-cap


> Frontrunner to be next leader receives less than warm response at event during union conference after refusing to say whether he opposes £23,000 annual cap
> 
> Andy Burnham, the frontrunner for the Labour leadership, was jeered during the first hustings at a trade union conference when he refused to say outright whether he was opposed to an annual benefits cap of £23,000.
> 
> He said the issue was complex and could not be answered with the simple yes or no sought by the chair of the proceedings on Tuesday, the Daily Mirror journalist Kevin Maguire.


Complex!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

> He said the issue was complex and could not be answered with the simple yes or no sought by the chair of the proceedings on Tuesday, the Daily Mirror journalist Kevin Maguire.



Translation: my PR bloke has yet to tell me where I stand on this. Pathetic.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 9, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Translation: my PR bloke has yet to tell me where I stand on this. Pathetic.


----------



## treelover (Jun 10, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/09/andy-burnham-black-tie


Bit of a find this:  a whole cohort of Blairites, proto spin doctors(Phil Collins) and Journo's including the odious Purnell(who knew the damage he would go on to cause to vulnerable lives then)  but also Andy Burnham, in an ill fitting suit.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 10, 2015)




----------



## andysays (Jun 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/09/andy-burnham-black-tie
> 
> 
> Bit of a find this:  a whole cohort of Blairites, proto spin doctors(Phil Collins) and Journo's including the odious Purnell(who knew the damage he would go on to cause to vulnerable lives then)  but also Andy Burnham, in an ill fitting suit.



I would have thought this story is more at home in the "Why the Guardian and/or Telegraph are shit" threads than this one, TBH. If this is your idea of a significant example of Labour being scum, then there's a whole lot of other stuff you appear to be missing.

It might even be worth starting a "Why are treelover's posts becoming ever more hyperbolically *OMG*  about relatively minor issues which he has noticed elsewhere?" thread, though I'm not sure that I can actually be bothered


----------



## brogdale (Jun 10, 2015)

'Kinnel.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live#block-5577f922e4b087679bc4307f


----------



## treelover (Jun 10, 2015)

andysays said:


> I would have thought this story is more at home in the "Why the Guardian and/or Telegraph are shit" threads than this one, TBH. If this is your idea of a significant example of Labour being scum, then there's a whole lot of other stuff you appear to be missing.
> 
> It might even be worth starting a "Why are treelover's posts becoming ever more hyperbolically *OMG*  about relatively minor issues which he has noticed elsewhere?" thread, though I'm not sure that I can actually be bothered



Oh grow up, its an open board, I will post what I like.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> 'Kinnel.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live#block-5577f922e4b087679bc4307f



A man so dedicated to politics he immediately fucked off when he didn't get the leader's job.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/09/andy-burnham-black-tie
> 
> 
> Bit of a find this:  a whole cohort of Blairites, proto spin doctors(Phil Collins) and Journo's including the odious Purnell(who knew the damage he would go on to cause to vulnerable lives then)  but also Andy Burnham, in an ill fitting suit.


----------



## treelover (Jun 10, 2015)

Purnell is on 300,000 a year at the BBC so yes not much difference.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 14, 2015)

Good piece on Labour's issues around economic illiteracy by Wren-Lewis on the "mainly macro" blog...


> The Conservatives have a kind of excuse for deficit fetishism - it is a useful device for shrinking the state. That excuse should not apply to senior Labour figures.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2015)

*EU referendum campaign: Labour helps Cameron see off Eurosceptic rebellion*

Vermin's first defeat averted.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

I don't even get how the european parliament works. Maybe no one does, they all just turn up, shout at each other for a bit then trouser a pay packet before eating a waffle or something.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't even get how the european parliament works. Maybe no one does, they all just turn up, shout at each other for a bit then trouser a pay packet before eating a waffle or something.



It's a red herring really. The European Commission decides all the important stuff, and you get appointed to that not elected. Technically the European Parliament elects the president of the Commission (currently the former president of Taxdodgistan, Jean-Claude Juncker) but in reality that all gets decided behind closed doors as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2015)

we seem to have lost articul8


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's a red herring really. The European Commission decides all the important stuff, and you get appointed to that not elected. Technically the European Parliament elects the president of the Commission (currently the former president of Taxdodgistan, Jean-Claude Juncker) but in reality that all gets decided behind closed doors as well.


prime minister of taxdodgistan: taxdodgistan is, as well you know, ruled by a grand duke.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> prime minister of taxdodgistan: taxdodgistan is, as well you know, ruled by a grand duke.



Of course, how silly of me.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> prime minister of taxdodgistan: taxdodgistan is, as well you know, ruled by a grand duke.


That is what they declare.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 18, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> prime minister of taxdodgistan: taxdodgistan is, as well you know, ruled by a grand duke.


A grand old duke


----------



## articul8 (Jun 18, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> we seem to have lost articul8


Too busy with campaigning for Corbyn - go on, pay £3 and vote....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Too busy with campaigning for Corbyn - go on, pay £3 and vote....


i hope your help doesn't harm jc's chances.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 19, 2015)

> Letting teenagers vote in the EU referendum would leave them vulnerable to sexual predators, an MP has claimed.
> 
> Barry Sheerman made the astonishing claim in the House of Commons, warning lowering the voting age to 16 would "shrink childhood" - making adulthood start at 16 rather than 18.



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/letting-teenagers-vote-make-vulnerable-5905830


----------



## teqniq (Jun 19, 2015)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 19, 2015)

That's one of the more batshit insane things I've heard in a long while.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2015)

I think MP's know whereof they speak when it comes to noncery though


----------



## J Ed (Jun 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I think MP's know whereof they speak when it comes to noncery though


 
Yes, it speaks to the the fact that the vulnerability of young people is rarely far from the minds of many of our representatives...


----------



## teqniq (Jul 4, 2015)

Fear and loathing in Cardiff


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2015)

> “And so it is with deep regret that I can no longer remain a member of a political group consisting of so many nasty, vindictive, cruel and incompetent politicians as the Cardiff Labour group of councillors.



Nothing to do with nasty policies reading that article though.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2015)

Ralph is a good councillor and chair, Bale is nu labour and loves it


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 4, 2015)

ddraig said:


> Ralph is a good councillor and chair, Bale is nu labour and loves it


are we to take this as yet more witchunting by the labour right then d [question mark]


----------



## ddraig (Jul 4, 2015)

can do!
yes Cook is old school and was even working when very ill and could hardly move, he generally said what he thought and was very thorough ime
new boy Bale has a leader's blog, and seem to love the photo calls!


----------



## machine cat (Jul 4, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/letting-teenagers-vote-make-vulnerable-5905830



He's our MP. I've met him on numerous occasions and although a cunt, that's just fucking insane


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2015)

Look at her pretending to be against the budget. She is useless


----------



## rekil (Jul 12, 2015)

If you ultra left trolls had joined and pushed the party to the left like he suggested, would this be happening? Don't think so.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 12, 2015)

*Harriet Harman has confirmed the policy days after slamming George Osborne's welfare cuts, saying they defied his claim to stand up for workers

Labour is now backing Tory plans to scrap child tax credits for more than two children, Harriet Harman has confirmed.*

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/child-tax-credits-labour-backs-6051366


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2015)

That'll teach people not to have kids they've already got


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Look at her pretending to be against the budget. She is useless




Fucking automaton piece of shit.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 12, 2015)

pretty hard not to feel a bit bleak about everything today.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 12, 2015)

weepiper said:


> pretty hard not to feel a bit bleak about everything today.



It's been a hellish week, even by usual standards - MEPs back TTIP, the government and her loyal opposition attack impoverished children and Greece capitulates to Eurocrat vermin.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> That'll teach people not to have kids they've already got



Is this cut going to be retroactive, or only apply to children born after a certain date?


----------



## Quartz (Jul 12, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It's been a hellish week, even by usual standards - MEPs back TTIP,



They're cunts.



> the government and her loyal opposition attack impoverished children



They're cunts.



> and Greece capitulates to Eurocrat vermin.



I rather think the Greek people may have something to say about that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Fucking automaton piece of shit.



She's just got something about her that makes my skin crawl. Like a cross between Michael Howard and Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter movies.


----------



## FiFi (Jul 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> She's just got something about her that makes my skin crawl. Like a cross between Michael Howard and Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter movies.


I can never recognise her until she's introduced (either my memory or her forgetable face) and always assume she's the Tory on the panel


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 12, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It's been a hellish week, even by usual standards - MEPs back TTIP, the government and her loyal opposition attack impoverished children and Greece capitulates to Eurocrat vermin.


Tory MEP's (naturally) and 1 Libdem MEP are the only one's iv'e seen backing it. The rest, and the majority from what i can tell, oppose it. FWIW


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 12, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> Tory MEP's (naturally) and 1 Libdem MEP are the only one's iv'e seen backing it. The rest, and the majority from what i can tell, oppose it. FWIW



In the Euro parliament 436 voted in favour, 241 against and 32 abstained. The Labour group have expressed opposition to the treaty being enforced through secretive arbitration courts and want to secure various protections for public goods, but by and large they support it.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2015)

Yet another reason why Labour are scum


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 12, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> In the Euro parliament 436 voted in favour, 241 against and 32 abstained. The Labour group have expressed opposition to the treaty being enforced through secretive arbitration courts and want to secure various protections for public goods, but by and large they support it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 12, 2015)

copliker said:


> If you ultra left trolls had joined and pushed the party to the left like he suggested, would this be happening? Don't think so.



I'll be watching to see what Owen means by "unforgivable". If that includes actually never forgiving it.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 12, 2015)

Let's say I'm not going to agree with much of what Labour do, but can they get some ideas, anything, for fuck's sake. They think the left of the party are holding them back, but the right hasn't got anything to offer at all in terms of policy. Do they think they can win in 2020 by saying Conservative policy in a nicer way, sometimes in a Northern accent? Or maybe knowing their way round the trendier bits of London better than the Tories? Some of them used to be DJs you know. Chukka Khan, Chukka Khan let me rock you Chukka Khan. George Osborne's never been to Dalston Superstore, but Stella Creasy goes past on the bus to Walthamstow, like, all the time.

They're pointless. If you're a Tory, you're going to vote Tory. If you're a social democrat, you might vote Green now. If you're a socialist, well tough shit for voting. Labour are a party for no-one. Maybe the mildly confused.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 12, 2015)

machine cat said:


> He's our MP. I've met him on numerous occasions and although a cunt, that's just fucking insane



He seems to forget that you can marry at 16. Totally fucking crazy that a 16 year old married couple can do things together, that they could not see in a cinema, or buy a DVD with shows it. Old enough to marry, yet can't buy a can of beer or vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2015)

articul8 will i'm sure affect to deplore harman's declaration while remaining a loyal labour member.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> In the Euro parliament 436 voted in favour, 241 against and 32 abstained. The Labour group have expressed opposition to the treaty being enforced through secretive arbitration courts and want to secure various protections for public goods, but by and large they support it.



If it's such a great idea, why does anything need protecting from it?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> He seems to forget that you can marry at 16. Totally fucking crazy that a 16 year old married couple can do things together, that they could not see in a cinema, or buy a DVD with shows it. Old enough to marry, yet can't buy a can of beer or vote.



You can join the fucking army before you can vote in this country.


----------



## andysays (Jul 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> You can join the fucking army before you can vote in this country.



I'm going to make a wild guess and say that, on the basis of his position on previous and ongoing threads, Sasaferrato is not terribly concerned about that


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> I'm going to make a wild guess and say that, on the basis of his position on previous and ongoing threads, Sasaferrato is not terribly concerned about that



Well naturally. Does wonders for a young lad, army life. Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger what? Unless it blows your legs off, then it just makes you shorter.


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2015)

> Harman: Labour will not vote against welfare bill and limiting child tax credits
> 
> Harman: Labour will not vote against welfare bill and limiting child tax credits



latest, what are Labour for?


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> You can join the fucking army before you can vote in this country.


which is to say you can be sent to die in a desert on the orders of the aristocracy, you just can't question it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> latest, what are Labour for?



Making the tories look competent?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> I'm going to make a wild guess and say that, on the basis of his position on previous and ongoing threads, Sasaferrato is not terribly concerned about that



Well, I certainly am not against people joining the army. I am a little concerned that people make an assumption that everyone joining is going to be on the front line. There are many trades within the forces which do not put people in harms way, and being reasonably paid whilst training is certainly good.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Making the tories look competant?



It will take more than Labour to do that.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> You can join the fucking army before you can vote in this country.



Yes, in Boys Service. 18 for the front line though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2015)

There's another thread about the military grooming kids already, this one is about Labour being scum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I'll be watching to see what Owen means by "unforgivable". If that includes actually never forgiving it.



It's pretty much a dead cert that by 2020 Owen will once again be punting the "vote Labour without illusions" line.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2015)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes, in Boys Service. 18 for the front line though.



Would that the letter of the law were adhered to, but there were plenty of instances of 17-and-a-half year olds doing frontline service in Iraq and Afghanistan on the basis of "they'll be 18 by the time the posting is over".


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2015)

> “We have to listen and respond to that, and that is why we are going to be voting against the welfare bill we are not going to be voting against the household welfare cap and we are going to be understanding the point about three or more children,” she added.
> 
> She said she had heard working families “say so often we have got one child, we would really like another but we cannot just afford it because the child care is too expensive”.
> 
> She argued these families were working hard and they think it was unfair that others could have the bigger families they would love to have if they were in a position to do that.



Who does she mean when she talks about 'hard working families' and those who have 'big families' one day they could be a big hard working family, then two redundancies, then they no longer the former, they become 'scroungers' in Harmans eyes.


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2015)

Absolutely no acknowledgement by Harman that New Labour helped created the baleful 'scrounger' narrative and hardly challenged it in the Milliband years, an opposition party is meant to create the running, not follow the pack.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Who does she mean when she talks about 'hard working families' and those who have 'big families' one day they could be a big hard working family, then two redundancies, then they no longer the former, they become 'scroungers' in Harmans eyes.


It's fucking bullshit, what they mean is they 'can't have' more children because they don't want to give up the stuff that I don't have because I have three kids. I don't have holidays, I have a crappy tiny flat, all our electrical stuff is old or secondhand and I have a 14 year old car that I'm probably going to have to get shot of now because I can't keep it running with the tax credit cuts. How dare they pretend that I have everything they do.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 12, 2015)

All these cunts that like to bang on about what an easy life it is on benefits. If it's so fucking easy, give up your job and join in. Otherwise keep your gob shut.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2015)

(((weepiper)))


----------



## weepiper (Jul 12, 2015)

'It's not fair, I'd love to have loads of kids like poor people do but then I'd be poor'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2015)

weepiper said:


> All these cunts that like to bang on about what an easy life it is on benefits. If it's so fucking easy, give up your job and join in. Otherwise keep your gob shut.



Those cunts are the real purveyors of a "politics of envy" - they're bitterly jealous of anyone they suspect of putting one over on them, however spurious the grounds are for their assumptions. 
People wonder why I support a class war - well, the sort of middle-class mank-bags that come out with shite tropes about benefits, are a part of why.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2015)

weepiper said:


> 'It's not fair, I'd love to have loads of kids like poor people do but then I'd be poor'.



Someone who worries about having enough *disposable* income before they worry about children, wouldn't be my ideal parent. If they can't see that there's nowt wrong with being poor, they're unable to think beyond their own comforts.
But then, like a lot of my contemporaries, I come from a household that had fuck-all disposable income, and 4 kids in the house. Oddly enough, we did okay!


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 12, 2015)

weepiper said:


> All these cunts that like to bang on about what an easy life it is on benefits. If it's so fucking easy, give up your job and join in. Otherwise keep your gob shut.


There was a person on - sigh - Sunday Morning Live this morning who said that if a pregnant woman couldn't afford a sofa she should make do with sleeping on the floor.

She was sat next to Charlie Wolf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2015)

weepiper said:


> All these cunts that like to bang on about what an easy life it is on benefits. If it's so fucking easy, give up your job and join in. Otherwise keep your gob shut.


post of the month


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> There was a person on - sigh - Sunday Morning Live this morning who said that if a pregnant woman couldn't afford a sofa she should make do with sleeping on the floor.
> 
> She was sat next to Charlie Wolf.




Yes, she is a family lawyer who also said that because she lived in one room for a time with her family, then anyone who is poor should do so, bonkers, but these views are getting traction.


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2015)

The things is if there is a new party of the left as some people across social media are calling for, who would 'lead' it, John Rees?


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Yes, she is a family lawyer who also said that because she lived in one room for a time with her family, then anyone who is poor should do so, bonkers, but these views are getting traction.


Noone even questions why such people are invited to a discussion about benefits. Last I heard CHarlie Wolf was a right wing radio presenter, an ambassador for the US republicans. Not anyone working in the system in any way with any experience.


----------



## FiFi (Jul 12, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> There was a person on - sigh - Sunday Morning Live this morning who said that if a pregnant woman couldn't afford a sofa she should make do with sleeping on the floor.


I have clients like this. I spend an inordinant amount of time requesting funds from every charity in the book to buy bits of furniture for them.


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 12, 2015)

FiFi said:


> I have clients like this. I spend an inordinant amount of time requesting funds from every charity in the book to buy bits of furniture for them.



Clearly they need to sleep on the floor. 

Even then, down among the bugs and vermin, they'd still be miles above the fucking tories.



treelover said:


> The things is if there is a new party of the left as some people across social media are calling for, who would 'lead' it, John Rees?



He seems ok...?

I'm sure someone will tell me how wrong I am. I don't know the guy. I've heard him speak on the youtubes and like i say he seems ok.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> There was a person on - sigh - Sunday Morning Live this morning who said that if a pregnant woman couldn't afford a sofa she should make do with sleeping on the floor.
> 
> She was sat next to Charlie Wolf.



I slept on a floor for about 2 years as a 20-something. It wasn't fun, and arguably did my joints a severe disservice that has come home to roost as arthritis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> Clearly they need to sleep on the floor.
> 
> Even then, down among the bugs and vermin, they'd still be miles above the fucking tories.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't piss on Rees if he were burning, unless I happened to be pissing petrol at the time. The man's a plastic revolutionary vanguardist twat who'll say anything his paymaster (whoever that happens to be at any given moment) requires.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> There was a person on - sigh - Sunday Morning Live this morning who said that if a pregnant woman couldn't afford a sofa she should make do with sleeping on the floor.



Fucking hell that sounds like something out of a Dostoevsky novel


----------



## red & green (Jul 12, 2015)

Don't why anyone would be surprised by Harriet Harman - labour are dead


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> The things is if there is a new party of the left as some people across social media are calling for, who would 'lead' it, John Rees?



I vote for Charlotte Church!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> Who does she mean when she talks about 'hard working families' and those who have 'big families' one day they could be a big hard working family, then two redundancies, then they no longer the former, they become 'scroungers' in Harmans eyes.


The thing is that we are now learning that "scrounger" for both Labour and the Tories includes people who previously thought they were "hard working families": people in work but relying on tax credits.


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Fucking hell that sounds like something out of a Dostoevsky novel


I think she also claimed she did her homework in a McDonalds! 

Her whole spiel seemed to be bitterness and projection


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 13, 2015)

red & green said:


> Don't why anyone would be surprised by Harriet Harman - labour are dead


I'm nit really surprised, on reflection, hasn't this been her response to every budget since losing power?


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wouldn't piss on Rees if he were burning, unless I happened to be pissing petrol at the time. The man's a plastic revolutionary vanguardist twat who'll say anything his paymaster (whoever that happens to be at any given moment) requires.


Can you go into more detail? He seems pretty sincere -  as far as I we can see. Who are his paymasters?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> Can you go into more detail? He seems pretty sincere -  as far as I we can see. Who are his paymasters?



He's a former functionary of the SWP, current member of Counterfire (better known for its failed non-unionised caff than for its politics) and his paymasters are whoever hire him to write a story.
I'm sure Rees seems sincere - perhaps he is sincere - but he's been part of the vanguardist left for so long that he appears to truly believe that he one of the chosen few who should lead us, come the revolution. Of course, like any good leader, he'll stay in a bunker until the shooting has stopped....


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 13, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> I think she also claimed she did her homework in a McDonalds!



Anyone who's ever set foot in a McD's will know this is bullshit.


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 13, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Anyone who's ever set foot in a McD's will know this is bullshit.


of course it is.

but it plays well to the gallery.

It's what the BBC calls a balanced discussion. As if there's any balance when you have a choice between a fair decent progressive society and a shithole ruled by pigs.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 13, 2015)

Scum and why. Leaving aside grand theories I asked my M.P. why it was that the reddest of the red Labour Authorities in the land could allow Starfucks to have a franchise in my NHS Labour controlled hospital without them doing a single thing. In with the tax dodgers and out with The League Of Friends or indeed any local people - of which there are many who could have provided a service. Likewise the hospital shop selling water at £1.50 a bottle.

And they wonder why people don't vote for them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2015)

red & green said:


> Don't why anyone would be surprised by Harriet Harman - labour are dead


if only they were...


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2015)

Caroline Flints deputy campaign part funded by the people who carry out Work Capability Assessments.  No wonder she's so keen on giving claimants shit

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/solomon-hughes-caroline-flint-labour-deputy-leadership-campaign-901


----------



## articul8 (Jul 14, 2015)

Some people seem to think it's "aspirational" to look at the poor like shit on the bottom of your shoe.   At least it's beginning to be challenged within the PLP - even if a substantial section of the leadership seems to think it's ok to demonise people for no other reason than being poor.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 14, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Some people seem to think it's "aspirational" to look at the poor like shit on the bottom of your shoe.



Sadly this is the case across society, including people who are only just able to or are not quite making ends meet. The one good thing that could come out of this aggression against the working poor is that more people will realise that they are also seen and treated in the way that they are being encouraged to treat those who are without work.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 14, 2015)

They have no knowledge of the lives of people on benefit - it's based on Channel 5 "I get benefits for my 35 kids so I don't need to work a day in my life" bollocks


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2015)

articul8 said:


> They have no knowledge of the lives of people on benefit - it's based on Channel 5 "I get benefits for my 35 kids so I don't need to work a day in my life" bollocks


yet you'd have us vote for this shower


----------



## teqniq (Jul 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yet you'd have us vote for this shower


Heh, absolutely no chance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Heh, absolutely no chance.


yeh, neither his miserable powers of persuasion nor the abysmal nature of the party an enticement


----------



## andysays (Jul 14, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Some people seem to think it's "aspirational" to look at the poor like shit on the bottom of your shoe.   *At least it's beginning to be challenged within the PLP* - even if a substantial section of the leadership seems to think it's ok to demonise people for no other reason than being poor.



Let's just repeat that shall we:


> At least it's beginning to be challenged within the Parliamentary Labour Party


And I suppose we should all be grateful to those few Labour MPs who are finally (allegedly/apparently) beginning to challenge it should we? How the fuck can you justify your support, on any level, for the Labour Party, while still coming out with glib nonsense like this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

andysays said:


> How the fuck can you justify your support, on any level, for the Labour Party, while still coming out with glib nonsense like this?



Years of training.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 15, 2015)

It's the Harmans, Hunts and their ilk that don't speak for the Labour party in the country.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 15, 2015)

articul8 said:


> It's the Harmans, Hunts and their ilk that don't speak for the Labour party in the country.



Is it? I know a a Labour spad who went straight from uni to politics and he loves the idea of English Labour or whatever and thought that Ed Miliband was too left-wing. These days if I meet a young peson in the Labour Party who has views to the left of that then I am surprised.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Is it? I know a a Labour spad who went straight from uni to politics and he loves the idea of English Labour or whatever and thought that Ed Miliband was too left-wing. These days if I meet a young peson in the Labour Party who has views to the left of that then I am surprised.



there are a bunch of cunts in and around at that kind of level - also young councillors.  But in terms of lay members, union members, people who want a proper Labour party to vote for - there's enormous frustration and anger that the this they just don't get it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2015)

articul8 said:


> It's the Harmans, Hunts and their ilk that don't speak for the Labour party in the country.


but they do speak for the metropolitan labour lot i suppose.


----------



## andysays (Jul 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Years of training.



Years of brainwashing, more like


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2015)

articul8 said:


> It's the Harmans, Hunts and their ilk that don't speak for the Labour party in the country.



That much is blatantly obvious. The question is why?

The answer, quite simply, is that the party's procedures and rules were changed during Blair's tenure as leader, in order to remove internal party democracy from the agenda. Blair has been gone for 8 years, and yet although there's some grass roots activism around party democracy, there's fuck-all higher up the ladder. A cynic might wonder why.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2015)

double post


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2015)

andysays said:


> Years of brainwashing, more like



That lets him off the hook.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2015)

articul8 said:


> there are a bunch of cunts in and around at that kind of level - also young councillors.  But in terms of lay members, union members, people who want a proper Labour party to vote for - there's enormous frustration and anger that the this they just don't get it.



I'm sorry, but that's bollocks. The party very much *does* get it, but as those party members have no mechanisms by which to sanction the higher-ups of the party, the movers, shakers, wonks and gonks don't have to worry about what the lay membership thinks about or cares about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm sorry, but that's bollocks. The party very much *does* get it, but as those party members have no mechanisms by which to sanction the higher-ups of the party, the movers, shakers, wonks and gonks don't have to worry about what the lay membership thinks about or cares about.


which is why so many people have left that nefandous party


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 16, 2015)

With so many zealous, corrupt and fundamentalist policy ideas eminating from government at the moment it makes me wonder where Labour will find the time to do nothing about all of them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> With so many zealous, corrupt and fundamentalist policy ideas eminating from government at the moment it makes me wonder where Labour will find the time to do nothing about all of them.


they won't do nothing. they'll actively support a lot of it.


----------



## red & green (Jul 16, 2015)

There is no point whatsoever looking to the lab party to oppose current gangsters in power. Not going to happen


----------



## brogdale (Jul 20, 2015)

Welcome to (grand) coalition parliamentary politics.

As low as vermin.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 20, 2015)




----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 20, 2015)

48 Labour MPs defied the whip. The others abstained and voted for their shite amendment. 

Is Harman working for the Tories?


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> 48 Labour MPs defied the whip. The others abstained and voted for their shite amendment.
> 
> Is Harman working for the Tories?


No, she's just doing her best Mr Bean impression, along with many of the leadership candidates. I honestly don't know what's going on. I think they're scared of being in government again.


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 20, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> 48 Labour MPs defied the whip. The others abstained and voted for their shite amendment.
> 
> Is Harman working for the Tories?



Better question is why isnt Harman actually declared her soul to the Tory devil?

I sit and watch the news day by day now and realise the Labour Party doesnt exist anymore.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 20, 2015)




----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

What a guy!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 21, 2015)

Labour rebels

Diane Abbott
Debbie Abrahams
David Anderson
Richard Burgon
Dawn Butler
Ann Clwyd
Jeremy Corbyn
Geraint Davies
Peter Dowd
Paul Flynn
Mary Glindon
Roger Godsiff
Helen Goodman
Margaret Greenwood
Louise Haigh
Carolyn Harris
Sue Hayman
Imran Hussain
Gerald Jones
Helen Jones
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Sadiq Khan
David Lammy
Ian Lavery
Clive Lewis
Rebecca Long Bailey
Andy McDonald
John McDonnell
Liz McInnes
Rob Marris
Rachael Maskell
Michael Meacher
Ian Mearns
Madeleine Moon
Grahame Morris
Kate Osamor
Teresa Pearce
Marie Rimmer
Paula Sherriff
Tulip Siddiq
Dennis Skinner
Cat Smith
Jo Stevens
Graham Stringer
David Winnick
Iain Wright
Daniel Zeichner
Kelvin Hopkins (Teller)


EDIT : List of nominations of Labour MPs in leadership and dep leadership contests in case anyone wants to cross-reference.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 21, 2015)

Damn, fell asleep before the vote came through. Good on the 48 for 'rebelling', but what a truly sorry state of affairs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 21, 2015)

Gerald Kaufman is still there is he? He must be about 96 by now.

Surprised to Sadiq Khan amongst the rebels too, I thought he was well dug in with the Blairite lot. He's running for mayor of London though isn't he, so maybe he wants to put 'opposed welfare cuts' on his campaign flyers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 21, 2015)

OK, so here's a thing.  Labour's whipped abstention means that a government majority of 12 was turned into a majority of 184 on this vote.  However the government vote was only 308, which means that arithmetically Labour abstainers could have brought the bill down by voting against.

Tories and Labour apologists are saying that some Labour MPs were paired, but I have some niggles about that: first, I had thought that pairs agreed to _both_ stay away from the Chamber (not that your pair sat on his/her hands on the opposite bench).  So how many Labour MPs were in the chamber to physically abstain?  (Remember there was a weak, cowardly Labour amendment vote first). Secondly, the SNP MP Tommy Sheppard (admittedly a very new MP) says that you pair an Aye against a No to cancel a vote out, not an Aye against an abstain.  Logically that sounds right, but is it?  Was there "pairing" last night?

This chat of pairing is basically a Labour apologists' weasel device, because they should have voted against, but I'd be interested to see if they are wrong as well as devious, treacherous weasels.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Secondly, the SNP MP Tommy Sheppard (admittedly a very new MP) says that you pair an Aye against a No to cancel a vote out, not an Aye against an abstain.  Logically that sounds right, but is it?  Was there "pairing" last night?


It may sound right, but it isn't.  Pairs simply agree to both not vote. Whilst it would usually be a Yes/No split there's no reason why it couldn't be a Yes/Abstain or whatever.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> It may sound right, but it isn't.  Pairs simply agree to both not vote. Whilst it would usually be a Yes/No split there's no reason why it couldn't be a Yes/Abstain or whatever.


I can see that, too. What I'm asking is: was there pairing?  And even if there was, were there unpaired Tory no shows/abstentions?  By definition not all government MPs can have pairs.  And 12 is a very slim majority indeed.  We are in a situation where Labour didn't even try.  Didn't even try.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 21, 2015)

Why would they try and sink a bill their leader supported?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Pairs simply agree to both not vote. Whilst it would usually be a Yes/No split there's no reason why it couldn't be a Yes/Abstain or whatever.


On the specific Yes/Abstain pairing thing, I agree that Aye/Abstain is a possibility (why I'm asking).  It's just that I've never heard of it before.  Every book I've read on parliamentary procedure (yes, I'm aware just how sad that sounds) explains pairing as Yes/No.  I've never seen other examples given.  That of course isn't to say there aren't others.  It's just curious that this occasion is the first I've heard of it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 21, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why would they try and sink a bill their leader supported?


Yes, that's right.  They went into the GE on a pro-austerity ticket, and they promised not to vote against this Bill.  I'm not expressing _surprise_ here, just revulsion.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 21, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Surprised to Sadiq Khan amongst the rebels too, I thought he was well dug in with the Blairite lot. He's running for mayor of London though isn't he, so maybe he wants to put 'opposed welfare cuts' on his campaign flyers.



I think the fact that people like him and Lammy 'rebelled' indicates a view that the party's trajectory is 'leftwards' and anyone seeking support for Mayor cannot be perceived as Blairite.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> On the specific Yes/Abstain pairing thing, I agree that Aye/Abstain is a possibility (why I'm asking).  It's just that I've never heard of it before.  Every book I've read on parliamentary procedure (yes, I'm aware just how sad that sounds) explains pairing as Yes/No.  I've never seen other examples given.


parliament.gov.uk simply mentions the agreement not to vote, no mention of Yes/No or whatever.

I hadn't realised there was a specific Pairing Whip, whose job it is to track down those who were non-voters 'without being slipped or registering a pair' - I guess 'slipped' is just given a permission slip to not vote


----------



## co-op (Jul 21, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> We are in a situation where Labour didn't even try.  Didn't even try.



I'm used to Labour not trying much these days, but what's shocking to me about this whole sorry affair is the fact that they are not even going to put up a little struggle over child poverty measures/actions and tax credits. We may scoff at these as sticking plaster remedies to huge structural economic and political problems, but they were just about the only re-distributive element of the Blair/Brown govt, that actually helped poor people. They were the sop to the collective Labour Party conscience and the final settlement between the Blairites and the rest of the party. And they've just let them go with only 1 in 5 of them prepared to stand up and be counted against. What a stunning indictment of the PLP.

And what does it say about the next 5 years? I mean even after the shock of losing in May this year, the PLP should be able to see that this govt has Trouble written all over it. A wafer-slim majority, which could easily get thinner (there were 21 by elections 2010-2015), another 5 years of austerity and cuts, every chance of more economic crash(es), the whole issue of Europe which routinely tears the tories apart, That Referendum, - I mean the PLP should be rubbing their hands together and thinking, this could be fun, this could be another Callaghan or another Major, a beleaguered govt, tottering from one tricky vote to another, desperately shoring itself up while falling apart publically...I mean Harman could have just gone hard on this one as a basic strategic decision to make the tories work for everything - no pairing, no deals, get ready for a long hard ride. To me this decision means that fundamentally she must agree with tory policy otherwise, why not oppose it?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> parliament.gov.uk simply mentions the agreement not to vote, no mention of Yes/No or whatever.
> 
> I hadn't realised there was a specific Pairing Whip, whose job it is to track down those who were non-voters 'without being slipped or registering a pair' - I guess 'slipped' is just given a permission slip to not vote


Pairing has to be agreed by Party Whips, and in some votes, such as confidence votes, isn't allowed.  So, yes, the Whips keep track of who is paired and who isn't.


----------



## co-op (Jul 21, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I think the fact that people like him and Lammy 'rebelled' indicates a view that the party's trajectory is 'leftwards' and anyone seeking support for Mayor cannot be perceived as Blairite.



London has gone Labour in a massive way - there are Labour majorities on councils that have never been seen before, and that electorate is leftish. They will be up against a Green candidate who will try and outflank them to the left (and will obviously succeed pretty easily in doing this). They have to play left.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Pairing has to be agreed by Party Whips, and in some votes, such as confidence votes, isn't allowed.  So, yes, the Whips keep track of who is paired and who isn't.


yes, it makes sense.  There'd be bugger all point in having a system but no way of checking up in it. It was actually abandoned for the first two Blair terms - no point with a majority that big, apparently


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> yes, it makes sense.  There'd be bugger all point in having a system but no way of checking up in it. It was actually abandoned for the first two Blair terms - no point with a majority that big, apparently


Indeed.  (Although there are other arrangements, such as taking a "bisque", which allow absences according to a set formula.  Blair's government organised such a system during the years of his large majorities).


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 21, 2015)

And here's the never disappointing Liz Kendall with another cracker:

*"Labour should not have voted to recognise Palestine*

Liz Kendall argued that recognising Palestine was not the “right thing to do” and argued that a “responsible opposition” would not have done it."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eadership-candidate-liz-kendall-10403675.html


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 21, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> And here's the never disappointing Liz Kendall with another cracker:
> 
> *"Labour should not have voted to recognise Palestine*
> 
> ...


Mint Cake is the gift that keeps giving.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 21, 2015)

co-op said:


> I
> 
> And what does it say about the next 5 years? I mean even after the shock of losing in May this year, the PLP should be able to see that this govt has Trouble written all over it. A wafer-slim majority, which could easily get thinner (there were 21 by elections 2010-2015), another 5 years of austerity and cuts, every chance of more economic crash(es), the whole issue of Europe which routinely tears the tories apart, That Referendum, - I mean the PLP should be rubbing their hands together and thinking, this could be fun, this could be another Callaghan or another Major, a beleaguered govt, tottering from one tricky vote to another, desperately shoring itself up while falling apart publically...I mean Harman could have just gone hard on this one as a basic strategic decision to make the tories work for everything - no pairing, no deals, get ready for a long hard ride. To me this decision means that fundamentally she must agree with tory policy otherwise, why not oppose it?



It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there could be a split in Labour ranks such is the level of disorientation. 

Some could go off and form a Democrat style grouping presumably with Liberals. Others could form a left social democratic grouping and presumably seek alliances with the SNP, Plaid and Greens.


----------



## co-op (Jul 21, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there could be a split in Labour ranks such is the level of disorientation.
> 
> Some could go off and form a Democrat style grouping presumably with Liberals. Others could form a left social democratic grouping and presumably seek alliances with the SNP, Plaid and Greens.



Given that only 48 Labour MPs voted against the Welfare Bill yesterday, is this the first time ever that the PLP are no longer the largest left-wing bloc in Parliament? I'm not going to include the Lib Dem scum even though they voted against it in some pathetic bit of Fallonist "re-positioning", but still 124 MPs voted against this Bill and only 48 of them were Labour.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 21, 2015)

Welfare bill: Andy Burnham says 'we cannot simply abstain on this bill' (after abstaining on the bill)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ll-after-abstaining-on-the-bill-10403498.html




			
				Indie said:
			
		

> Welfare bill: Andy Burnham says 'we cannot simply abstain on this bill' (after abstaining on the bill)
> 
> Andy Burnham has faced criticism after a saying Labour "simply cannot abstain" in their opposition to the Tories Welfare Reform Bill – immediately after abstaining in a vote against the cuts.
> 
> ...



"flip-flop Andy" 

"Burnham, a former Secretary of State for Health, has now stated that he will "oppose this bill at third reading,"


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 21, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> And here's the never disappointing Liz Kendall with another cracker:
> 
> *"Labour should not have voted to recognise Palestine*
> 
> ...



Does she have a single redeeming quality?


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Caroline Flints deputy campaign part funded by the people who carry out Work Capability Assessments.  No wonder she's so keen on giving claimants shit
> 
> http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/solomon-hughes-caroline-flint-labour-deputy-leadership-campaign-901




Wow, good find, should be circulated


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> Let's just repeat that shall we:
> 
> And I suppose we should all be grateful to those few Labour MPs who are finally (allegedly/apparently) beginning to challenge it should we? How the fuck can you justify your support, on any level, for the Labour Party, while still coming out with glib nonsense like this?




link to the roll of honour?

sorry just seen it.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Labour rebels
> 
> Diane Abbott
> Debbie Abrahams
> ...




Mine is not on it, talks the talk, but when it comes to it.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Labour rebels
> 
> Diane Abbott
> Debbie Abrahams
> ...



Stringer voted against the bill, bit surprised there.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there could be a split in Labour ranks such is the level of disorientation.
> 
> Some could go off and form a Democrat style grouping presumably with Liberals. Others could form a left social democratic grouping and presumably seek alliances with the SNP, Plaid and Greens.



Which liberals?, the whole LD cohort(including clegg) voted against the Bill, the Blairites abstained, some would have voted yes if they could


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Welfare bill: Andy Burnham says 'we cannot simply abstain on this bill' (after abstaining on the bill)
> 
> "flip-flop Andy"
> 
> "Burnham, a former Secretary of State for Health, has now stated that he will "oppose this bill at third reading,"



Apart from everything else, he's bringing the name Andy into disrepute 

Anyway, I can't remember if it was Burnham or Harman or one of the other cunts who explicitly said it recently, but the leadership of the LP is entirely focussed on establishing themselves in the public conciousness as being "responsible" in the early period of this parliament, unlike the supposedly irresponsible party of Ed Miliband.

What this means in practice is being utterly craven and not providing even a token opposition to the Tories. According to this strategy, the behaviour of the 40odd Labour rebels who dared to actually vote against the government yesterday is what will lose Labour the election in 2020.


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> link to the roll of honour?
> 
> sorry just seen it.



articul8 made his statement before the vote last night, so I have no idea who or what he was thinking of


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> Apart from everything else, he's bringing the name Andy into disrepute
> 
> Anyway, I can't remember if it was Burnham or Harman or one of the other cunts who explicitly said it recently, but the leadership of the LP is entirely focussed on establishing themselves in the public conciousness as being "responsible" in the early period of this parliament, unlike the supposedly irresponsible party of Ed Miliband.
> 
> What this means in practice is being utterly craven and not providing even a token opposition to the Tories. According to this strategy, the behaviour of the 40odd Labour rebels who dared to actually vote against the government yesterday is what will lose Labour the election in 2020.




Burnham seems the personification of a flipper, though when he does flip he gets things done, Hillsborough.


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> Burnham seems the personification of a flipper...


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

Apparently lots of people have been ringing various dissenting M.P's offices such as Louise Haigh to congratulate them.


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 21, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Does she have a single redeeming quality?



She hasn't declared support for ISIS yet so we can hold her on that!


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Caroline Flints deputy campaign part funded by the people who carry out Work Capability Assessments.  No wonder she's so keen on giving claimants shit
> 
> http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/solomon-hughes-caroline-flint-labour-deputy-leadership-campaign-901



Caroline Flint openly boasts about when she was a student she threw eggs at Dennis Skinner.

If you ever need to meet her just book a load of photographers and TV cameras, she will be there, spouting sound bytes!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> Which liberals?, the whole LD cohort(including clegg) voted against the Bill, the Blairites abstained, some would have voted yes if they could



You easily see the Orange book liberals and right wing of the Labour Party finding common ground. 

I think how MP's voted last night is much less important that the various trajectories in the wake of the Tory win, the SNP win and the slow but inevitable implosion of Labour across the rest of the UK.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 21, 2015)

They are an appalling joke dangled in front of electors who sadly still support them.
Also John Mann is not on the list. Thought he may have had the spirit not to support the Tories.

They will be voting on banning food kitchens next!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 21, 2015)

what a bunch of fucking cunts. You had one job Labour, one fucking job and you shit it again


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 21, 2015)

Where's @articul8 to reassure us all?!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 21, 2015)

Denis Skinner agrees with Tommy Sheppard's arithmetic:


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 21, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33608826

Timms accuses the 'rebels' of undermining the party. FFS, its the weasels who sat idly by that undermined the Labour Party in the eyes of their traditional voters.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 21, 2015)

Blunkett was going down that route this morning on Radio 4 too


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 21, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33608826
> 
> Timms accuses the 'rebels' of undermining the party. FFS, its the weasels who sat idly by that undermined the Labour Party in the eyes of their traditional voters.


and in 2017 when they stand shoulder to shoulder with the vermin to browbeat and hector us all with dire warnings of becoming a third worl ghetto if we don't vote to stay in the greece-fucking european union...well. Well well well. If they lost scotland then they can lose everything


----------



## 8115 (Jul 21, 2015)

"Welfare" was always going to be the weakest of the weak spots of Labour given that they've lost two elections being painted as a party with spending out of control, accounts in a shambles while people on benefits live it up with flat screen tvs while the squeezed middle etc etc.

By giving it all the "undermining the party" instead of acknowledging that it's a difficult issue for the party they're playing into their opponents hands.

I liked what Corbyn said about needing to have a policy debate before a leadership debate, that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 21, 2015)

Flip-flop: "Tonight I am firing the starting gun on Labour's opposition to this Bill. If I am elected leader in September, I am determined that Labour will fight this regressive Bill word by word, line by line."


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 21, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> Flip-flop: "Tonight I am firing the starting gun on Labour's opposition to this Bill.* If I am elected leader in September*, I am determined that Labour will fight this regressive Bill word by word, line by line."


that cunt might as well have renege written on his sweaty businessmans forehead


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> that cunt might as well have renege written on his sweaty businessmans forehead



I'd rather carve it *into* his forehead, given my druthers.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 21, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> Flip-flop: "Tonight I am firing the starting gun on Labour's opposition to this Bill. If I am elected leader in September, I am determined that Labour will fight this regressive Bill word by word, line by line."



Too late. The SNP have fired the gun and are leading the fight. Labour need to take their place in the queue behind Libdems, Greens (and DUP?)


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover I see that Paul Blomfield didn't vote against it. Disgusting.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2015)

I hate (most) Labour more than the Tories. The lower than vermin pondscum are just doing what comes naturally to subhuman sociopaths but it took the Labour Party to be the midwife for the culture shift that delivered a Tory majority government. Any party not totally dedicated to being the servants of the financial industry and administering austerity could have challenged the narrative that public spending caused the recession and would have had the nous not to join in with the jocks under the beds narrative during and after the Scottish Independence Referendum.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> treelover I see that Paul Blomfield didn't vote against it. Disgusting.


not that surprised by Blomfield, Harpham is more surprising, considering he pretends to be a 'proper leftwinger'


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 21, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Where's @articul8 to reassure us all?!


He is fighting mightily in that parliament where he goes, mightily arguing down this iniquity.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2015)

Can some helpful person provide a linky so i can see how my MP voted. I really cannot be arsed to trawl through the .gov stuff trying to find it. TIA


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 21, 2015)

How much flak will Labours appeasing MPs be taking today?

Maybe less than you'd assume.

When you're on £80k plus expenses, feted by lobbyists, availing of dinners and free trips to the opera etc. there's little time for giving a shit what the untermensch think. Secretaries and interns can deal with the mail, answer machine and social media stuff.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 21, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Can some helpful person provide a linky so i can see how my MP voted. I really cannot be arsed to trawl through the .gov stuff trying to find it. TIA


Jo Stevens? voted against iirc


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2015)

ddraig said:


> Jo Stevens? voted against iirc


No Kevin Brennan


----------



## ddraig (Jul 21, 2015)

shame on him!
on this list http://voxpoliticalonline.com/


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 21, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33608826
> 
> Timms accuses the 'rebels' of undermining the party. FFS, its the weasels who sat idly by that undermined the Labour Party in the eyes of their traditional voters.


Or Stephen Timid as I prefer to call him. What a useless lump he is.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2015)

ddraig said:


> shame on him!
> on this list http://voxpoliticalonline.com/


Right. Thanks for that, what a cunt.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2015)

Shitty email sent


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2015)

I am sending a nasty email too, for all the good that it will do...


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 21, 2015)

Awful as it sounds I am relieved my parents did not live to witness this spineless, feckless excuse for an alleged Labour Party.
Shame on them, cap touching scum!


----------



## youngian (Jul 21, 2015)

The voters they're trying to impress are not listening to them anyway because the candidates don't look or sound like future PMs. And by pissing off most of the Labour Party two months before they ask for their vote demonstrates their lack of political nouse.

Whether you support Corbyn or not he's given an intelligent articulate explanation to his opposition to this bill making points that even Tory voters in London and Southeast will recognise in regards to housing.

But Harman got the reaction she wanted for this omnishables: "Look at us we can stand up to the head-in-the-clouds lefties who haven't got the balls to take on the scroungers and the deficit". But if you are serious about the alleged deficit problem you show leadership by telling everyone to take a haircut (as the IMF would make you): Pension freezes, VAT increases, corporation tax rises for eg. But the Tories have decided to attack the most vulnerable people who have no power and don't vote in great numbers. That's not tough leadership that's the work of cowards. So what does that make the Labour front bench who haven't got the guts to oppose?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 21, 2015)

Andy Burnham bridges!


----------



## gosub (Jul 21, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I can see that, too. What I'm asking is: was there pairing?  And even if there was, were there unpaired Tory no shows/abstentions?  By definition not all government MPs can have pairs.  And 12 is a very slim majority indeed.  We are in a situation where Labour didn't even try.  Didn't even try.



Government vote was 308, tends to indicate whipping, probably two line.  Will have had to pair to miss it


----------



## lazythursday (Jul 21, 2015)

youngian said:


> The voters they're trying to impress are not listening to them anyway because the candidates don't look or sound like future PMs. And by pissing off most of the Labour Party two months before they ask for their vote demonstrates their lack of leadership.



This is something that puzzles me. At present the candidates are trying to win the Labour Party leadership, not the general election. They seem to have no idea of their electorate. The obvious strategy to play, if you are a New Labour drone, is to give some red meat to the membership now (oppose the government, agree with some totemic policy like renationalising the railways) and then stab them in the back and lurch rightwards once elected. There are five years to suck up to middle England and ignore the grassroots - why do it now?


----------



## youngian (Jul 21, 2015)

lazythursday said:


> There are five years to suck up to middle England and ignore the grassroots - why do it now?


Perhaps Harriet Harman is going to hand out copies of Hansard for voters to thumb through. Cameron and Osborne are going to lie about Labours' record anyway and produce dire warnings as to how Labour will steal your kittens. And voters will believe them if Labour is led by some apologising chump.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 21, 2015)

What a dick (especially bolded)   

Andy Burnham says he would have voted against the welfare cuts if he was leader
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-welfare-cuts-if-he-was-leader-10405121.html




			
				Indie said:
			
		

> A Labour leadership contender who abstained on a key welfare cuts vote has said he would have voted against the proposals if he was leading the party.
> 
> Andy Burnham said he did not believe Labour’s position on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill was “strong enough” but that he had abstained because it was important for the shadow cabinet to all vote the same way.
> 
> ...


----------



## gosub (Jul 21, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> What a dick (especially bolded)
> 
> Andy Burnham says he would have voted against the welfare cuts if he was leader
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-welfare-cuts-if-he-was-leader-10405121.html


 Even the telegraph are sticking the knife in.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 21, 2015)

gosub said:


> Even the telegraph are sticking the knife in.


A good sign for Burnham's campaign if the Barclay brothers have instructed their amanuenses to target him.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 21, 2015)

Corbyn has been strengthened by this big style


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 21, 2015)

Well thanks for that, master strategist.


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 21, 2015)

My local MP, Jim Fitzpatrick didn't have the stomach to abstain his vote and agreed to welfare cuts.

Now considering the levels of poverty and the amount of people who rely on the welfare system within the area of Poplar and Limehouse, its beyond a bit of a joke. 

What a wanker really.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 21, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Shitty email sent



Ditto. A third of kids in Cardiff West live below the poverty line. Despicable.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 21, 2015)




----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Corbyn has been strengthened by this big style



Even if he has, so what?

And even if he does get elected leader, he will clearly be leader of a party with no guts, no connection with the people it is supposed to represent, largely indistinguishable from the Tories and with no real reason to exist other than to provide salaries and expenses for its MPs and their hangers on.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 21, 2015)

Tony_LeaS said:


> My local MP, Jim Fitzpatrick didn't have the stomach to abstain his vote and agreed to welfare cuts.
> 
> Now considering the levels of poverty and the amount of people who rely on the welfare system within the area of Poplar and Limehouse, its beyond a bit of a joke.
> 
> What a wanker really.


Fitzpatrick's always been a ras claat tbf.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Denis Skinner agrees with Tommy Sheppard's arithmetic:




If the Bill had fallen, would they just bring a different revision back to the house?

still would have been great though.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> treelover I see that Paul Blomfield didn't vote against it. Disgusting.




yes, he is a bureaucrat, makes all the noises, etc, it will be interesting to see how he behaves during the committee stage

btw, he is nearly 60, its unlike he will see office, unless its the Lords he would want


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Or Stephen Timid as I prefer to call him. What a useless lump he is.



Christian 'Socialist', at the heart of N/l's welfare 'reforms'


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

> The main changes in the Bill are reducing the household welfare cap from £26,000 to £23,000, abolishing legally binding child poverty targets, cuts to child tax credits, cuts to Employment and Support Allowance, and cuts to housing benefit for young people.



The cap for a single person outside London/SE is 13,000, and that includes disabled people who aren't exempt


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> yes, he is a bureaucrat, makes all the noises, etc, it will be interesting to see how he behaves during the committee stage
> 
> btw, he is nearly 60, its unlike he will see office, unless its the Lords he would want


he wont say anything in committee - he's not on that one

He's also 61 (which surprised me a bit)


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

Tony_LeaS said:


> My local MP, Jim Fitzpatrick didn't have the stomach to abstain his vote and agreed to welfare cuts.
> 
> Now considering the levels of poverty and the amount of people who rely on the welfare system within the area of Poplar and Limehouse, its beyond a bit of a joke.
> 
> What a wanker really.



He voted for the cuts?!


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> The cap for a single person outside London/SE is 13,000, and that includes disabled people who aren't exempt


----------



## youngian (Jul 21, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> What a dick (especially bolded)
> 
> Andy Burnham says he would have voted against the welfare cuts if he was leader
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-welfare-cuts-if-he-was-leader-10405121.html



Andy Burnham is looking like he's auditioning for a Brian Rix farce with that piece of back peddling. I don't blame the foot soldiers for remaining loyal, this is Harman's debacle. A divided party is up there with strangling puppies for repelling voters. Especially one that had a chance to be united and land one on the government Its like General Melchett's battle plans.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 21, 2015)

lazythursday said:


> This is something that puzzles me. At present the candidates are trying to win the Labour Party leadership, not the general election. They seem to have no idea of their electorate. The obvious strategy to play, if you are a New Labour drone, is to give some red meat to the membership now (oppose the government, agree with some totemic policy like renationalising the railways) and then stab them in the back and lurch rightwards once elected. There are five years to suck up to middle England and ignore the grassroots - why do it now?



Because this is a clear statement of intent to not even pretend to care about social democracy anymore. The latest lurch to the right, where the centre becomes the extreme-left. Set your stall out now, because this is how it's going to be forever.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> He voted for the cuts?!


His name is on this list of abstainers.


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 21, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Fitzpatrick's always been a ras claat tbf.



Agree, but at times he shows his care for the community, so to see him vote for it kinda is a massive backstab through the community. Many labour supporters who canvassed for him feel backstabbed.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> The cap for a single person outside London/SE is 13,000, and that includes disabled people who aren't exempt


Does it? Aren't we?


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

DLA is excluded, all other means tested benefits are, someone posted it up in another thread.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2015)

Blomfield's apologia for his vote, funny how he doesn't mention not voting against the entire bill:

*Opposing the Welfare Reform and Work Bill*
23 people have written to me about the Government’s Welfare Reform and Work Bill. I wanted to share my response more widely:

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to explain the position I took on the Government's Welfare Reform and Work Bill at its initial Parliamentary consideration at Second Reading, when I voted for the Labour amendment against the Bill. I believe passionately in a system of social security where people are properly supported when in need, and contribute as they can afford it through progressive taxation. I am appalled by the Tory demonisation of those on benefits – whether in or out of work – and am particularly opposed to those Tory proposals to reverse the progress made by Labour Governments in tackling child poverty.

You’ll recall that the issue at the heart of the debate on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill was Harriet Harman’s suggestion, made on the Sunday Politics programme on 13 July, that Labour might accept the Tory proposal to cut child tax credit from third and subsequent children. Immediately that day, and on the following day, I made my view clear that I would not support such a proposal. It is completely unacceptable that families who find themselves out of work or on low pay, and therefore entitled to child tax credits, should be penalised for having more than two children – and that the children themselves should be punished – by the withdrawal of tax credits.

My view was shared by a huge number of other Labour MPs, including three out of the four candidates for our leadership. As a result of the discussion within the Parliamentary Party, Labour submitted a ‘reasoned amendment’ rejecting the Bill on the grounds of its impact on child poverty and, leading the debate for Labour, Stephen Timms made it clear that we did not support this proposal. I voted for this amendment, which clearly stated our opposition to the Bill. Sadly, the vote was lost because of the Conservative majority in the House of Commons.

I would stress that this debate was only the initial stage in the long Parliamentary consideration of the Bill, which will now go to detailed consideration in Committee and then return for Report Stage and Third Reading, before going to the House of Lords, and then returning to the Commons. I intend to make the case against the removal of tax credits, and other pernicious aspects of the Bill, at every opportunity.

I’m also thinking about running a public campaign on the issues and wondered whether you would be willing to join me – going out to meet local people and making the case against these proposals. If so, drop me a note and I’ll stay in touch.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Blomfield's apologia for his vote, funny how he doesn't mention not voting against the entire bill:
> 
> *Opposing the Welfare Reform and Work Bill*
> 23 people have written to me about the Government’s Welfare Reform and Work Bill. I wanted to share my response more widely:
> ...





> _I intend to make the case against the removal of tax credits, and other pernicious aspects of the Bill, at every opportunity._



Yeah, make the case...whydontcha...but vote against...oh nooooo
Positioning himself as low as the vermin.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> DLA is excluded, all other means tested benefits are, someone posted it up in another thread.


Pages 6 and 10 of this reckon otherwise (the benefit cap doc) http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/welfarereformandwork/documents.html

(sorry, on phone and can't c/p a pdf, but screenshots. Please do correct me if i'm reading this wrong. E2a: if anyone else can clarify, i'd really appreciate it - ta)


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

If that's correct, my apologies and good news, for some,


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

> I'm impeccably working class born and bred. My mother marched in the late twenties with her friends to the tune of the Red Flag.
> 
> The more I read the more I wanted Socialism to become a force. I admired the Labour Government which was voted in by people who had had enough of the old ways of privilege and tried to change things after the Second World War.
> 
> ...




A incisive summary of the L/P over 60 years.

from Guardian CIF


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, make the case...whydontcha...but vote against...oh nooooo
> Positioning himself as low as the vermin.



I just knew he would not vote against it,


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Blomfield's apologia for his vote, funny how he doesn't mention not voting against the entire bill:
> 
> *Opposing the Welfare Reform and Work Bill*
> 23 people have written to me about the Government’s Welfare Reform and Work Bill. I wanted to share my response more widely:
> ...



lots more have rang him




> I’m also thinking about running a public campaign on the issues and wondered whether you would be willing to join me – going out to meet local people and making the case against these proposals. If so, drop me a note and I’ll stay in touch.



I hope he does, he got a massive vote, though he is winged,


----------



## cantsin (Jul 21, 2015)

the rebellion vs Harmans Tory schilling was " because she's a woman " 

http://gu.com/p/4apcj/stw


----------



## 8115 (Jul 21, 2015)

cantsin said:


> the rebellion vs Harmans Tory schilling was " because she's a woman "
> 
> http://gu.com/p/4apcj/stw


"By merely doing her job as acting Labour leader"?

Fuck off Harman.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

Bizzarro!


----------



## cantsin (Jul 21, 2015)

8115 said:


> "By merely doing her job as acting Labour leader"?
> 
> Fuck off Harman.



as shit as the the Graun / PLP gets


----------



## YouSir (Jul 21, 2015)

cantsin said:


> the rebellion vs Harmans Tory schilling was " because she's a woman "
> 
> http://gu.com/p/4apcj/stw



Jesus fucking Christ. There really is no awareness of the fact that people might, for some strange, outlandish, unimaginable reason object to Labour wibbling over a Tory plan to fuck over thousands of people is there? It's like a conspiracy forum. Fucking worthless people.


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2015)

cantsin said:


> the rebellion vs Harmans Tory schilling was " because she's a woman "
> 
> http://gu.com/p/4apcj/stw



Clearly, it's Harman who is the real victim here, not the 1,000s of benefit recipients who she has decided to abandon in her attempt to make her party look "responsible"


----------



## YouSir (Jul 21, 2015)

Some small, meaningless comfort, been looking from LP MP Twitter feeds and they're all getting shit. Changes nothing but hell if I don't take some pleasure in watching hundreds of people call them scum.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Blomfield's apologia for his vote, funny how he doesn't mention not voting against the entire bill:
> 
> I’m also thinking about running a public campaign on the issues and wondered whether you would be willing to join me – going out to meet local people and making the case against these proposals. If so, drop me a note and I’ll stay in touch.



''Thinking about'' running a campaign? What's there to think about? 
Don't believe him, Belboid, he'll expect you to campaign while he abstains...


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 21, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Some small, meaningless comfort, been looking from LP MP Twitter feeds and they're all getting shit. Changes nothing but hell if I don't take some pleasure in watching hundreds of people call them scum.



The hashtag #labstain seems rather popular...


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Blomfield's apologia for his vote, funny how he doesn't mention not voting against the entire bill



I got the same response, I bet some unpaid intern is spending a lot of time copying and pasting today.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 21, 2015)

Graun/CiF mass deleting loads of  critical comments beneath that feeble piece - messy times for Nu Lab / Graun's wilting centrists


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2015)

cantsin said:


> Graun/CiF mass deleting loads of  critical comments beneath that feeble piece - messy times for Nu Lab / Graun's wilting centrists



What sort of stuff are they deleting exactly?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> What sort of stuff are they deleting exactly?



"Every time you feign outrage at a woman getting called out for genuinely shit behaviour on the grounds that she's only being attacked because she's a woman, a real feminist dies."

Not really, I just made that one up. And it's not particularly coherent or funny, but you get the idea.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> Clearly, it's Harman who is the real victim here, not the 1,000s of benefit recipients who she has decided to abandon in her attempt to make her party look "responsible"



The victims are disproportionately women too.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 21, 2015)

Edit


----------



## cantsin (Jul 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> What sort of stuff are they deleting exactly?


Weird, mine was a short, non sweary " as bad as it gets " comment , that went, as did a quick "why" ? To follow - but if you look back there's  shed loads deleted at one point, and comments keep going up mentioning this before getting removed .


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The victims are disproportionately women too.



Indeed they are, but clearly not as worth worrying about as Harman according to whoever wrote that nonsense - women and men of no importance.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jul 21, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Jesus fucking Christ. There really is no awareness of the fact that people might, for some strange, outlandish, unimaginable reason object to Labour wibbling over a Tory plan to fuck over thousands of people is there? It's like a conspiracy forum. Fucking worthless people.


Yes, why be concerned with people being pushed further into poverty, homelessness, and stressful situations - and the reports that show that welfare cuts impact more women, and aggravate all kinds of existing inequalities for women - to be really feminist you have to support spineless vermin like Harman, obviously.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 21, 2015)

The Labour Party will probably bring badges and tee shirts with
Je suis Harriet on next!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 22, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Some small, meaningless comfort, been looking from LP MP Twitter feeds and they're all getting shit.



Of course, in most cases it won't be the MP dealing with the shit. They are too busy being important elsewhere to bother what the proles think. Let the interns handle it.


----------



## youngian (Jul 22, 2015)

cantsin said:


> the rebellion vs Harmans Tory schilling was " because she's a woman "
> 
> http://gu.com/p/4apcj/stw



This Simon Jenkins article is nearly as bad
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/21/harriet-harman-sensible-welfare-bill-labour


> *Harriet Harman took the only sensible decision on the welfare bill *


Jenkins can be an interesting read with some independent views but he appears to have just become another Guardian troll. 

The swivel eyed loons love to bang on about 'lefty Guardian readers' but does anyone actually know many left leaning people who even read the Guardian beyond the odd selected article? 
I haven't even seen it in Ken Barlow's house for a good many years.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 22, 2015)

youngian said:


> The swivel eyed loons love to bang on about 'lefty Guardian readers' but does anyone actually know many left leaning people who even read the Guardian beyond the odd selected article?


The comments threads are often full of Tories and Kippers.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 22, 2015)




----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 22, 2015)

Another bollock speak his brains:

"*Firstly, let’s debunk a media myth: last night, the Parliamentary Labour Party, as a bloc, in its entirety, united,voted AGAINST the Welfare Reform and Work Bill."  *

*http://andrewgwynne.co.uk/2015/07/2...hs-on-commons-procedure-and-the-welfare-bill/*


----------



## teqniq (Jul 22, 2015)

Wff?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> Another bollock speak his brains:
> 
> "*Firstly, let’s debunk a media myth: last night, the Parliamentary Labour Party, as a bloc, in its entirety, united,voted AGAINST the Welfare Reform and Work Bill."  *
> 
> *http://andrewgwynne.co.uk/2015/07/2...hs-on-commons-procedure-and-the-welfare-bill/*




The best bit are the oh so grateful comments...oh so grateful that they can carry on just as they were, now that all the nastiness has been explained away!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jul 22, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> Another bollock speak his brains:
> 
> "*Firstly, let’s debunk a media myth: last night, the Parliamentary Labour Party, as a bloc, in its entirety, united,voted AGAINST the Welfare Reform and Work Bill."  *
> 
> *http://andrewgwynne.co.uk/2015/07/2...hs-on-commons-procedure-and-the-welfare-bill/*



Yes, all 40 odd of what the Labour Party use to stand for, the rest of them Tory swingers didn't son.

What a fucking idiot.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 22, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> "*Firstly, let’s debunk a media myth: last night, the Parliamentary Labour Party, as a bloc, in its entirety, united,voted AGAINST the Welfare Reform and Work Bill."  *
> 
> *http://andrewgwynne.co.uk/2015/07/2...hs-on-commons-procedure-and-the-welfare-bill/*



Yes, they did indeed. Apart from the bit where they didn't, which in fairness was the only bit.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 22, 2015)

Still waiting for my labstain MP to reply to the email I sent him...


----------



## teqniq (Jul 22, 2015)

And mine. Though I suspect I might have a long wait, whilst I wasn't technically abusive I wasn't exactly flattering either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2015)

teqniq said:


> And mine. Though I suspect I might have a long wait, whilst I wasn't technically abusive I wasn't exactly flattering either.


complain to the speaker.


----------



## red & green (Jul 22, 2015)

Why don't those cowards and traitors just cross the floor? Bleedin useless


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 22, 2015)

red & green said:


> Why don't those cowards and traitors just cross the floor? Bleedin useless



They would lose their way!


----------



## red & green (Jul 22, 2015)

They are still stuck here


----------



## teqniq (Jul 22, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> complain to the speaker.


What, you can do that if they don't reply? In any event I'll certainly wait some more, I only mailed him yesterday.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2015)

red & green said:


> They are still stuck here




Lol at property tycoon (and some-time underwear model) Derek Hatton being 'furious' in the audience. Prick.


----------



## red & green (Jul 22, 2015)

Amazing watching kinnochio who I despise - bogusly spout rhetoric that would have the present lot clutching their pearls


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2015)

teqniq said:


> What, you can do that if they don't reply? In any event I'll certainly wait some more, I only mailed him yesterday.


make up something about his expenses and send it to the local paper. light blue touch paper and retire.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 22, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


>


----------



## extra dry (Jul 24, 2015)

interesting interview with Mhairr Black, talks about labour and other issues.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 24, 2015)

teqniq said:


> And mine. Though I suspect I might have a long wait, whilst I wasn't technically abusive I wasn't exactly flattering either.


So, I had a very lengthy reply



Spoiler: Kevin Brennan's reply



Thank you for your letter about the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.  I wanted to take the trouble to set out my position in detail given the media coverage and confusion around the vote, so I apologise for the length of this response.

Let me start by saying that I became involved in politics to seek power to be able to take steps to build a fairer and more equal society and reduce poverty and inequality, and through my surgeries and office I regularly meet and help constituents affected by pernicious Tory policy aimed at the poorest. The fact that the last Labour government’s policies lifted over 1 million children out of poverty is an achievement of which I am proud. I am very sorry that we failed to win the General Election – the consequence of which is the first majority Tory Government to be elected since 1992, and, of course, this Bill.  I accept that as an opposition our response to the Tories’ efforts to play politics with poverty in this Bill has not been good enough, and has allowed a misconception to be propagated that Labour MPs didn’t vote against the bill.

To be clear all Labour MPs, including me, voted not to give the Bill a Second Reading by supporting Labour’s amendment which started with the words ’this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill’. We lost that vote, just as we knew we would and just as we knew we would have lost the later vote on the Bill receiving its 2nd reading.

There is a perfectly logical argument for Labour to attempt to vote down the sections of the bill that we don’t support rather than vote down the whole bill and lose the things we support, like more apprenticeships.  This was the position agreed after debate by the Shadow Cabinet. There was also a logical argument (which a number of my colleagues made) for opposing the entire bill (including things we supported) in order to make a point. In practical terms neither of these approaches made a difference to the outcome. The government has an overall majority, and not a single Tory MP has expressed dissatisfaction with the overall Bill, so it would pass either way. It is a question of how we as an opposition best make our point. I am sorry that in the current situation this was not explained clearly enough, but It is wrong, however, to suggest that Labour provided no opposition to the Bill, as some have tried to do.

There has also been some confusion as to exactly what is contained in the Bill. I will also vote against the cuts to Labour’s working tax credits which will make 3 million low and middle income working families worse off – including many people in Cardiff West. Again to be clear these measures are not in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. They will be in secondary legislation in the autumn. I will oppose them because they will leave some of the poorest families £1000 worse off a year.

There are some things in the Bill which we support which is why the reasoned amendment was put down.  These things include 3 million apprenticeships, cuts in council rents, support for troubled families and loans for mortgage interest, some of which were Labour manifesto commitments.  I certainly oppose the abolition of child poverty targets, cuts to support for the sick and disabled who are not fit for work (including people who have cancer or Parkinson’s disease) and the two child limit.

If our amendment had passed the Government would have had to completely rewrite the Bill taking out those parts we would not support.

When that didn’t happen we immediately tabled amendments for the next stage in Committee to remove from the Bill the measures we oppose, and to try to make sure that other measures are workable and fair. It is important to remember that Monday’s votes are only the start of the process and do not mean that Bill has been passed. If the Bill is not amended sufficiently, then there will be a vote at Third Reading where we can oppose it.

Here are some of those amendments to the Bill which we have put down for the Committee Stage:

·An amendment to prevent the Government abolishing the targets for reducing child poverty.

·An amendment to prevent the deletion of child poverty from the remit of the ‘Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission’.

·An amendment which will mean that the household benefit cap would not apply to persons who are responsible for a child under 2 years old, are a carer, or are in temporary accommodation because of domestic violence.

·A new clause which will require the Secretary of State to report each year on the impact of the household benefit cap, particularly on child poverty.

·An amendment which will require the level of the household benefit cap to be reviewed every year, rather than only once in a Parliament. The review would be based on the new clause above requiring the impact of the benefit cap on child poverty to be assessed each year.

·An amendment which will require the Social Security Advisory Committee to review the Discretionary Housing Payments fund each year to ensure that sufficient resources are available. Discretionary Housing Payments are used to support those who are unfairly affected by the benefit cap.

·An amendment which will set the target of full employment as 80 per cent of the working age population – in line with the Labour Government’s definition and recent research which shows that this would be an ambitious target. The Bill includes a process for reviewing progress towards ‘full employment’, but does not define what is meant by that.

·An amendment to require the UK Commission on Employment and Skills to assess whether the Government’s target for apprenticeships is being met, so that the Government can be held to account. There is significant concern among businesses and others that the quality of apprenticeships is being watered down in order to increase the numbers.

·An amendment which will require the resources which are being dedicated to helping troubled families to be clearly set out.

·An amendment which will ensure that interventions to support troubled families are focused on helping people into work.

·An amendment to prevent the Bill restricting Universal Credit for three or subsequent children even when the third child is born before 5 April 2017.

·A new clause preventing the restrictions to tax credits applying to three or more children where a third child is born as a result of a multiple birth, where a third of subsequent child is fostered or adopted, where a third child or subsequent child is disabled, or where a family with three or more children moves onto tax credits or universal credit in exceptional circumstances – including but not restricted to the death of one member of the family, the departure of one parent or loss of income through unemployment – which would be set out by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It also sets up an appeals process for all cases covered by this clause.

·An amendment preventing cuts in the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) for the WRAG group of around £30 a week. People who are in the WRAG group have been through a rigorous test which has deemed them not fit for work, for example because they have Parkinson’s or are being treated for cancer.

·An amendment requiring the Government to produce a plan to offset the impact of lower social rents on housing associations. Labour supports the reduction in social housing rents, which will help low-income families and bring down the housing benefits bill. However, we must protect against impacts on the ability of housing associations to build new affordable homes and maintain their existing properties.

·An amendment which subjects the four-year benefit freeze to an annual review subject to changes in inflation.

So far from supporting the Tories’ plans as some people have tried to suggest, we have laid down detailed opposition to what they are doing through these amendments.

I am sorry that in our current post election position, without a leader, this matter has not been handled or communicated well.  I would however ask you to look at the full facts, even if you don’t agree with the choice that was made about which votes to pursue in Parliament.


Thank you once again for getting in touch.


Best wishes,









Kevin Brennan MP


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 24, 2015)

I was thinking of emailing my own MP about it, but I'm pretty sure I would get the exact same reply rewritten slightly.


----------



## extra dry (Jul 26, 2015)

Labour don't have much fight in them. The tories will reek havoc in the uk for the next five years or so, by then it will be too much for most of the poor and risk in society.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 26, 2015)

well, their politics reek


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2015)

All was inflicted here that earth’s revenge
Could wreak on the infringers of her law;
One curse alone was spared -the name of God.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 31, 2015)

I finally got a reply from my MP. Two whole pages. Basically he says that voting against would be 'gesture politics' and we would lose the ''good'' parts such as apprenticeships and the benefit cap... As I read the letter I could hear Fat Dave's voice, he actually wrote things like ''the (welfare) system is broken'' and ''idleness and a life on benefits''. 
I honestly expected him to sign off with a ''Chris Evans pp G. Osborne''. 

I can't believe that a week ago I was toying with the idea of paying 3 quid to that shower of shits.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2015)

Cooper & 3 London Mayoral candidates funded by property developers....

http://insidecroydon.com/2015/08/21/property-developer-ansari-donates-to-cooper-and-khan/

What could possibly be dodge about that?


----------



## andysays (Aug 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Cooper & 3 London Mayoral candidates funded by *property developers*....
> 
> http://insidecroydon.com/2015/08/21/property-developer-ansari-donates-to-cooper-and-khan/
> 
> What could possibly be dodge about that?



That's "key stakeholders and members of the wealth creating community" in current LP parlance, if you don't mind


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> I finally got a reply from my MP. Two whole pages. Basically he says that voting against would be 'gesture politics' and we would lose the ''good'' parts such as apprenticeships and the benefit cap... As I read the letter I could hear Fat Dave's voice, he actually wrote things like ''the (welfare) system is broken'' and ''idleness and a life on benefits''.
> I honestly expected him to sign off with a ''Chris Evans pp G. Osborne''.
> 
> I can't believe that a week ago I was toying with the idea of paying 3 quid to that shower of shits.



that's disgusting, which wing of the party is he on?


----------



## spartacus mills (Aug 22, 2015)

treelover said:


> that's disgusting, which wing of the party is he on?



I think he's on that part of the Venn diagram that crosses over with the Tory party...


----------



## J Ed (Aug 22, 2015)

treelover said:


> that's disgusting, which wing of the party is he on?


 
You know that Blomfield said the same thing, right?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 22, 2015)

Corbyn did well on Any Questions I think


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2015)

> As I read the letter I could hear Fat Dave's voice, he actually wrote things like ''the (welfare) system is broken'' and ''idleness and a life on benefits''.
> I honestly expected him to sign off with a ''Chris Evans pp G. Osborne''.



I'm sure Blomfield didn't say this bit?


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> well, their politics reek


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 26, 2016)

News from last night's budget in Brighton - Warren Morgan leader of the Labour council did a deal with the Tories to cut union rep facility time! You really couldn't make that shit up!


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Feb 26, 2016)

Love it how this thread hasn't had entries for months, mostly because of Jeremy Corbyn as leader the real scummy dickheads of the party are just making such fools of themselves we dont need to comment about it.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Feb 26, 2016)

Tony_LeaS said:


> Love it how this thread hasn't had entries for months, mostly because of Jeremy Corbyn as leader the real scummy dickheads of the party are just making such fools of themselves we dont need to comment about it.


dodgy dave cameron going on about Corbyn's suit and tie while fucking pigs, kissing murdoch's arse, not keeping the NHS out of TIPP and arming the saudis sounds typical of cameron


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> News from last night's budget in Brighton - Warren Morgan leader of the Labour council did a deal with the Tories to cut union rep facility time! You really couldn't make that shit up!



Sadly, we are not really surprised though are we!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 27, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Sadly, we are not really surprised though are we!



Err, in Brighton we are a bit, & really fuckin pissed off.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 26, 2016)

That the tories voted against this is standard sickening behaviour...id like to see a list of which Labour MPs did too...does anyone know how to look that up?
Tories vote against accepting 3,000 child refugees


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 26, 2016)

ska invita said:


> id like to see a list of which Labour MPs did too...does anyone know how to look that up?


 
it will be on hansard - latest shown are 21 April (last thursday) - so presume it takes a day or so to get updated.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 26, 2016)

List of Ayes and Noes here:

Division 246, Immigration Bill - Hansard Online


----------



## ska invita (Apr 26, 2016)

Celyn said:


> List of Ayes and Noes here:
> 
> Division 246, Immigration Bill - Hansard Online


I take it back - no Labour Mps voted for it. Those that did were:

Conservative (289)▼
Democratic Unionist Party (2)▼
UK Independence Party (1)▼
Ulster Unionist Party (2)


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 26, 2016)

ska invita said:


> That the tories voted against this is standard sickening behaviour...id like to see a list of which Labour MPs did too...does anyone know how to look that up?
> Tories vote against accepting 3,000 child refugees



None. Look here Division 246, Immigration Bill - Hansard Online

The Aye votes came from the Tories, UKIP, DUP and UUP


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 26, 2016)

Fucking disgusting


----------



## ska invita (Apr 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Fucking disgusting


makes you want to vomit


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I take it back - no Labour Mps voted for it. Those that did were:
> 
> Conservative (289)▼
> Democratic Unionist Party (2)▼
> ...



how bad does a measure have to have been for none of the maquis to have voted for it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2016)

**


----------



## Libertad (Apr 26, 2016)

Here's the list of cunts:

Division 246, Immigration Bill - Hansard Online


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 26, 2016)

Absent Labour MPs allowed government to block child refugee measure



> A full turn-out of Labour MPs would have prevented the government from blocking efforts at helping child refugees, according to an early analysis of last night’s Commons vote.



Wankers.


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2016)

Possibly. Or they were ill, or they had paired with a tory opposite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Absent Labour MPs allowed government to block child refugee measure
> 
> 
> 
> Wankers.


wankers are wankers mr.b


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Here's the list of cunts:
> 
> Division 246, Immigration Bill - Hansard Online


but that's not a full list of mps


----------



## killer b (Apr 26, 2016)

oh look.

Mea culpa? Why pairing should have been mentioned more prominently in this piece


----------



## Sue (Apr 29, 2016)

Ex-MEP nicks  £100k, jailed for four years.

Ex-MEP Peter Skinner jailed for expenses fraud - BBC News


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 31, 2016)

So are any of the new joined Labour members willing to go up against Labour councils enforcing cuts?

Anger as Derby plans to hand over most of city's libraries to volunteers
Lancashire council to close more than 20 libraries


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 1, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> So are any of the new joined Labour members willing to go up against Labour councils enforcing cuts?
> 
> Anger as Derby plans to hand over most of city's libraries to volunteers
> Lancashire council to close more than 20 libraries



In fairness there's bog-all Labour councils can do about central funding cuts, their ability to set up alternative funding streams was stripped away years ago and they can't refuse to set a "balanced budget" because the regulator just gets sent in to do it for them. It makes council elections something of a sham but no-one's made a fuss about that for a very long time.


----------



## treelover (Sep 1, 2016)

The councils themselves could make more of the fact they are being shafted though, in sheffield, you wouldn't know they have made huge cuts in social care, they even have a motion to council this week, where they praise themselves for not cutting too much.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 1, 2016)

treelover said:


> The councils themselves could make more of the fact they are being shafted though, in sheffield, you wouldn't know they have made huge cuts in social care, they even have a motion to council this week, where they praise themselves for not cutting too much.



Gotta maintain the vanishing pretense that council elections mean something - turnout's barely 30% as it is. Especially Labour, who lose out from low voter numbers (though they do generally blame the Tories for shortfalls before saying "look we found a solution, aren't we clever").


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> In fairness there's bog-all Labour councils can do about central funding cuts, their ability to set up alternative funding streams was stripped away years ago and they can't refuse to set a "balanced budget" because the regulator just gets sent in to do it for them. It makes council elections something of a sham but no-one's made a fuss about that for a very long time.



There's an argument to be made - an argument I've unsuccessfully made with local councillors - that councils should set "unbalanced" budgets in order to force recognition that central government austerity measures are destroying public services. Unfortunately, many Labour councillors don't have the courage of their convictions or, as in the case of one Lambeth councillor who was rather too candid with me, they don't want to damage their political careers by being linked to "rebellious" behaviour.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 1, 2016)

Aren't they financially liable for the difference if they set an unbalanced budget? I may have been imagining it but I thought Thatcher did something like that so they'd end up in debtors' prison or something.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2016)

I think they can be surcharged, but anyone worth their mettle shouldn't be put off by that.


----------



## belboid (Sep 1, 2016)

Surcharging was done away with fifteen years ago. Now they're just disbarred and any unbalanced budget is simply thrown out by officials and a government appointed team comes in instead. 

Local democracy, making North Korea look tempting since 1996


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2016)

Has any council ever done it? I wonder how politically possible it would be to disbar an elected council in reality (for this at least)?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

If only some mass membership party was up to the fight - rather than bring disciplinary measures against individual councilors/groups arguing that they should be.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 1, 2016)

belboid said:


> Surcharging was done away with fifteen years ago. Now they're just disbarred and any unbalanced budget is simply thrown out by officials and a government appointed team comes in instead.
> 
> Local democracy, making North Korea look tempting since 1996



So it's worse than pointless then, since they have no control over what a government appointed team will do which presumably means the new team will cut services more than they would have done. 

The Greens in Brighton came in for a lot of stick - was that true for them too?


----------



## mauvais (Sep 1, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> So are any of the new joined Labour members willing to go up against Labour councils enforcing cuts?
> 
> Anger as Derby plans to hand over most of city's libraries to volunteers
> Lancashire council to close more than 20 libraries


FWIW, Lancashire County Council is NOC - slim Labour lead but not a majority. In GE terms, Lancashire is mostly Tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> So it's worse than pointless then, since they have no control over what a government appointed team will do which presumably means the new team will cut services more than they would have done.
> 
> The Greens in Brighton came in for a lot of stick - was that true for them too?


So you joined to help them administer cuts rather than build a coalition not led by councilors but by a wider coalition that makes the imposition of cuts an impossibility - you know, like the poll tax? That's the only point of corbyn. Otherwise, just why fucking...bother?


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> So it's worse than pointless then, since they have no control over what a government appointed team will do which presumably means the new team will cut services more than they would have done.
> 
> The Greens in Brighton came in for a lot of stick - was that true for them too?


It isn't worse than pointless at all. If your only power is deciding what to cut first, then why not go all out? Call their bluff and set an illegal budget, have members ready to occupy council buildings and the like, take thousands of people with you to court, etc etc. Obviously this all takes mass, angry support to pull it off, but it works. 

Or just close another library with a sad look on your face.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2016)

imagine all these people were doing something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> imagine all these people were doing something.


jezza corbyn's zombie army


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> imagine all these people were doing something.



Armed with pencils?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Armed with pencils?


Jc doing the bingo calling


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Jc doing the bingo calling



Then they'd be armed with blotters. You never been to the bingo?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 1, 2016)

Apparently the middle class who attend the bingo, call them 'daubers' - fuckin daubers


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 1, 2016)

Most left wing Labour government, 1945, sent troops in against striking dockworkers, so depite massive positive top-down implimentations, still opppsed to class srtuggle when waged by the working-class themseves


----------



## rioted (Sep 1, 2016)

killer b said:


> imagine all these people were doing something.


I hope you are propagandising by the deed. Leading by example.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 1, 2016)

mauvais said:


> FWIW, Lancashire County Council is NOC - slim Labour lead but not a majority. In GE terms, Lancashire is mostly Tory.


The Exec is Labour, David Borrow the one justifying these cuts is Labour. Sorry that's a pathetic excuse - and highlights all the weakness of making Labour your vehicle for any politics.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 1, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> In fairness there's bog-all Labour councils can do about central funding cuts, their ability to set up alternative funding streams was stripped away years ago and they can't refuse to set a "balanced budget" because the regulator just gets sent in to do it for them. It makes council elections something of a sham but no-one's made a fuss about that for a very long time.


What BA, VP and KB said, if they were really serious about fighting cuts Labour councillors could organise on/around the issue. I don't accept that that they can't do anything about, but pretending for the moment that it is true then what's the point of joining Labour? General question to Corbyn supporters not to you specifically.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 1, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> The Exec is Labour, David Borrow the one justifying these cuts is Labour. Sorry that's a pathetic excuse - and highlights all the weakness of making Labour your vehicle for any politics.


Who's making who the what now?

Not an excuse as such, just another barrier to - someone else - achieving anything or even bothering in the first place.


----------



## inva (Sep 1, 2016)

RedSkin said:


> Most left wing Labour government, 1945, sent troops in against striking dockworkers, so depite massive positive top-down implimentations, still opppsed to class srtuggle when waged by the working-class themseves


I'd never heard of that before, found this interesting link about it on google.


> The Labour Government took office on July 27, 1945. Within a week it was to send conscript troops into the Surrey Docks, London, to help break a dockers' 'go-slow' which had been going on for ten weeks. An ominous beginning.


Old Labour eh?

Also this bit reminded me of McDonnell's talk of innovation and productivity:


> When Mr. Wilson speaks of 'overmanning of jobs', he means that he would like to see fewer men producing the same amount, His aim is an intensification of the labour process. Under capitalism, where the worker is robbed of a substantial proportion of the wealth he produces, an intensification of the labour process can only mean an increased rate of exploitation.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Who's making who the what now?
> 
> Not an excuse as such, just another barrier to - someone else - achieving anything or even bothering in the first place.


What? The exec is labour lead. What' the the confusion?


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 1, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> What BA, VP and KB said, if they were really serious about fighting cuts Labour councillors could organise on/around the issue. I don't accept that that they can't do anything about, but pretending for the moment that it is true then what's the point of joining Labour? General question to Corbyn supporters not to you specifically.



They can't fight cuts though, not while retaining control. All they can do is set an "unbalanced" budget which then gets shredded and redone by a Westminster wonk. At best, it's a political statement involving abdicating responsibility for the very role you campaigned to be in. Yes you can possibly do that as part of a mass campaign of disruption, but if that mass movement exists anyway it's mostly just a minor symbolic addition to the real threat, hardly worth the enormous resources required to win the seat in the first place. And tbh, it completely misreads the mindset of the vast majority of the people who sign up to be council members - they believe in setting responsible budgets, that's why they're there.

As for what's the point in joining Labour, my answer is of course that beyond relatively minor tweaks to aspects of national policy (which I'll allow is not insignificant as a factor, but it's not what they sell themselves on) there's no point joining Labour, it'll always be unable to reconcile the desires of its membership to reform capitalism with the requirements of managing capital in a neoliberal hegemony.


----------



## killer b (Sep 1, 2016)

rioted said:


> I hope you are propagandising by the deed. Leading by example.


Certainly not - I just moan about it on the internet.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> They can't fight cuts though, not while retaining control. All they can do is set an "unbalanced" budget which then gets shredded and redone by a Westminster wonk. At best, it's a political statement involving abdicating responsibility for the very role you campaigned to be in. Yes you can possibly do that as part of a mass campaign of disruption, but if that mass movement exists anyway it's mostly just a minor symbolic addition, hardly worth the enormous resources required to win the seat in the first place. And tbh, it completely misreads the mindset of the vast majority of the people who sign up to be council members - they believe in setting responsible budgets, that's why they're there.


Fuck me, what happened to you?

Fulfilling roles is now good? Forcing a crisis by refusing to? It doesn't exist, it may be sparked by a pointless sacrifice.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 1, 2016)

Don't do nothing ever because of everything ever.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 1, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck me, what happened to you?
> 
> Fulfilling roles is now good? Forcing a crisis by refusing to? It doesn't exist, it may be sparked by a pointless sacrifice.



As always, depends on the role - I'm not tremendously fussed whether councillors do or don't. Was I previously more enthusiastic about the prospect of pointless sacrifices from councillors catalysing mass revolt?

Edit: Perhaps I was, dunno. Right now though I think councillors' rebellions can only really follow mass activity, and would be icing on the cake rather than the buttery biscuit base. And obviously I'm not in favour of "do nothing ever," I'm currently working quite hard on doing a magazine, new book and suchlike in time for the Bookfair, which I'm also helping out at. Not being enthused by one tactic doesn't mean I've given up.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 1, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Who's making who the what now?
> 
> Not an excuse as such, just another barrier to - someone else - achieving anything or even bothering in the first place.


People, including an non-negligele number of U75 members, have hitched their politics to Labour over the last year, either joining the Labour party or at least paying $25, on the basis that this is the best path for socialist/pro-working class/social democratic politics. Then how do they justify these cuts? How do they intend that Labour fights at a local level? Making an excuse (and it is precisely that) that 'Labour can't do anything' while being the executive simply isn't good enough, it's the same type answer that the parties have been using since year 1.



Rob Ray said:


> They can't fight cuts though, not while retaining control. All they can do is set an "unbalanced" budget which then gets shredded and redone by a Westminster wonk. At best, it's a political statement involving abdicating responsibility for the very role you campaigned to be in. Yes you can possibly do that as part of a mass campaign of disruption, but if that mass movement exists anyway it's mostly just a minor symbolic addition to the real threat, hardly worth the enormous resources required to win the seat in the first place. And tbh, it completely misreads the mindset of the vast majority of the people who sign up to be council members - they believe in setting responsible budgets, that's why they're there.


Well that's the point isn't it, for all this talk about a brand new dawn the Labour party is still attacking the working class. How do the new members intend to change that? If they do intend to change it. For me 'oh we can't do anything but manage capitalism' simply isn't a good enough answer, it's the same fucking answer that we'e had forever.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 1, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm asking (as a general point rather than you as an individual) what's
> People, including an non-negligele number of U75 members, have hitched their politics to Labour over the last year, either joining the Labour party or at least paying $25, on the basis that this is the best path for socialist/pro-working class/social democratic politics. Then how do they justify these cuts? How do they intend that Labour fights at a local level? Making an excuse (and it is precisely that) that 'Labour can't do anything' while being the executive simply isn't good enough, it's the same type answer that the parties have been using since year 1.
> 
> Well that's the point isn't it, for all this talk about a brand new dawn the Labour party is still attacking the working class. Hoe do the new members intend to change that? If they do intend to change it.


It's not a wholly conflicting point underneath. What's the point of trying to do anything with LCC as a focus in a context where both they and all the structures above can point at the constituents and say that, well, they democratically chose austerity as part of the national plan?

At least if you take that as a given, and decide to persist at council level, at the most simplistic level there's two options. Do something unilaterally, win and be able to demonstrate popular support through that. Or change the fundamental support first and persuade the constituents to express a new message at the ballot, then act on it. And both times we're into the nature of what the Lancashire demographic is.

Or you forget the council, treat it as an outcome rather than a factor, and go after the national imbalance, as many are - why London & the SE on the whole don't face such austerity.

Can any of that be done via Labour, I've no idea - and don't enormously care either way, tbh. Some of the above lends itself to Labour more than others, some is probably impossible with it as it stands. If it were a functioning, unified movement it might help.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 1, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's not a wholly conflicting point underneath. What's the point of trying to do anything with LCC as a focus in a context where both they and all the structures above can point at the constituents and say that, well, they democratically chose austerity as part of the national plan?
> 
> At least if you take that as a given, and decide to persist at council level, at the most simplistic level there's two options. Do something unilaterally, win and be able to demonstrate popular support through that. Or change the fundamental support first and persuade the constituents to express a new message at the ballot, then act on it. And both times we're into the nature of what the Lancashire demographic is.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 1, 2016)

Not sure what I'm meant to be looking at, sorry.


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2016)

I'm not sure how accurate this article is, but it seems pretty relevant to recent discussions on the thread A Place Called Lambeth | Jacobin


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 2, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> They can't fight cuts though, not while retaining control. All they can do is set an "unbalanced" budget which then gets shredded and redone by a Westminster wonk. At best, it's a political statement involving abdicating responsibility for the very role you campaigned to be in. Yes you can possibly do that .


What like Militant Labour in Liverpool in the 
80s?  (Not that i support them)


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 2, 2016)

Intetesting to find put Corbyn's response to striking rail workers and anti-gentification campaigners IF HE GETS IN POWER.

P.S. Cheers Inva for the link.


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 2, 2016)

RedSkin said:


> Intetesting to find put Corbyn's response to striking rail workers and anti-gentification campaigners IF HE GETS IN POWER.



Capitulation and ambivalence respectively.


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 2, 2016)

The reason there were such massive concessions to the working class after the second world war was we had seen the 'officer class' up close & personal and realised what ineffectual idiots they were. Surely we could make a better job of running things, plus we've all been trained how to fight now!
This was related to me by many of the older, deceased generations of my family and that was just the grandmothers/great aunts working the munitions factories!


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> So you joined to help them administer cuts rather than build a coalition not led by councilors but by a wider coalition that makes the imposition of cuts an impossibility - you know, like the poll tax? That's the only point of corbyn. Otherwise, just why fucking...bother?



Well I actually joined to help vote Corbyn in to form a government that would actually be able to increase the budgets of local councils so that they aren't forced into administer cuts. One that makes the imposition of cuts irrelevant - you know, because the budgets are increased? 

Funny, I thought *that* was the whole point of electing Corbyn rather than doing something that means you have no actual authority to change things any more. 



> I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

Then you're doing it wrong. You're doing it too slow and missing the only good thing he might offer. Getting elected pm and changing things post 2020 ffs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Well I actually joined to help vote Corbyn in to form a government that would actually be able to increase the budgets of local councils so that they aren't forced into administer cuts. One that makes the imposition of cuts irrelevant - you know, because the budgets are increased?
> 
> Funny, I thought *that* was the whole point of electing Corbyn rather than doing something that means you have no actual authority to change things any more.


you must be pleased you have the opportunity to vote him in again then


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> It isn't worse than pointless at all. If your only power is deciding what to cut first, then why not go all out? Call their bluff and set an illegal budget, have members ready to occupy council buildings and the like, take thousands of people with you to court, etc etc. Obviously this all takes mass, angry support to pull it off, but it works.
> 
> Or just close another library with a sad look on your face.



I'd prefer to look at how you could for example increase the budgets. I'm in Cornwall, so I'd like to see second homes that lie unoccupied during all but 4 weeks of the year given a council tax of x3 times. 

Increase council tax for the top band (if possible, and not for people who live in big houses but don't have money). The greens in Brighton I thought held referenda to increase the council tax but got flak for that? 

Try to take over some of the profit that private individuals make at the expense of the rest of us. Rather than selling land off to private developers on the cheap get planning permission for it first and have the council build houses on it so that we all benefit from the profit to be made. Compulsorily purchase land (giving fair rate for it) and then get planning permission. 

Things like that - if they're legal - and if they're not legal then hopefully get Corbyn elected so they *are* legal. 

Great, yes occupy council buildings if you can get mass support but if you don't get mass support and you get to be seen as "irresponsible loony lefties" then it's not going to be productive and we're going to have the tories in again. If they cut the electricity supply off to the council buildings everyone can work in the dark?  

Otherwise we could try the approach of sending people round in taxis with P45s for all the council workers - see if that helps this time. 

I want to see the same things you do. I want conditions to be improved in the country. I want to be convinced that we can improve things, though. With councils we're playing under the rules the tories set up - you rarely win if you're playing to their rules, you need to change the rules so that they are fairer to everyone, not just the few at the top.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Then you're doing it wrong. You're doing it too slow and missing the only good thing he might offer. Getting elected pm and changing things post 2020 ffs.



No, I agree resist them in the meantime but how do you do it effectively ffs? 

What I said to killer b just is what I'd like to see (I don't know council law though, so don't know whether that is possible either).


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you must be pleased you have the opportunity to vote him in again then



I don't even have the opportunity to vote him into Labour leadership yet  they're telling me I'm not on the electoral register.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> No, I agree resist them in the meantime but how do you do it effectively ffs?
> 
> What I said to killer b just is what I'd like to see (I don't know council law though, so don't know whether that is possible either).


Not by saying to councilors go ahead and impose cuts, we understand. By telling them the opposite, By actually resisting. By not putting councilors legitimacy as your first concern. By surrounding them - not supporting them. If people don't do this then what is the point?


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Well I actually joined to help vote Corbyn in to form a government that would actually be able to increase the budgets of local councils so that they aren't forced into administer cuts. One that makes the imposition of cuts irrelevant - you know, because the budgets are increased?



That's not going to happen though because Corbyn's never going to be PM so the Momentumite hoardes would be more fruitfully employed if harnessed in direct action this weekend.


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I'd prefer to look at how you could for example increase the budgets. I'm in Cornwall, so I'd like to see second homes that lie unoccupied during all but 4 weeks of the year given a council tax of x3 times.
> 
> Increase council tax for the top band (if possible, and not for people who live in big houses but don't have money). The greens in Brighton I thought held referenda to increase the council tax but got flak for that?
> 
> ...


But you don't have to play by their rules. History is littered with rules not being played by, and rules _then being changed_.


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2016)

In fact, that's how rules always change, really.


----------



## inva (Sep 2, 2016)

RedSkin said:


> Intetesting to find put Corbyn's response to striking rail workers and anti-gentification campaigners IF HE GETS IN POWER.
> 
> P.S. Cheers Inva for the link.


The same as usual probably. In the words of Ken Livingstone:



			
				Red Ken said:
			
		

> Slightly over a year ago London Underground and the RMT came to an agreement that was overwhelmingly in the interests both of London Underground employees and all Londoners.





> You say that you are trying to avoid disruption to millions of people, but, as I am informed, the RMT broke off negotiations and called these strikes before the procedures for settling outstanding issues on the rosters by negotiation had been exhausted.





> I hope that you will join LUL in discussing the remaining few areas where rosters still need to be agreed [and] call off a strike which is not in the interests of your members or of Londoners


And after all even if the unions are on board with Corbyn and Labour, it doesn't mean the working class is. You can tell already the way Corbyn talks as if we've all got shared interests as 'the people' or whatever. If he ever gets the chance and if he really believes it he'll soon find out that we don't.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Don't do nothing ever because of everything ever.



Harsh. Some of these people sign absolutely LOADS of Internet petitions.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 2, 2016)

RedSkin said:


> What like Militant Labour in Liverpool in the 80s?  (Not that i support them)



I'm not nearly well-read enough about that period to do an in-depth argument about it tbh, but it'd seem optimistic on the face of it to say that went well, did the councillors' activities catalyse much other mass action? Beyond getting people into voting booths I mean. Genuine question.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Not by saying to councilors go ahead and impose cuts, we understand. By telling them the opposite, By actually resisting. By not putting councilors legitimacy as your first concern. By surrounding them - not supporting them. If people don't do this then what is the point?



Why are you ignoring the possibilities for increasing income that I suggested? Are you not bothered that this could be a major way of avoiding the cuts? Why don't you want to respond to dwindling incomes for councils? If people don't do this then what is the point?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Why are you ignoring the possibilities for increasing income that I suggested? Are you not bothered that this could be a major way of avoiding the cuts? Why don't you want to respond to dwindling incomes for councils? If people don't do this then what is the point?


Why am i ignoring the possibility of corybn being elected in 2020 and then changing the entire structure of council funding? I'm not. I said that this isn't fighting, this isn't resistance. Which is what's needed now, today, this afternoon. And that saying councilors are legally tied to doing things so just wait until this possibility (which i don't think will happen anyway) is exactly not fighting. Whilst imposing pressure on councilors - or removing them - to not vote for cuts no matter what, building a wider coalition in the process is the wider corbyn plan - he's quite explicit about this and his branch of the labour left have been since 1979 and beyond the fragments. They really don't mean wait until corbyn is elected and respect the labour parties leadership - why would you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2016)

belboid said:


> Surcharging was done away with fifteen years ago. Now they're just disbarred and any unbalanced budget is simply thrown out by officials and a government appointed team comes in instead.



And shows itself up big time by enacting the cuts that the council refused to, transferring the blame back where it belongs.



> Local democracy, making North Korea look tempting since 1996



Sadly, way too accurate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> They can't fight cuts though, not while retaining control. All they can do is set an "unbalanced" budget which then gets shredded and redone by a Westminster wonk. At best, it's a political statement involving abdicating responsibility for the very role you campaigned to be in. Yes you can possibly do that as part of a mass campaign of disruption, but if that mass movement exists anyway it's mostly just a minor symbolic addition to the real threat, hardly worth the enormous resources required to win the seat in the first place. And tbh, it completely misreads the mindset of the vast majority of the people who sign up to be council members - they believe in setting responsible budgets, that's why they're there.



I don't agree about abdication of responsibility. You're effectively saying that elected members should *take* responsibility for administering central government cuts, when those members have *not* been elected on a platform of doing so. I don't recall any of the ward councillors in Lambeth campaigning on a "I'll carry out government cuts" ticket.
Officers may - in fact do - have an obligation to take forward central government policy, but a councillor's primary duty should be representation of the local populace, not acting as a rubber-stamp for the dismantling of the local authority and the various social, educational and health issues it supports.


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 2, 2016)

Quelle suprise @ Invas link 2 discussions between Livingstone & Bob Crow.
If i was a member of the British Ruling Class I'd be much more shitting myself that women had been trained in the manufature of munitions than a some blokes knew how to use rifles
'The Sylvia Pankhurst Women's Artillery Brigade'!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

RedSkin said:


> Quelle suprise @ Invas link 2 discussions between Livingstone & Bob Crow.
> If i was a member of the British Ruling Class I'd be much more shitting myself that womem had been trained in the manufature of munitions than a some blokes knew how to use rifled
> 'The Sylvia Pankhurst Women's Artillery Brigade'!


yes. you do know that being trained to make munitions does not make one proficient in their use, nor does it suggest an ability to use a howitzer etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> That's not going to happen though because Corbyn's never going to be PM so the Momentumite hoardes would be more fruitfully employed if harnessed in direct action this weekend.


hordes


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. you do know that being trained to make munitions does not make one proficient in their use, nor does it suggest an ability to use a howitzer etc.


Sure all you'd have to find is a handful of previously trained sympathetic people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

RedSkin said:


> Sure all you'd have to find is a handful of previously trained sympathetic people.


yeh cos howitzers and field guns are left lying everywhere these days


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 2, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're effectively saying that elected members should *take* responsibility for administering central government cuts, when those members have *not* been elected on a platform of doing so.



I'm not saying they should or shouldn't do anything, I'm just pointing out that the setup in councils essentially cuts off any avenue for legal rebellion, suggesting that councillors don't generally come into office with a view to illegal rebellion and saying I've not got much faith that such a rebellion, if it did happen, would catalyse the sort of mass movement required to actually overcome the state hurdles required to win. It's possible I'm unduly downbeat on that score, but I've not seen a contemporary example happen since the regulator threat came in so evidence is light either way.



> I don't recall any of the ward councillors in Lambeth campaigning on a "I'll carry out government cuts" ticket.



No Daily Mail journalist walks up to an interview subject saying "I've got a right-wing angle" either.



> a councillor's primary duty should be representation of the local populace



There's a million and one ways to interpret that duty, and "responsible budgeting which doesn't bring the regulator's bastard hand down on our remaining services" is a very plausible one for councillors who don't have significant pressure from below pushing them to be a bit braver.

Edit: Ah fuck it I'm being a right little ray of sunshine here, probably the cumulative from recent insomnia - I'll leave off further comment I think.


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos howitzers and field guns are left lying everywhere these days


I was refering to the direct aftermath of the 2nd world war. Perhaps you think women would be better suited to cooking in the naffe or tending to the wounded than trying the complicated task of operating heavy artillery?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

RedSkin said:


> I was refering to the direct aftermath of the 2nd world war. Perhaps you think women would be better suited to cooking in the naffe or tending to the wounded than trying the complicated task of operating heavy artillery?


i don't see how your "clarification" improves what you said


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 2, 2016)

I would have thought learning how to create munitions would have been far more complex than learningto fire them in the right direction


----------



## mauvais (Sep 2, 2016)

RedSkin said:


> I would have thought learning how to create munitions would have been far more complex than learningto fire them in the right direction


And yet John Major continues to walk the earth.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why am i ignoring the possibility of corybn being elected in 2020 and then changing the entire structure of council funding? I'm not. I said that this isn't fighting, this isn't resistance. Which is what's needed now, today, this afternoon. And that saying councilors are legally tied to doing things so just wait until this possibility (which i don't think will happen anyway) is exactly not fighting. Whilst imposing pressure on councilors - or removing them - to not vote for cuts no matter what, building a wider coalition in the process is the wider corbyn plan - he's quite explicit about this and his branch of the labour left have been since 1979 and beyond the fragments. They really don't mean wait until corbyn is elected and respect the labour parties leadership - why would you?



Ta for the reference, will check it. 

But some of the measures for increased funding could be brought in now, surely, not having to wait for a corbyn government. St Ives has won a referendum deciding that new build properties be reserved for local people for example. They don't have to wait to alter the whole structure of funding - you're just dismissing them out of hand.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ta for the reference, will check it.
> 
> But some of the measures for increased funding could be brought in now, surely, not having to wait for a corbyn government. St Ives has won a referendum deciding that new build properties be reserved for local people for example. They don't have to wait to alter the whole structure of funding - you're just dismissing them out of hand.


I seem to be dismissing	a lot of people today. 

I'm certainly going to dismiss this post.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

Yeh great just criticize people and ignore the response why don't you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

RedSkin said:


> I would have thought learning how to create munitions would have been far more complex than learningto fire them in the right direction


i don't suppose they did learn how to create munitions, simply being given x, y, and z and being shown how to combine them and make shells. and they certainly weren't shown how to load and aim artillery pieces. 

sad to say i think you'll not be seeing in the new year with us. you'll either have buggered off or been banned by then.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Yeh great just criticize people and ignore the response why don't you.


You're asking to comment on a post election pledge. 

And then when i point out what it is you do this.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 2, 2016)

The broad reality remains:

There is no threat of surcharge and no threat of imprisonment Labour councillors have only themselves and their own party to blame for enacting cuts.

Every year that goes by every year the scale of reversal becomes harder for a supposed 2020 government, every year the weak are consistently put to the wall and Labour councillors and leadership are congratulated for "anti-austerity".


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

sihhi said:


> The broad reality remains:
> 
> There is no threat of surcharge and no threat of imprisonment Labour councillors have only themselves and their own party to blame for enacting cuts.
> 
> Every year that goes by every year the scale of reversal becomes harder for a supposed 2020 government, every year the weak are consistently put to the wall and Labour councillors and leadership are congratulated for "anti-austerity".


No labour group martyr either.


----------



## killer b (Sep 2, 2016)

On a vaguely related note one of my local councillors seems to be making waves in Labour left circles for his innovative local finance policies. As far as I can tell they add up to 'encourage local businesses to buy locally', and I've not seen how it's had an effect beyond the rhetoric, but you might find his ideas interesting two sheds. 

Great title to this article too. Renewal | Matthew Brown, Martin O’Neill | The Road to Socialism is the A59: The Preston Model


----------



## two sheds (Sep 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> On a vaguely related note one of my local councillors seems to be making waves in Labour left circles for his innovative local finance policies. As far as I can tell they add up to 'encourage local businesses to buy locally', and I've not seen how it's had an effect beyond the rhetoric, but you might find his ideas interesting two sheds.
> 
> Great title to this article too. Renewal | Matthew Brown, Martin O’Neill | The Road to Socialism is the A59: The Preston Model



Great article, thanks, good luck to them .

And there must be more councils can do - turn over scrap land to car parking to get an income so the private companies don't funnel it all off. That can't have to wait until after an election.

Sorry about the curtish reply to you earlier, most of that was in response to Butchers' sarcastic posts.



> "Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug.
> Interviewer What did he do?
> Vercotti He used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire


----------



## Sue (Sep 2, 2016)

Not sure if this should be filed under 'why Labour are scum' or 'how exactly some of their supporters are scum'..

A senior guy at my work's a big Fabian/liberal Labour type. The kind that wringes his hands about the plight of the poor while sending his kids to a public school. I've never really come across this type before, if I had heard they existed.

His big thing is bemoaning the utter stupidity of working class people who voted for Brexit, we should rerun the referendum and all that. If only these stupid people were as smart as him, why are they even allowed to vote etc etc.

He's just been telling me he's going to India for a wedding and is planning on spending a few weeks looking round a bit. But he's going to have to fly first or business class there and on internal flights because  he 'can't stand being anywhere near smelly or dirty people'. 

He made a point of saying this wasn't just an india thing, he feels like that in general. These fucking people.

(Sorry, probably completely the wrong thread for it but...these fucking people.)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 2, 2016)

Sue said:


> Not sure if this should be filed under 'why Labour are scum' or 'how exactly some of their supporters are scum'..
> 
> A senior guy at my work's a big Fabian/liberal Labour type. The kind that wringes his hands about the plight of the poor while sending his kids to a public school. I've never really come across this type before, if I had heard they existed.
> 
> ...



Deserves a kick in the bollocks tbh. Failing that, get Pickman's model  to bring his mobile gallows to your place of work.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 2, 2016)

Sue said:


> Not sure if this should be filed under 'why Labour are scum' or 'how exactly some of their supporters are scum'..
> 
> A senior guy at my work's a big Fabian/liberal Labour type. The kind that wringes his hands about the plight of the poor while sending his kids to a public school. I've never really come across this type before, if I had heard they existed.
> 
> ...



IME in terms of bigotry these people are worse than Tories by some margin.


----------



## Sue (Sep 2, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Deserves a kick in the bollocks tbh. Failing that, get Pickman's model  to bring his mobile gallows to your place of work.


Kick in the bollocks is way too good for him. Hopefully Pickman's model will oblige.

Just find it utterly bizarre that he didn't seem to think he was saying anything even vaguely dodgy/prejudiced at all and was quite happy to come out with all this shit at work. Guess the caveat about it not being a *race* thing made it all completely acceptable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

Sue


----------



## Sue (Sep 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Sue


Can I like that again..?


----------



## sihhi (Sep 2, 2016)

Someone mentioned a north-south issue earlier.

Labour London councils enforce benefit cuts, effectively increase tax on the poor: massive increase in bailiff dispossession.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

sihhi said:


> Someone mentioned a north-south issue earlier.
> 
> Labour London councils enforce benefit cuts, effectively increase tax on the poor: massive increase in bailiff dispossession.


Always the Labour party harsher in this than the l.g. Tories.


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 3, 2016)

And who were the harsherst local governments in the persual of non poll-tax payers. I always pull that one out the hat whem tribal Labour voters go 'What about the Tory Poll tax?'  What with Labour's virtual non-opposition to the tax, its refusal to support non-payment and rutheless local labour council persual of non-payers (wasn't Cherie Blair made wealthy on the prosecution of non-payers?) Once again In more recent times Labour finds itself on the wrong side in the class war. Wonder how Corbyn would have responded what with having 'greater responsibility' as leader.


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 3, 2016)

And tho its not directly Corbyn's fault what about the great wheeze of P.F.I. ? Here you go invest a bunch of money in pulic services and if you don't make a profit, don't worry the public will pay it to you. A win-win sitiation for capital.
Another reason Labour are scum.


----------



## treelover (Sep 3, 2016)

Sue said:


> Not sure if this should be filed under 'why Labour are scum' or 'how exactly some of their supporters are scum'..
> 
> A senior guy at my work's a big Fabian/liberal Labour type. The kind that wringes his hands about the plight of the poor while sending his kids to a public school. I've never really come across this type before, if I had heard they existed.
> 
> ...




I recall an acquaintance, now a doctor, who I was informed recoiled when someone brushed her arm down the market with "OMG, one of them touched me" I really wouldn't believe it but my source was a close friend of her's.

another was a fellow student(and Steiner school alumni), who said she was "meeting her dad to go down the market to laugh at the freaks"  

I think this is much more prevalent than one would imagine, Brexit has exposed it all though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ta for the reference, will check it.
> 
> But some of the measures for increased funding could be brought in now, surely, not having to wait for a corbyn government. St Ives has won a referendum deciding that new build properties be reserved for local people for example. They don't have to wait to alter the whole structure of funding - you're just dismissing them out of hand.



There aren't enough spaces in legislation such as the Localism Act (which is what allowed St. Ives to do what they did) to generate significant funding for local authorities. You need to bear in mind that for the last 37 years solid, local authorities have had their ability to generate revenue cut away - so much so that they'd need to generate enough revenue to multiply their current budgets threefold merely to get back on the same footing they had after their power to charge rates were removed in the late 1980s.

You also have the challenge of convincing local authorities to act against central govt interests. It's something that happens very rarely nowadays.


----------



## treelover (Sep 3, 2016)

To add to my last comment, i also think this may explain some of the saddening and worrying lack of support for social security issues, benefits, etc, (only 67 people attending DPAC's week of action on FB.)


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 3, 2016)

treelover said:


> I recall an acquaintance, now a doctor, who I was informed recoiled when someone brushed her arm down the market with "OMG, one of them touched me" I really wouldn't believe it but my source was a close friend of her's.
> 
> another was a fellow student(and Steiner school alumni), who said she was "meeting her dad to go down the market to laugh at the freaks"
> 
> I think this is much more prevalent than one would imagine, Brexit has exposed it all though.



It's been around as long as I can remember, and before me.

I remember being noted for my clean appearance and smart clothes unlike the dirty raggers that come here mostly, by the manager of a mental health occupational/therapy charity thingy I joined when recovering from my breakdown requiring hospitalisation (when I was young and handsome). I was quite taken aback, given the vulnerability of many people with serious mental health/illness problems to a life in poverty re those without informal support networks or steady employment.

A few years ago some academic in Sheffield starting speaking to me r-e-a-l-l-y  s-l-o-w-l-y after discovering I hadn't been to university. I wished there had been a machine gun handy.  Our betters seem to have trouble understanding working class people, or recognising their prejudices.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> IME in terms of bigotry these people are worse than Tories by some margin.


Yes, Fabian paternalism always worse than Tory paternalism. Can't find it, but I vaguely remember a quote from GB Shaw where he was asked if he called himself a socialist because he loved the working class. 'No it's because I hate them'.


----------



## treelover (Sep 3, 2016)

What about Marxism, with its 'lumpen', etc, something the SWP seemed to identify with.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 3, 2016)

Or its misuse?


----------



## RedSkin (Sep 3, 2016)

Wasnt there some argie bargie between the working class SWP membership & the leadership in the late 70s over something called 'squadism' I believe


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2016)

Vaz, prostitution and Class As, lol 
Married MP Keith Vaz tells prostitutes he invited to flat to bring poppers


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yes, Fabian paternalism always worse than Tory paternalism. Can't find it, but I vaguely remember a quote from GB Shaw where he was asked if he called himself a socialist because he loved the working class. 'No it's because I hate them'.


work camps:
British Labour Camps set up by the 1929 Labour Government VIDEO - UK Indymedia


----------



## Ponyutd (Sep 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Vaz, prostitution and Class As, lol
> Married MP Keith Vaz tells prostitutes he invited to flat to bring poppers


His wifes name is Valerie. Trying ever saying her name without the Blankety Blank theme going round your head.


----------



## treelover (Sep 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> work camps:
> British Labour Camps set up by the 1929 Labour Government VIDEO - UK Indymedia



Hidden from history, time to bring them out of the shadows.

maybe ch4 would do a doc on them.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2016)

Ponyutd said:


> His wifes name is Valerie. Trying ever saying her name without the Blankety Blank theme going round your head.


Pity he didn't use his Blankety Blank Cheque Book and Pen to pay them off.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 4, 2016)

In late June early July there was the case of the tweet from a law firm Baker Small publicly celebrating denying assistance to parents of special needs kids and in particular those ones where parents thought their children would get the assistance.

Council continues to use ‘despicable’ law firm in SEN cases

Loads of councils said they wouldn't work with Baker Small any longer, but Croydon Labour after publicly promising not to, began doing so in under a fortnight. The labour council set the benchmark and now the others Labour + Tory alike will be following suit.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> work camps:
> British Labour Camps set up by the 1929 Labour Government VIDEO - UK Indymedia


My great uncle got sent to one of those.


----------



## Sue (Sep 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> My great uncle got sent to one of those.


 Interesting. Did you ever get the chance to talk to him about it? 

(I really regret not talking about interesting polotical/historical stuff with elderly relatives while they were still alive -- by the time I was interested in such things, they were dead or not capable of discussing/remembering them.)


----------



## Wilf (Sep 4, 2016)

Sue said:


> Interesting. Did you ever get the chance to talk to him about it?
> 
> (I really regret not talking about interesting polotical/historical stuff with elderly relatives while they were still alive -- by the time I was interested in such things, they were dead or not capable of discussing/remembering them.)


Never spoke to him directly, but his brother - my Grandad- said it had traumatised him.  Ironically he - the great uncle - drew the wrong lessons from the experience.  Even though he never had any money, hated the Tories and voted Labour all his life, he apparently thought the worst bit of the experience was being sent to the camp and having to be with kids who had no skills and 'never amounted to anything' (he was a cabinet maker).  Don't want to over politicise his position - he was a bit of a prick to be honest - but he saw himself as 'labour aristocracy' and being sent to the camp undermined that.  Their mum went hungry in the 30s, to the point of collapsing in the street so she could feed the kids and they had all the indiginities of the social telling them to sell sticks of furniture.  My granddad always remembered that, and it made him who he was in life.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 21, 2016)

Not seen it mentioned elsewhere but Akehurst states that yesterday's at NEC meeting


> Despite one speech against, the NEC unanimously voted to ban Labour councils from setting illegal budgets, which had been one of the key tactics of the municipal Hard Left in the 1980s heyday of Derek Hatton and John McDonnell.


So Labour councils are going to continue to attack services.


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

theres no greater economic crisis than when a labour government gets elected.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> theres no greater economic crisis than when a labour government gets elected.



'88' voice of reason


----------



## two sheds (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> theres no greater economic crisis than when a labour government gets elected.



only labour governments tend to end their term with a lower balance of payments deficit than do the tories

so you seem to be talking shit


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

im not sure what you mean. but labour create debt, sell all the countries gold (wealth) at the lowest possible price, spend spend spend other peoples money then have to tax tax tax to try and get it back. Just look at history its repeated itself again and again. but with any luck labour wont get in ever again scotlands snp, wales pc and half of english voters are now ukip.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 21, 2016)

while the tories cut taxes for the rich, let them hide their money offshore without paying any tax, cut-cut-cut from the poor and tax-tax-tax the poor to get it all back. Just look at history it's repeated itself again and again. Agree with you they're unlikely to get in what with all that and the gerrymandering. You'll be delighted with tories from here on in then. 

do you not understand 'balance of payments deficit'?


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

it was a labour government that set up the caymen islands tax havens lol. im working class and when labour was in my tax went up every year as soon as tories got in i got a tool allowance back in my pay. which is alot more than labour ever did for me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> theres no greater economic crisis than when a labour government gets elected.



Fuck off, whinger-boy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> it was a labour government that set up the caymen islands tax havens lol. im working class and when labour was in my tax went up every year as soon as tories got in i got a tool allowance back in my pay. which is alot more than labour ever did for me.



Unsurprising you got a tool allowance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> im not sure what you mean. but labour create debt, sell all the countries gold (wealth) at the lowest possible price, spend spend spend other peoples money then have to tax tax tax to try and get it back. Just look at history its repeated itself again and again. but with any luck labour wont get in ever again scotlands snp, wales pc and half of english voters are now ukip.



You obviously *haven't* looked at history, or you'd know that you're talking bollocks, as well as being a fantasist who massively exaggerates UKIP's voter base.


----------



## tim (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> it was a labour government that set up the caymen islands tax havens lol. im working class and when labour was in my tax went up every year as soon as tories got in i got a tool allowance back in my pay. which is alot more than labour ever did for me.



No use to those of us who aren't tools


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

im new to this site but hope theres people who can try and compete with me with proper discussion. peace out dudes


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You obviously *haven't* looked at history, or you'd know that you're talking bollocks, as well as being a fantasist who massively exaggerates UKIP's voter base.


 
what part of what ive said is incorrect. ill admit if im wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> what part of what ive said is incorrect. ill admit if im wrong.



No you won't, you'll quibble and make excuses, still...

Labour didn't create the debt left for the Tories in 2010, a worldwide financial crisis did. Labour (and Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling specifically) probably did more to put the brakes on the economy crashing that most of the bankers and the Tories combined, by stopping more banks doing a Northern Rock.

Labour didn't "sell the country's gold at the lowest possible price". The reserves were sold at the bottom of the market - an unprecedentedly-long dip in the market. Effectively the reserves weren't earning their keep. If an asset makes no dividend, you get rid - commerce 101.

The English electorate is currently around 21 million people. UKIP at their highest have only managed 4.5 million voters - in Euro-elections. So, "half" is bollocks, "less than 25%" is more accurate.


----------



## voiceofreason88 (Sep 21, 2016)

gordan brown deregulated all the banks so they could do what they did and then blamed them after it failed but years before was taking credit for it before it crashed. we wouldnt of gone into a recession if he hadnt of sold all the countries gold nobody or country in the right mind sells there assets like that but labour had to did because theyd spent all the money and had already exhausted the popular labour tax options. and ye abit of a exaggeration with half of voters but alot in my area always forever been labour and ukip almost got in.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 21, 2016)

and ..... breathe


----------



## Calamity1971 (Sep 21, 2016)

and use the space bar alot... a lot


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 21, 2016)

two sheds said:


> while the tories cut taxes for the rich, let them hide their money offshore without paying any tax, cut-cut-cut from the poor and tax-tax-tax the poor to get it all back. Just look at history it's repeated itself again and again. Agree with you they're unlikely to get in what with all that and the gerrymandering. You'll be delighted with tories from here on in then.
> 
> do you not understand 'balance of payments deficit'?


Ignore the moron, let's concentrate on the substantive point. 

You're a Labour member are you happy with the NECs decision? Are you happy with Labour councils closing libraries? And if not what are you going to do to stop them?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 21, 2016)

and no and no


----------



## Nylock (Sep 22, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> theres no greater economic crisis than when a labour government gets elected.


unsruprising trope.



voiceofreason88 said:


> im not sure what you mean. but labour create debt, sell all the countries gold (wealth) at the lowest possible price, spend spend spend other peoples money then have to tax tax tax to try and get it back.


another unsurprising trope.



voiceofreason88 said:


> Just look at history its repeated itself again and again. but with any luck labour wont get in ever again scotlands snp, wales pc and half of english voters are now ukip.


numerically illiterate bullshit.



voiceofreason88 said:


> im working class and when labour was in my tax went up every year as soon as tories got in i got a tool allowance back in my pay. which is alot more than labour ever did for me.


...under which tory govt were you awarded this 'tool allowance'?



voiceofreason88 said:


> im new to this site but hope theres people who can try and compete with me with proper discussion. peace out dudes


oh dear... quiet night on the student rooms forums?



voiceofreason88 said:


> gordan brown deregulated all the banks so they could do what they did and then blamed them after it failed but years before was taking credit for it before it crashed. we wouldnt of gone into a recession if he hadnt of sold all the countries gold nobody or country in the right mind sells there assets like that but labour had to did because theyd spent all the money and had already exhausted the popular labour tax options. and ye abit of a exaggeration with half of voters but alot in my area always forever been labour and ukip almost got in.


hard to know where to even begin with this but it's essentially more of the same nonsense but with an extra layer of deluded waffle.

Fuck's sake... They're not even trying all that hard anymore, are they?


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 22, 2016)

Quiet night on the student rooms? More likely too chicken shit for Storm front.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2016)

14/88: fail


voiceofreason88 said:


> gordan brown deregulated all the banks so they could do what they did and then blamed them after it failed but years before was taking credit for it before it crashed. we wouldnt of gone into a recession if he hadnt of sold all the countries gold nobody or country in the right mind sells there assets like that but labour had to did because theyd spent all the money and had already exhausted the popular labour tax options. and ye abit of a exaggeration with half of voters but alot in my area always forever been labour and ukip almost got in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2016)

voiceofreason88 said:


> gordan brown deregulated all the banks so they could do what they did and then blamed them after it failed but years before was taking credit for it before it crashed.



Wrong. The banks were deregulated already. What Brown did was refrain from re-regulating, and decided to take a "light hand" on policing existing rules.



> we wouldnt of gone into a recession if he hadnt of sold all the countries gold nobody or country in the right mind sells there assets like that but labour had to did because theyd spent all the money and had already exhausted the popular labour tax options.



Wrong again. Our gold reserves were just about equivalent to a couple of days losses during the financial crisis. They'd have made fuck-all difference. This is basic arithmetic. 
As for selling assets, if a market is stagnant for a long time, any investor - smart or dumb - will sell, rather than holding on and hoping for a price rise. As I said, Commerce 101.



> and ye abit of a exaggeration with half of voters but alot in my area always forever been labour and ukip almost got in.



And...?  Unless and until UKIP build up a history of doing so, the fact that they may have "almost got in" in your area is more indicative of a protest vote than a swing to the right. If UKIP sustain those numbers in later elections you MIGHT have a point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Ignore the moron, let's concentrate on the substantive point.
> 
> You're a Labour member are you happy with the NECs decision? Are you happy with Labour councils closing libraries? And if not what are you going to do to stop them?



I'm appalled by the NEC's decision, but not at all surprised. I've been pressing local councillors about setting an illegal budget for the last couple of years, and the craven replies I've heard, led me to believe that any "moderate", and any Labour Party member with an iota of careerism in them, WILL NOT go for setting an illegal budget.

The appalling thing is why:  because it would affect their career; because it would drain the reserves; because it would let central government in.

Those are all excuses councillors have actually used to me! None of them grasped that if they set an illegal budget and the DCLG sent in a team of goons to run the borough, they'd almost immediately be faced with an intractable set of issues around service provision funding, and would not be able to operate inside of budgetary restraints AND provide a service, thus showing up the whole issue setting an illegal budget as an excuse to avoid civic and government debt, and revealing that setting an illegal budget - within acceptable limits - could provide impetus to promote services, not just fund them.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 22, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wrong. The banks were deregulated already. What Brown did was refrain from re-regulating, and decided to take a "light hand" on policing existing rules.


 
and of course, right up to the moment the shit hit the fan, the tories were calling for less regulation of the financial sector...


----------



## two sheds (Sep 22, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Ignore the moron, let's concentrate on the substantive point.
> 
> You're a Labour member are you happy with the NECs decision? Are you happy with Labour councils closing libraries? And if not what are you going to do to stop them?



Aha *that* NEC decision. 

Someone here posted a link to this: Renewal | Matthew Brown, Martin O’Neill | The Road to Socialism is the A59: The Preston Model

which I think has some great ideas in. 

I'd like to see councils getting more income from (for example) using spare land as charged car parking to siphon off some of the profits that private car parks are getting. I'd like to see Councils compulsorily purchasing land for building on and retaining the profits within the council rather than have them siphoned off to private companies again. In Cornwall I'd like to see them set x3 the council tax for second homes. 

If you do those sorts of things and the government tries to stop you then I think you'd get much better reaction from residents than setting an illegal budget and have a tory hit squad come in and take over. Then, you're going to be seen as acting irresponsibly and caring more about making a political point than caring for people. 

What happens to, say, housing benefit payments if a council sets an illegal budget? Aren't landlords just going to throw out their housing benefit tenants if the rents aren't paid? Council workers being sent home or being sent their P45s in a taxi? 

I'm willing to be persuaded on this, though - what's happened before when a council's set an illegal budget?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Aha *that* NEC decision.
> 
> Someone here posted a link to this: Renewal | Matthew Brown, Martin O’Neill | The Road to Socialism is the A59: The Preston Model
> 
> ...



Most councils haven't set "illegal" budgets for over 30 years, due to legislation to stop them doing so. That said, The illegality was in setting an annual budget higher than the year's projected rates income, and the legislation took no account of other finance streams. The result of setting an illegal rate was surcharge of the councillors responsible, their banning from any political office, and (unofficially) auditing and persecution of the local authority involved.

The penalties now are different, insofar as surcharging is no longer an issue, but the fear of being banned from political office is much more of a prophylactic against it happening now, than it was then, as councillors are so much more careerist and - dare I say it - middle class than they were 30 years ago. For about 25% of the councillors in Lambeth, their position is a stepping stone to regional or national government.

By the way, setting an illegal budget would not affect services (such as they are) or administration (such as Housing Benefit), it'd merely trigger the insertion of a Ministry-picked team of tossers to take over some of the functions of the councillors and officers, and to scrutinise how and why an illegal budget was set.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 23, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I'm willing to be persuaded on this, though - what's happened before when a council's set an illegal budget?


 
in 1921 it ended up with poplar borough council meetings being held in brixton clink (more here)

now, it would need to be co-ordinated to stop councils / councillors being picked off one by one.

and of course the tory press would delight in stories about labour tax & spend / spending money they haven't got / leading councils in to bankruptcy and so on...


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 27, 2016)

Rachel Reeves channels rivers of blood

The UK Could 'Explode' Into Riots If Immigration Is Not Curbed By Brexit, Warns Labour's Rachel Reeves | Huffington Post


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2016)

There's been a lot of that lately, Jonathan Reynolds was practically quoting Powell verbatim the other week.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 28, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Rachel Reeves channels rivers of blood
> 
> The UK Could 'Explode' Into Riots If Immigration Is Not Curbed By Brexit, Warns Labour's Rachel Reeves | Huffington Post


Ive no idea what her motivation is here. Her comments without context in that article show no nuance or greater motivation. Shes an MP in Leeds so should be very aware of the Polish man attacked by a gang of 20 recently - no doubt not an isolated incident. But maybe thats not her concern here. Is she trying to defuse xenophobic tension? Maybe she's just trying to win BNP votes. I see BNP came third and scored 18.5% in her seat. Leeds West (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Who knows. What do you think is her motivation?

My motivation might be different to hers, but I think shes right. If the government/EU deal is one which maintains free movement i expect plenty more violence/deaths as the We Voted Leave and so now We'll Make You Leave brigade takes matters into their own hands in the face of a no change in EU movement of peoples deal. No reason why there couldn't be a repeat of the race riots of 1958. All the elements are there. Dont you think?


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Ive no idea what her motivation is here. Her comments without context in that article show no nuance or greater motivation. Shes an MP in Leeds so should be very aware of the Polish man attacked by a gang of 20 recently - no doubt not an isolated incident. But maybe thats not her concern here. Is she trying to defuse xenophobic tension? Maybe she's just trying to win BNP votes. I see BNP came third and scored 18.5% in her seat. Leeds West (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Who knows. What do you think is her motivation?
> 
> My motivation might be different to hers, but I think shes right. If the government/EU deal is one which maintains free movement i expect plenty more violence/deaths as the We Voted Leave and so now We'll Make You Leave brigade takes matters into their own hands in the face of a no change in EU movement of peoples deal. No reason why there couldn't be a repeat of the race riots of 1958. All the elements are there. Dont you think?


I don't think it's anything to do with the BNP. Her seat is one of the safest in the country...or was. Not sure what effect the boundary changes will have on the vote. Leeds West has been carved up in the proposals. Maybe with the deselection looming she's got that in her mind, I guess.

She's also extremely anti-Corbyn and he's come out today saying no limits to immigration from the EU so there might be a little in that. Not much, though, I reckon.

Who knows?

I don't think we're anywhere close to race riots, personally, despite the rise in racist attacks. I think they'll remain isolated and condemned by most people.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 28, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> I don't think we're anywhere close to race riots, personally, despite the rise in racist attacks. I think they'll remain isolated and condemned by most people.


We're not there today, but in a year or twos time if the deal maintains Free Movement then i fear the worst. Shame as Id like to keep the EU free movement arrangement. I dont think we'll ever find out as it looks very unlikely to happen, based on the scattered comments coming out of the Tory cabinet. If i were betting on it id say almost certainly there will be new border control. Though even a fudged, 'soft brexit' version of it could be enough to get a reaction.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> We're not there today, but in a year or twos time if the deal maintains Free Movement then i fear the worst. Shame as Id like to keep the EU free movement arrangement. I dont think we'll ever find out as it looks very unlikely to happen, based on the scattered comments coming out of the Tory cabinet. If i were betting on it id say almost certainly there will be new border control. Though even a fudged, 'soft brexit' version of it could be enough to get a reaction.


I don't believe Brexit will actually happen. No one in the Tories know what to do about it so they're just kicking it into the long grass. Labour have apparently just voted for a 2nd refendum at the conference and you've got Sarkozy now offering a new treaty if he wins in France.


> “I would tell the British, you’ve gone out, but we have a new treaty on the table so you have an opportunity to vote again,” Mr Sarkozy said. “But this time not on the old Europe, on the new Europe. Do you want to stay? If yes, so much the better. Because I can’t accept to lose Europe’s second-largest economy while we are negotiating with Turkey over its EU membership. And if it’s no, then it’s a real no. You’re in or you’re out.”


You can't leave the EU. They won't let you.


----------



## killer b (Sep 28, 2016)

In some senses she's 'right', but only in the same way Powell was 'right'. But as non-EU immigration figures demonstrate, free movement isn't something that's in the gift of politicians. Officially sanctioned or illicit, movement _will _happen, and politicians promising to do something about it by enforcing stricter borders are doomed to failure, and doomed to being blamed by a further enraged population. 

If immigration is to be brought down, the only way to do it is to do something about the global conditions that make moving half way round the world to live somewhere that it rains all the time and everyone hates you the best option for a happy life - gross inequality, famine, war, climate change, etc etc. And as those are all long-term things that will take decades of international co-operation to sort out (so most likely never), in the mean time if they want to avoid race riots and further gains to the far right, some sort of domestic policy that manages the effects of the inevitable ongoing immigration we do have would be their only hope. I don't see anyone other than Corbyn making the case for that though, and he's doing it quite poorly.


----------



## belboid (Sep 28, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> I don't believe Brexit will actually happen. No one in the Tories know what to do about it so they're just kicking it into the long grass. Labour have apparently just voted for a 2nd refendum at the conference and you've got Sarkozy now offering a new treaty if he wins in France.
> 
> You can't leave the EU. They won't let you.



They weren't about leaving the EU tho. The idea that 'they' wont let us is nothing more than conspiralunacy.   And neither Denmark nor Sweden use the Euro


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Ive no idea what her motivation is here. Her comments without context in that article show no nuance or greater motivation. Shes an MP in Leeds so should be very aware of the Polish man attacked by a gang of 20 recently - no doubt not an isolated incident. But maybe thats not her concern here. Is she trying to defuse xenophobic tension? Maybe she's just trying to win BNP votes. I see BNP came third and scored 18.5% in her seat. Leeds West (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Who knows. What do you think is her motivation?
> 
> My motivation might be different to hers, but I think shes right. If the government/EU deal is one which maintains free movement i expect plenty more violence/deaths as the We Voted Leave and so now We'll Make You Leave brigade takes matters into their own hands in the face of a no change in EU movement of peoples deal. No reason why there couldn't be a repeat of the race riots of 1958. All the elements are there. Dont you think?


Where did you get that bnp stuff from? They didn't stand last time, and have never got 18% there, even at the height of their popularity.


----------



## killer b (Sep 28, 2016)

Presume he means ukip


----------



## mwgdrwg (Sep 28, 2016)

Have we had 'Labour are scum for voting with UKIP and Tories for hard brexit in Wales' yet?

Wankers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 28, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> I don't believe Brexit will actually happen...you've got Sarkozy now offering a new treaty if he wins in France.



An ex-president on criminal charges of corruption you mean? Best not hold your breath on that one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 28, 2016)

Fez909 glad to see you've caught up to where I was three months ago


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 28, 2016)

mwgdrwg said:


> Have we had 'Labour are scum for voting with UKIP and Tories for hard brexit in Wales' yet?


What was the Remain vote in Wales?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 28, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Ive no idea what her motivation is here. Her comments without context in that article show no nuance or greater motivation. Shes an MP in Leeds so should be very aware of the Polish man attacked by a gang of 20 recently - no doubt not an isolated incident. But maybe thats not her concern here. Is she trying to defuse xenophobic tension? Maybe she's just trying to win BNP votes. I see BNP came third and scored 18.5% in her seat. Leeds West (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Who knows. What do you think is her motivation?
> 
> My motivation might be different to hers, but I think shes right. If the government/EU deal is one which maintains free movement i expect plenty more violence/deaths as the We Voted Leave and so now We'll Make You Leave brigade takes matters into their own hands in the face of a no change in EU movement of peoples deal. No reason why there couldn't be a repeat of the race riots of 1958. All the elements are there. Dont you think?



Frankly, I think that you're chatting shit with regard to a re-run of '58, which was frankly a handful of localised disturbances talked up by the media of the day, and by a few surplus cunts politicians, plus Mosley and his drones. It went nowhere.
The threat now is entirely different. What now constitutes "foreign"? A name, an accent, A mode of dress, or hue of skin colour? There are so many targets for bigots and xenophobes to focus on that any xenophobic and/or racist violence has the potential for doing so much more damage than was done in '58, and over a much longer term, because any neoliberally-inclined government will do little to suppress such sentiment until it suits them to - cowed people are more economically-manipulable.


----------



## treelover (Sep 28, 2016)

Shadow cabinet seem split on the issue, Angela Rayner and some others, the shadow Environment secretary, Barry Gardiner, talking about some form of controls, selection.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 27, 2016)

Jeez 

Labour MPs rebel against party's own motion calling for action on Saudi Arabian war crimes


----------



## Libertad (Oct 27, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Jeez
> 
> Labour MPs rebel against party's own motion calling for action on Saudi Arabian war crimes



Fucking unbelievable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2016)

dead yemeni kids clearly a small price to pay to undermine your elected leader in a game of politics eh. Cunts


----------



## Leftwinger1992 (Oct 27, 2016)

Appalling. It's shocking that any of the MP's can support a country in Saudi Arabia and its government who indiscriminately bomb and kill innocent civillians. Yes, the atrocities being committed by the Russians are also dreadful in Syria, but the western world seems to turn an almost total blind eye when it comes to its own allies Saudi Arabia. The hypocrisy shown is beyond belief.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 28, 2016)

Leftwinger1992 said:


> Appalling. It's shocking that any of the MP's can support a country in Saudi Arabia and its government who indiscriminately bomb and kill innocent civillians. Yes, the atrocities being committed by the Russians are also dreadful in Syria, but the western world seems to turn an almost total blind eye when it comes to its own allies Saudi Arabia. The hypocrisy shown is beyond belief.



Is this the first time that you've encountered the British Labour Party? Prepare to be perpetually disappointed.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 28, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Is this the first time that you've encountered the British Labour Party? Prepare to be perpetually disappointed.


The source of that disappointment:-

Adrian Bailey
Andy Burnham
Angela Eagle

Angela Smith
Ann Clwyd
Ann Coffey
Anna Turley
Barry Sheerman
Ben Bradshaw
Bridgit Phillipson
Caroline Flint
Catherine McKinnell
Chris Bryant
Chris Elmore *(Teller)*

Chris Evans
Chris Leslie
Clive Lewis *(ill)*
Connor McGinn
Dan Jarvis
David Crausby
David Lammy
Diana Johnson
Fiona MacTaggart
Frank Field
Gareth Thomas
Gavin Shuker
Geoffrey Robinson
George Howarth
Gerald Kaufman
Gill Furniss
Gisela Stuart
Gloria De Piero
Graeme Jones
Graham Allen
Graham Stringer

Heidi Alexander
Helen Jones
Ian Austin
Ian Murray
Ivan Lewis
Jamie Reed
Jim Fitzpatrick
Joan Ryan
John Mann
John Spellar
John Woodcock
Judith Cummins *(Teller)*

Julie Elliott
Kate Hoey
Keith Vaz
Kevan Jones
Kevin Barron
Liz Kendall
Luciana Berger
Lucy Powell
Madeleine Moon
Margaret Beckett
Margaret Hodge
Maria Eagle
Mark Hendrick
Mary Creagh
Meg Hillier
Melanie Onn
Michael Dugher
Mike Gapes
Natascha Engel
Neil Coyle
Nia Griffith
Pat McFadden
Paul Flynn
Peter Kyle
Phil Wilson
Rachel Reeves
Rob Flello
Rob Marris
Roberta Blackman-Woods

Rosena Allin-Khan
Rosie Cooper
Rushanara Ali
Ruth Smeeth
Shabana Mahmood
Siobhain McDonagh
Stephen Kinnock
Susan Jones
Toby Perkins
Tom Blenkinsopp
Tom Watson
Tracy Brabin
Tristram Hunt
Vernon Coaker
Wayne David
Wes Streeting
Yasmin Qureshi
Yvonne Fovargue


----------



## Libertad (Oct 28, 2016)

The usual perps. Why are they in the fucking Labour Party? Come to think of it why is anyone a member of the fucking Labour Party?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2016)

Libertad said:


> The usual perps. Why are they in the fucking Labour Party? Come to think of it why is anyone a member of the fucking Labour Party?


to vote for jeremy corbyn


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Margaret Hodge


the paedos' friend


----------



## Libertad (Oct 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> to vote for jeremy corbyn



Fucking wankers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Fucking wankers.


yeh the people on that list had one thing and one thing only to  do - to vote for corbyn - and they fucked it up


----------



## Leftwinger1992 (Oct 28, 2016)

Libertad said:


> Is this the first time that you've encountered the British Labour Party? Prepare to be perpetually disappointed.


 I'm a member of the Labour Party. It's a shame that its MPs don't always defend its principles.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 28, 2016)

Leftwinger1992 said:


> It's a shame that its MPs don't always defend its principles.



Isn't it?


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2016)

Leftwinger1992 said:


> I'm a member of the Labour Party. It's a shame that its MPs don't always defend its principles.



IMO it's a shame that so many Labour Party members are still so naive as to believe the party's representatives in parliament and elsewhere give a fuck about what the members think of as the party's principles.


----------



## Leftwinger1992 (Oct 28, 2016)

andysays said:


> IMO it's a shame that so many Labour Party members are still so naive as to believe the party's representatives in parliament and elsewhere give a fuck about what the members think of as the party's principles.


 I'm not so naive as to think that. Clearly there is a big split in the views of the majority of Labour Party members and the type of leader they want in comparison to the parliamentary party, hence the current problems the party faces. But then having said that, it's the same to a lesser extent in the Conservative Party, with a lot of their members to the right of the parliamentary party.


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2016)

Leftwinger1992 said:


> I'm not so naive as to think that. Clearly there is a big split in the views of the majority of Labour Party members and the type of leader they want in comparison to the parliamentary party, hence the current problems the party faces...



I'm afraid you appear to me to be very much so naive as to believe that. Even your most recent response seems to suggest that if only the views of the members and the type of leader they want could magically be reflected in the parliamentary party then everything would be OK, without any thought about *why* this is not the case, not just now but historically.

Why do the views and the actions of the PLP not reflect the wishes of the members (not that all members have the same wishes)? Is it just because (most of) the Labour MPs and other elected representatives are nasty people who have betrayed the trust you put in them, or is there perhaps a wider reason that doesn't simply depend on their individual failings?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 28, 2016)

Angela Rayner Called 'Thick As Mince' In Abusive Emails About Her Accent | Huffington Post


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Angela Rayner Called 'Thick As Mince' In Abusive Emails About Her Accent | Huffington Post


Thick as pigshit more likely


----------



## Leftwinger1992 (Oct 29, 2016)

andysays said:


> I'm afraid you appear to me to be very much so naive as to believe that. Even your most recent response seems to suggest that if only the views of the members and the type of leader they want could magically be reflected in the parliamentary party then everything would be OK, without any thought about *why* this is not the case, not just now but historically.


 I'm not saying that Labour would necessarily get elected on the traditional left-wing mandate which Corbyn and his members support. You only have to look at the party performed under the leadership of Michael Foot to see that. However, it would certainly help if the parliamentary party got behind Corbyn as leader and accepted the democratic wishes of the membership, who have overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn. I do think Labour would be performing a lot better in the polls if it wasn't for the internal feuding within the party. Ultimately, divided parties don't win elections.



andysays said:


> Why do the views and the actions of the PLP not reflect the wishes of the members (not that all members have the same wishes)? Is it just because (most of) the Labour MPs and other elected representatives are nasty people who have betrayed the trust you put in them, or is there perhaps a wider reason that doesn't simply depend on their individual failings?


 I don't think its because the PLP are made up of nasty people. I just believe they view the whole point of the party in a different way to the membership. They see Labour achieving power and making a real difference through parliament, while a lot of the membership and Corbyn believe the party's route to success is to create a mass grassroots movement. Personally, I think you need both to be a successful political party and I'd like to see the membership and the PLP come together to do what they should be doing and that's opposing this Tory government.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2016)

Regrettably it was Staines that broke this...but wtf....


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2016)

tom watson is a snake


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2016)

andysays said:


> I'm afraid you appear to me to be very much so naive as to believe that. Even your most recent response seems to suggest that if only the views of the members and the type of leader they want could magically be reflected in the parliamentary party then everything would be OK, without any thought about *why* this is not the case, not just now but historically.
> 
> Why do the views and the actions of the PLP not reflect the wishes of the members (not that all members have the same wishes)? Is it just because (most of) the Labour MPs and other elected representatives are nasty people who have betrayed the trust you put in them, or is there perhaps a wider reason that doesn't simply depend on their individual failings?


is the answer - because the new labour hierachy spent 2 decade parachuting new labour clones into safe labour constituencies often against the will of the local constituency parties?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2016)

Which party you in now free spirit?


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2016)

Leftwinger1992 said:


> I don't think its because the PLP are made up of nasty people. I just believe they view the whole point of the party in a different way to the membership. They see Labour achieving power and making a real difference through parliament, while a lot of the membership and Corbyn believe the party's route to success is to create a mass grassroots movement. Personally, I think you need both to be a successful political party and I'd like to see the membership and the PLP come together to do what they should be doing and that's opposing this Tory government.


pretty sure that corbyn and the cast majority of the membership also recognise that the best way to achieve their aims is by being in government, they just happen to think that the best route to get into government without having to betray their core principles is via an enthused mass membership rather than by sucking up to the tabloids and hoping the city will finance your election campaign


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2016)

I seem to have missed this; it is real...


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Which party you in now free spirit?


for a periodically obsessed prick you're not very good at keeping tabs. Same party I was in the last time you asked, and the time before and time before that. Though not very actively atm.

I'm just not naive enough to think the Green party are going to romp home to an overall majority at the next election, and recognise that the best hope of achieving something vaguely close to my politics is via a Corbyn led Labour party ending up in government ideally with Green, SNP and Plaid support to moderate the influence of remaining neoliberal labour MPs.

Under current rules I'd not be allowed to join Labour for 2 years anyway, so you could really save us from having to have this discussion every few months as the answer's not likely to change any time soon.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2016)

free spirit said:


> for a periodically obsessed prick you're not very good at keeping tabs. Same party I was in the last time you asked, and the time before and time before that. Though not very actively atm.
> 
> I'm just not naive enough to think the Green party are going to romp home to an overall majority at the next election, and recognise that the best hope of achieving something vaguely close to my politics is via a Corbyn led Labour party ending up in government ideally with Green, SNP and Plaid support to moderate the influence of remaining neoliberal labour MPs.
> 
> Under current rules I'd not be allowed to join Labour for 2 years anyway, so you could really save us from having to have this discussion every few months as the answer's not likely to change any time soon.


You could always try. Or donate. That seems to help.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You could always try. Or donate. That seems to help.


I signed the Green candidates nomination paper, no chance with the current NEC position. 

Besides, I've no wish to join only to end up being expected to campaign on behalf of the same neoliberal labour MPs and Councillors who's views and policies I've spent the best part of 20 years campaigning against.


----------



## treelover (Nov 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I seem to have missed this; it is real...





Do you mean it is surprising that Ed agrees with Robert Reich?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> Do you mean it is surprising that Ed agrees with Robert Reich?


are you honestly concerned over what ed miliband thinks of a foreign political party?


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I seem to have missed this; it is real...



you forget Miliband's valiant attempt to reposition the Labour Party as again the party of the working class.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> Do you mean it is surprising that Ed agrees with Robert Reich?


No.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2016)

free spirit said:


> is the answer - because the new labour hierachy spent 2 decade parachuting new labour clones into safe labour constituencies often against the will of the local constituency parties?



That's certainly *an* answer, but anyone with a decent knowledge of LP history can confirm that this discrepancy existed even before Tony Blair and his acolytes gained control.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2016)

andysays said:


> That's certainly *an* answer, but anyone with a decent knowledge of LP history can confirm that this discrepancy existed even before Tony Blair and his acolytes gained control.


ok yeah I was wrong to use 20 years as the time frame, but that's probably the core reason for the current massive disconnect between the PLP and the membership, along with the mass surge of new (or old and rejoining) left wing members who wouldn't have been joining were it not for Corbyn / another serious left wing leadership challenger.

It also strikes me as being pretty good justification for actually having open nominations and internal elections in the constituencies at the next election rather than the sitting MPs thinking they should have a job for life regardless of whether they represent the views of their local parties or not.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2016)

Have we had this yet?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 1, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Have we had this yet?





Yea on that Corbyn thread, except I was the first one to notice it. I knew that Stephen Kinnock was turning Labour a bit Breitbart before it was cool etc


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yea on that Corbyn thread, except I was the first one to notice it. I knew that Stephen Kinnock was turning Labour a bit Breitbart before it was cool etc


He'd be able to cover that pate with a "Make Britain Great Again" cap.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 1, 2016)

brogdale said:


> He'd be able to cover that pate with a "Make Britain Great Again" cap.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2016)

Have we had this yet?


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 15, 2016)

Jesus fucking Christ


----------



## two sheds (Dec 16, 2016)

A number 1 if ever I heard one


----------



## IC3D (Dec 16, 2016)

Noooo


----------



## two sheds (Dec 16, 2016)

Be fair, some of them are in tune


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Dec 16, 2016)

Seems it is alleged Corbs has given has backing to the Morning Star over their Aleppo "liberated" line. One more example of how, if accurate - while vastly preferable to the neoliberals and Blairites - Corbin and Milne and McDonnell are yesterday's men living in a different age, acting like fellow travellers of Putin and his Stalinist cheerleaders. Time for Lewis and the new breed of Labour  left?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2016)

No Jess Phillips?
Surprising.


----------



## Libertad (Dec 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> A number 1 if ever I heard one



A number two more like. 

[/scatological]


----------



## cantsin (Dec 18, 2016)

Posh Islingtonite / New Lab MP Meg Hillier joins Tory led anti union / strike  chorus - usually can't be arsed with the boring ' no leadership ' charges vs Corbyn ( as if the whole thing's about him ) but would be nice see him pull his fecking finger out every now + again to kick some scabby Blairite arse within the ranks : 

Diane Abbott defends series of strikes planned in run-up to Christmas


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 5, 2017)

Labour council in Lewisham still pushing ahead with compulsory purchase of Millwall's ground and flogging it to their mates.


> Millwall Football Club have admitted for the first time that they may be forced to leave their south London home and relocate to Kent should the seizure of their land go ahead. Lewisham council’s plan to compulsorily purchase areas around the Den and sell them on to a mysterious offshore developer with connections to the current Labour administration has already drawn both disbelief and mass protest.


----------



## mikey mikey (Jan 8, 2017)

Lewisham MPs. Three Blairites.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 29, 2017)

State of this.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 29, 2017)

Fucking millions? Aaargh


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 29, 2017)

Either she's too thick to look up the UNHCR stats or check Wikipedia or she's a racist shit. Though its probably both tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> Either she's too thick to look up the UNHCR stats or check Wikipedia or she's a racist shit. Though its probably both tbh.


It's auld hunter hoey


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It's auld hunter hoey



She has steadily gone right and further right  -I remember her by election -she was said to be a trot in those days.Boundary changes will force her to retire back to northern ireland fortunately.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2017)

that cunt was on the campaign trail with Philip Hollobone and that wellingborough cunt for the GrassRoots go! leave campaign. The second teir one where all the complete swivels were relegated to lest they taint the classy main leave campaign


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2017)

He'll be able to spend the weekend blocking a whole load more folk, now.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 24, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> State of this.
> 
> View attachment 99595



just seen this for the first time - mind boggled . They don't really come much worse than Hoey do they


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> He'll be able to spend the weekend blocking a whole load more folk, now.



And did he kiss their shiny metal butts?


----------



## Old Spark (Mar 27, 2017)

cantsin said:


> just seen this for the first time - mind boggled . They don't really come much worse than Hoey do they[/QUOTE
> 
> And to think Labour hq tried to stop her all those years ago because she had been in the IMG for a couple of weeks.
> 
> Like Field she has become a Tory.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 18, 2017)

Barney Rooney keeping a close eye on the shitty goings on of Lewisham. 


> The second of these is the most obviously confusing. The main questions here have always seemed to be essentially political. Is it right for Lewisham’s cabinet to award half a million pounds of public money to a charity of which its mayor is a director, and which exists as an arm of a private development?
> 
> Is it right for a local authority to enter into an agreement over the sale of public land with an opaque offshore developer?
> The inquiry feels like a way of calling a ceasefire in a process that had become deeply troubling for Lewisham council
> ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 11, 2019)

This is Wrexham's Labour MP bleating that his principled hard remain stance might unfairly cost him his seat 

BBC News - Opposing Brexit could cost me my seat - Labour MP Ian Lucas
Opposing Brexit could cost me my seat - Labour MP

And these are his results in every election since 2001 when he was parachuted in to a working class industrial seat that has been labour since 1935 (liberal before that, never tory).

Note that in 2001 he had a majority of 9,193, and that this majority has decreased in every election with the notable exception of the one post-referendum election in 2017 when for first time in 25 years both the numbers voting for labour increased and the majority increased (majority by one vote to be precise).

Imagine being that much of a blinkered prick you think the decline of labour tribalism in working class areas was solely down to a three year old referendum. In summary, absolutely fuck off. I'd sincerely hope this cunt lost his seat if it wasn't for the fact that it would leave wrexham with a fucking tory. In wrexham. Unheard of. Cunt.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 11, 2019)

There's no reason why he can't hold that seat if he gets behind the manifesto at the next election.  A Brexit Party candidate spoiling should help him across the line.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 11, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> There's no reason why he can't hold that seat if he gets behind the manifesto at the next election.  A Brexit Party candidate spoiling should help him across the line.


He's got a poison combination of a) dreadful harman type politics b) a complete lack of any charisma and c) not being liked by locals though


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 11, 2019)

I'm guessing he's not going to get behind the manifesto then?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 11, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I'm guessing he's not going to get behind the manifesto then?


No. He probably won't do anything tbh, one way or another, he manages to largely be completely anonymous at all times even in his constituency


----------



## agricola (Sep 11, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> He's got a poison combination of a) dreadful harman type politics b) a complete lack of any charisma and c) not being liked by locals though



Plus theres the effect of what Wrexham Council have been up to the past thirty-odd years - taking what was the nicest High Street going, with three flourishing, well-attended and beautiful markets and destroying almost all of it (to varying degrees) at a cost of several hundred million pounds.  They've wrecked that town, and I really do not blame anyone who would vote against them as a result of it.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> Plus theres the effect of what Wrexham Council have been up to the past thirty-odd years - taking what was the nicest High Street going, with three flourishing, well-attended and beautiful markets and destroying almost all of it (to varying degrees) at a cost of several hundred million pounds.  They've wrecked that town, and I really do not blame anyone who would vote against them as a result of it.


God I've got all this to look forward to then when I move across the border


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> Plus theres the effect of what Wrexham Council have been up to the past thirty-odd years - taking what was the nicest High Street going, with three flourishing, well-attended and beautiful markets and destroying almost all of it (to varying degrees) at a cost of several hundred million pounds.  They've wrecked that town, and I really do not blame anyone who would vote against them as a result of it.


Aye, well labour being unable to take control of council for years now in a town that historically has been as solidly labour as they come tells it's own story on that front. Most w/c orientated councillors in wrexham these days are plaid (harper, jones) or independent (bithell - johnstown) Absolute shower.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 13, 2020)

_bump_

In light of the recent revelations from the report on antisemitism with in the Labour party, it has become evident that the rot is not confined to that but goes a great deal further, racism more general in nature has been uncovered and right of the party have been seen to actively sabotage any chance of winning the 2017 election. It may well be long past time for a credible alternative on the left to Labour particularly in light of the recent leadership elections and the following appointments. We have Starmer saying 'ministers to face tough questions but now is not the time'. If not now, when? Colour me underwhelmed, and then there's this:



The world has turned upside-down.


----------

