Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

has there ever been a lamer labour leader than ed miliband?

No there was nothing they could do to make these things happen or stop them. Do you think that there was?

Agitated for choice from the MPs who supposedly represent them for one thing. Kicked off when they had no choice. Do you have any evidence that very many were interested in choice? Those towards the left actually seemed to think that Brown was 'left wing' regardless of all the actual policies that spoke very differently. They. Did. Nothing. Doesn't matter how many times you come back with the same stuff. If the election system doesn't represent them, what have they done about it? Nothing. It's what they excel at. Apart from appeasing banks, war crimes and privatisation of course.
 
Agitated for choice from the MPs who supposedly represent them. Do you have any evidence that very many were interested in choice? Those towards the left actually seemed to think that Brown was 'left wing' regardless of all the actual policies that spoke very differently. They. Did. Nothing. Doesn't matter how many times you come back with the same stuff. If the election system doesn't represent them, what have they done about it? Nothing.
Those who wanted Brown opposed did just that. My question was regards your list of bad things the labour party did and your claim that the membership could have stopped them happening or forced the good things you listed to happen. I'm saying that they couldn't. What sort of party do you imagine the labour party is? One led by the members? On where members decide policy on some sort of democratic participatory basis? You don't do you? So why insist that the membership could have stopped the leaders and m their own policy if only they really wanted to?
 
If members think it worthwhile to be in a rightwing party without many democratic credentials I think that says quite enough about them, regardless of their posturing. I certainly wouldn't look to make excuses for them when history endlessly repeats itself. It is the vaipd sellout nature of the party that looks like it might facilitate at least 2 terms of Cameron et al. That is a pretty dire judgement in itself.
 
Are you going to extend this to your own party who went into effective coalition with such murderers and other types in leeds on back of the members votes? You seem to be avoiding having to deal with this after having sought me out on it to point out what beast the labour party members are. Or are you not? And do your posts ever really bear any relation to the points made in the ones they purport to be replying to?
 
If members think it worthwhile to be in a rightwing party without many democratic credentials I think that says quite enough about them, regardless of their posturing. I certainly wouldn't look to make excuses for them when history endlessly repeats itself. It is the vaipd sellout nature of the party that looks like it might facilitate at least 2 terms of Cameron et al. That is a pretty dire judgement in itself.

Can we drop this idea of Labour 'selling out', as if it's a revolutionary socialist party that bottles it whenever in government? It is, and always has been, a pragmatic machine in the business of getting elected into government locally and nationally, and has always worked with the dominant economic and political ethos of the time.

As for New Labour, they all but spelled it out in 1997 that the new Thatcherite consensus was here to stay.
 
Can we drop this idea of Labour 'selling out', as if it's a revolutionary socialist party that bottles it whenever in government? It is, and always has been, a pragmatic machine in the business of getting elected into government locally and nationally, and has always worked with the dominant economic and political ethos of the time.

As for New Labour, they all but spelled it out in 1997 that the new Thatcherite consensus was here to stay.
bloody hell, I'm 100% in agreement with LLETSA!:eek:
To read some people on this thread, you'd think Labour was some revo organisation, crammed with red radicals. Never was; never could be
 
I don't know why people are thinking I am talking about Labours politics, more the
anaesthetising effect that EM has on me (and others) in general. How could anyone think that he is even half a good idea to lead anything is beyond me.
 
I don't know why people are thinking I am talking about Labours politics, more the
anaesthetising effect that EM has on me (and others) in general. How could anyone think that he is even half a good idea to lead anything is beyond me.
for my part; leaders come, and they go. The parties, as the more permanent institution, are the more important (and depressing) things
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ur-revolution?commentpage=7#start-of-comments

Liam Bryne again in the Guardian, more and more the political class in this country is reminding me of that of the 1930's, read 'The Dark Valley' by Piers Brendon to get a flavour of the political culture of the times.

notice no mention of full employment anymore...

they may find they are making a big mistake going too far down this road. without wanting to appear overly optimistic, the mood does seem to be softening towards claimants

the whole benefit bashing is largely based on lies, lies that are easily seen through if you, or a family member end up on benefits - as unemployment grows more and more people are going to have direct or indirect experience of the benefits system - you can only go so far with blaming the unemployed for unemployment and the arguments are starting to look more hollow everyday

on top of this - the atos process is failing - they are supposed to be assessing 11,000 people a week - theyve barely managed 50,000 all year and with every assessment and every appeal anger will grow - the appeals system is close to collapse, atos are having trouble recruiting, and they havent even really got started with retesting everyone - the idea that this can then be extended to 3 million people on DLA is looking increasingly untenable

elsewhere the unions look like they might just be waking up to the realities of workfare and the possible impact on their members - the mirror had a page full of letters slagging it off in the run up to xmas - which doesnt mean much except that their editorial line may be shifting - but moral issues aside - it wont work, it hasnt anywhere its been tried (and labour tried it with the new deal back in 97) and its hugely expensive. the contracts with the workfare providers were negotiated when unemployment was expected to fall, there will almost certainly be re-negotiations going on now and I wouldnt be surprised to see contracts handed back

there may also be a backlash in workplaces - there is already some informal evidence of this - an unpaid labour force being brought in with no employment rights and being used to undercut conditions and informal working arrangements for existing workers - although perhaps the biggest problem workfare faces is that they wont be able to find placements for people, the people who would have got jobs anyway will be snapped up, but anyone with low skills, health problems etc is unlikely to be offered anywhere, this is one of the things that killed the new deal

homelessness is set to soar and this is likely to be a big story next year, again the current policy is unsustainable, and the anger is likely to be directed at soaring rents rather than housing benefit claimants

finally universal credit is an open goal for labour - as its been presented it can't work, IDS has gone increasingly quiet on the detail as he realises this

I don't expect attitudes to shift overnight, but I suspect that there will be a very different debate happening about welfare as the year progresses
 
Agitated for choice from the MPs who supposedly represent them for one thing. Kicked off when they had no choice. Do you have any evidence that very many were interested in choice? Those towards the left actually seemed to think that Brown was 'left wing' regardless of all the actual policies that spoke very differently. They. Did. Nothing. Doesn't matter how many times you come back with the same stuff. If the election system doesn't represent them, what have they done about it? Nothing. It's what they excel at. Apart from appeasing banks, war crimes and privatisation of course.
you're forgetting something rather important here; the 'reforms' instituted by Blair and brown more or less totally margiinalised, and rendered impotent, just about every left-wing activist in the party, to the point where one is baffled at what those few remaining can possibly hope to achieve
 
Labour told to accept spending cuts to be credible

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy tells the Guardian the party must reject 'shallow and temporary' populism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/05/labour-party-spending-cuts-credible

Now the other uber- Blairite Jim Murphy, is challenging Milliband, is there a coup brewing?

and why is the Guardian and its politics journos Watt and Wintour giving them so much space?..

Because they're Blairite slime too at a guess ... ?
 
Apparently Andy Burnham sponsored a letter by Scottish M.P's which ''praised the growing role private medicine had in the NHS''

yes, Wintour is so transparent...
 
Back
Top Bottom