Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

I still really don't get these liberals. It honestly confuses me. How do people like Jones look themselves in the mirror? They have spent their entire fucking lives waiting for this and the second the waters get slightly choppy they want to start setting fire to the social democratic dinghy in order to win the approval of HMS Capital.

What comes after that exactly for Jones? Does he just wait for the next G4S-approved Labour leader to come along and then resume the previous position of telling left-wingers to join the Labour Party and wait for a socialist leader?
 
I suspect this post goes on some Embarrassing Confessions thread, so allow me a run up:

having never read a jk rowling book I heard she had good reviews for a murder mystery novel she wrote under a pen name. Anyway, I came across The Casual Vacancy in a charity shop and thought that must be it. :oops: About 3 pages in I could tell it was fucking awful - the writing and the attitudes - but for some perverse reasons carried on with it. It's about - and yes these are fucking SPOILERS, I don't care, I'm saving you from a fate worse than death - a vacancy on a parish council, which gets fought over by traditional bigoted conservatives and ENLIGHTENED LIBERALS. Essentially, it's a battle between grubby people in trade and a band of solicitors, doctors and fellow travellers. At the heart of it are the conservatives wanting to sell off some land which will cut the village off from a working class estate. On the face of it, the author is on the side of the liberals and wants the estate to still be part of the village.

The reason I'm giving you this rubbish book review is that Rowling employs every cliché when referring to the council estate - a dangerous place, sofas in gardens, peeling paint, pissed up parents, babies and needles.... the whole fucking lot. It's horrible - Rowling is fucking horrible. In fact it almost inspired me to do a thread on anti-working class novelists. Ian Rankin, who can actually write, would have been on there. When he has Rebus going into the schemes it's not just anti-polis stuff, but the idea of alien places. Stephen King, somebody who I imagine is a democrat and probably still sees himself as part of the anti-Vietnam generation manages it as well. Plenty of others.
Shorter version: imagine the bastard offspring of The Archers and Midsomer Murders, as read to his children by a weeping Nick Clegg. :(
 
I suspect this post goes on some Embarrassing Confessions thread, so allow me a run up:

having never read a jk rowling book I heard she had good reviews for a murder mystery novel she wrote under a pen name. Anyway, I came across The Casual Vacancy in a charity shop and thought that must be it. :oops: About 3 pages in I could tell it was fucking awful

.

oh - fuck - they made this into a TV drama and I endured the first episode or two - heroic liberals saving the proles from their feckless debauchery - utter shit.
 
Forgive the continued derail, but this says something not just about the shit, anti-working class attitudes of liberals, but also the guardian's understanding of where the left actually is. The bit below is from wiki on the politics of The Casual Vacancy:

Politics and poverty[edit]
One of the novel's major themes is politics. The Guardian referred to The Casual Vacancy as a "parable of national politics", with Rowling saying, "I'm interested in that drive, that rush to judgment, that is so prevalent in our society, We all know that pleasurable rush that comes from condemning, and in the short term it's quite a satisfying thing to do, isn't it?"[8] Rowling was also critical of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition that had led since the general election in 2010 saying, "There has been a horribly familiar change of atmosphere [since the 2010 election], it feels to me a lot like it did in the early 90s, where there's been a bit of redistribution of benefits and suddenly lone-parent families are that little bit worse off. But it's not a 'little bit' when you're in that situation. Even a tenner a week can make such a vast, vast difference. So, yeah, it does feel familiar. Though I started writing this five years ago when we didn't have a coalition government, so it's become maybe more relevant as I've written."[8] Rowling went on to say that Britain held a "phenomenally snobby society", and described the middle class as "pretentious" and "funny".[8]

Rowling has commented on her economic situation before the success of Harry Potter as being "poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless"[9][11] and said that this was why she was drawn to writing about poverty.[12]

How many of us are able to expand our minds beyond our own personal experience? So many people, certainly people who sit around the cabinet table, say, 'Well, it worked for me' or, 'This is how my father managed it' – these trite catchphrases – and the idea that other people might have had such a different life experience that their choices and beliefs and behaviours would be completely different from your own seems to escape a lot of otherwise intelligent people. The poor are discussed as this homogeneous mash, like porridge. The idea that they might be individuals, and be where they are for very different, diverse reasons, again seems to escape some people.
– J. K. Rowling, The Guardian, "The worst that can happen is everyone says, That's shockingly bad", 2012.[11]
So, it's supposedly a commentary on austerity and the attack on the poor. It's supposed to be about real economics but also judgements and the contempt shown for the poorest. Ironically, I suspect she genuinely thinks that's what the book is - that it gives a voice to the poor, stops them being treated as "this homogeneous mash, like porridge". But when it comes to her central characters actually encountering working class people, her quite brutal prejudices shine through. She portrays poor families as virtually a different species. Genuinely gruesome stuff. What's more, that's the central conceit for wealthy liberals - that GB Shaw quote I was struggling for on another thread earlier - 'I'm not a socialist because I like the working class, I'm a socialist because I hate them'.
 
There is with any method though, isn't there? It's not as if should all these new Corbyn supporters leave the party there will be a mass worker's party by the end of the year, or a non-party movement that's going to smash the state by 2020.

Whichever way you decide to challenge things, you have to be aware that it's going to take hard work and be a constant uphill struggle.
Well that's really the point isn't it? They're all so much hard work I agree. The question is, are all the options equally worthwhile?
 
All I keep hearing from these Labour plotters is "we want to be a [credible] party of government". What seems to have escaped these fantasists (for fantasists they are) is that they're not in government; they're in opposition and no amount of fantasising will change that. Their coup efforts are laughable and they've hired McTernan as a spin doctor. If they were serious about winning anything, they wouldn't hire a two-time loser as a spin doctor. But they're so delusional and so lacking in self-awareness that they're unable to see the obvious: they're not winners, they're losers.
 
Can't say I disagree. I met a couple of Momentum people yesterday though, and one of them remarked that after (touch wood) Corbyn's won, he and supporters are going to have to work with the MPs who've been against him.

Will be difficult, but fair point I thought. It'll mean peace having to break out on both sides - they'll not have to keep briefing against him but we'll have to be a bit less abrasive too.

He also said he'd prefer it if people start saying 'Vote Labour' rather than 'Vote Corbyn' when it gets to electioning times. Which I thought was another good point.
 
Last edited:
Met a couple of Momentum people yesterday and one of them remarked that after (touch wood) Corbyn's won, he and supporters are going to have to work with the MPs who've been against him.

Will be difficult, but fair point I thought. It'll mean peace having to break out on both sides - they'll not have to keep briefing against him but we'll have to be a bit less abrasive too.

He also said he'd prefer it if people start saying 'Vote Labour' rather than 'Vote Corbyn' when it gets to electioning times. Which I thought was another good point.
there is no way ego will allow the plp right to roll over and start working with St J. These people are unused to losing at anything, they don't give a shit about electoral success untill 'the left' is defeated. They shall have to be drowned in a swimming pool of piss purged democratically when the gerrymandering slyness boundry changes force reselection.
 
there is no way ego will allow the plp right to roll over and start working with St J. These people are unused to losing at anything, they don't give a shit about electoral success untill 'the left' is defeated. They shall have to be drowned in a swimming pool of piss purged democratically when the gerrymandering slyness boundry changes force reselection.
This is not true though - this is all, almost entirely in fact, about electoral success. Their own individual success. This is only an ideological battle in the sense they genuinely think left positions will cost them their jobs and privileges. If Corbyn led Labour was on 45%+ in the polls the PLP would simply not be doing this.
 
there is no way ego will allow the plp right to roll over and start working with St J. These people are unused to losing at anything,

they've had enough practice :)

they don't give a shit about electoral success untill 'the left' is defeated. They shall have to be drowned in a swimming pool of piss purged democratically when the gerrymandering slyness boundry changes force reselection.

yes true - I'm not looking forward to lots of them getting funding to stand against the official Labour candidate though, splitting the vote.
 
why although i totally understand it, I think the stress on only the working class is a mistake. The middle class are getting squeezed too. There's a lot of them and we need them to be onside too. And no reason why they shouldn't be.
The vast majority of the "middle class" are actually working class. That "the left" go along with the false distinction is one of the things that perpetuate the divisions in society and weakens the opposition to capital.
 
I'd suggest saying 'working people' instead but that omits the ill and unemployed. Improving conditions for everyone is what it's about.

Taxing the rich fairly to give back some of the money they've taken out of society will improve their conditions, too, because they won't suffer as much resentment from the rest of us.
 
oh - fuck - they made this into a TV drama and I endured the first episode or two - heroic liberals saving the proles from their feckless debauchery - utter shit.

I read it and helped a GCSE student write a long project book review about it.

So a take on the men from the council estate in Fields:

Every single male associated with Krystal's family at the heart of the novel, and the Fields estate, in general, has absolutely nothing redeeming about them. A majority of male Fields adults are simply absent from any real social interaction, the implication being they are either in prison or on standard male criminal activitiy, which means they cannot return home to sleep.

Michael has violently abused his daughter Terri and presumably his whole family to the point where his mother one day abandons home with her suitcase while Terri (aged 11) is at school. The two elder daughters (Cheryl and Danielle) move out to their respective boyfriends' homes, leaving 11-year old Terri alone with her father, who then throws "a pan of burning chip fat at her. Her Human League T-shirt had caught fire".

Terri after some respite with her Nana Cath, simply returns to live alongside with Michael, who begins to sexually abuse her aswell "When Michael was not beating Terri, he was doing the other things to her, the things she could not talk about." Eventually Terri runs away from home aged 13 and is placed into social care, where in Yarvil she goes to school and becomes friends with Obbo there from the age of 15. Michael's abusive fatherhood does not stop, but continues: "After Terri had been taken into care, her father had had more kids. Nine in total, Cheryl reckoned, to five different mothers. Terri had never met her half-siblings, but Krystal had told her that Nana Cath saw them."

Terri's first partner, Ritchie Adams, dad to Krystal's step-siblings, is in prison. He has habitually stubbed out cigarettes on his one-year-old daughter's arms, and kicked her cracking her ribs and also disfigured Terri's face. For some reason, never adequately explained, the children are removed into care but Terri is left in the flat and hands of this domestic abuser for some time until he then goes on to murder someone, and is then arrested, sentenced, now serving life in Bristol.

Krystal's father, Banger, presumably has something to do with an unnamed man being found dead in the bathroom, whilst Krystal is young. (Banger is only mentioned once anyhow). "Krystal had told Tessa how, when she was six years old, she had found the corpse of an unknown young man in her mother’s bathroom. It had been the catalyst for one of her many removals into the care of her Nana Cath", Krystal's great-grandmother. We are not told exactly what happens but can guess either that Banger has been violent towards him or this figure has overdosed.

Terri's on-off boyfriend, associate, pimp and partner-in-crime (storing drugs and burglarised goods in her council flat), her friend since the age of 15 - is Obbo, the villian of the novel. He is a drug supplier for the estate, supplying Terri with heroin, even when she is continuing her methadone programme. He also stores burglarised computers and large quantities of packets of other stolen stuff in Terri's council flat. This flat is one where social workers and police regularly call ie not a safe fence house at all. Why does he do this? No information is given.

Obbo rapes Krystal in her own home, while her mum is asleep after a methadone/heroin hit. Sort of associated with him is an unnamed figure, a 'boy' ie a young adult, who works as a forklift driver but only really for the purposes of criminality deals in burglarised goods for Obbo.

Obbo is sort of simply beyond the pale. We find out nothing about his family or his home or anything else - we find out he is a rapist, a pimp, a heroin dealer to a woman and involved in burglary, but nothing more.

We are told several times that Terri's entire family, including the men, have disowned her and refused to assist her financially in any way. The only member Terri has contact with is her sister Cheryl, whose son is Dane, a hard lad in the school. Dane Tully, Krystal's cousin, also in Y11 aged 16, has beaten up a 19-year old on away turf on a rival estate with his father Shane Tully, Terri's brother-in-law, handling the three elder brothers. What were the reasons? What happened? Who cares - they fight just because that's what they do. We are simply told in two short sentences: "Tully’s family was infamous. His two older brothers and his father spent a lot of time in prison."

It's the same state of play story about Terri's life, in a council home, as a shoplifter, prostitute, fence for burglarised goods, heroin user and mother to two children. "Terri, who had remained with Ritchie until his arrest, never saw Anne-Marie or Liam [her first two children], for reasons Krystal did not entirely understand; the whole story was clotted and festering with hatred and unforgivable things said and threatened, restraining orders, lots more social workers." For some reason the omniscient narration just cuts out here as if the author cannot be bothered to detail these sordid lives. According to the narrator in a bracketed paragraph, The Wheedons' life is dependent on methadone: "without methadone, they would return again to that nightmare place where Terri became feral, when she would again start opening her broken-toothed mouth for strangers’ dicks, so she could feed her veins. And Robbie would be taken away again, and this time he might not come back."

Out of eight named males tied to Krystal's family, every single one (Banger, Obbo, Shane Tully, his son Dane Tully, Pikey Pritchard, Michael, Ritchie Adams) is a partaker in violent behaviour (wider anti-social and/or domestic violence). The only point of doubt could be Banger, Krystal's dad, who who theoretically might not be responsible for the serious manslaughter or violence that lead to the unnamed man dead in the bathroom for 6-year old Krystal to inspect. (None of this is particularly clear because we are told Krystal's mum has told her that her dad was the dead man in the bathroom, but later explains her dad is in prison in Bristol.)
Beyond the named list are her Krystal’s cousins, Dane's brothers - unnamed but violent and nasty - Pikey's brother ditto, and Obbo's unnamed burglary-related operative.

Out of the ex-Fields residents - Simon Price is a paranoid and periodically psychotic-violent-abusive man. Barry Fairbrother's brother has served time in prison, whilst Barry Fairbrother has come out as an angel - bank manager, volunteer and inspiring hero. However the strain of trying to help people from Fields is too much and he is cut dead by an aneurysm from trying too hard, thus causing the title's 'Casual Vacancy' on the local council.

Barry becomes something of a redeemer myth figure, we see him in real time for only a page until his aneurysm. From that point on, so much is written in favour of him in narration so often it's hard to imagine his actual existence. He is honest and trustworthy and a successful bank manager and engaging to Fields teenagers and young carers. He is warm and funny in general, and such a good boss that his workers attend his funeral, he is magically able to convince wavering right-wing middle-class councillors to support the Fields estate, and he is the sole tour-de-force coach and motivator behind the local school Winterdown Girls’ Rowing eight.

Tallying it up, one can only conclude all the Fields men, are basically irredeemable, morally crippled savages; except the one true Barry Fairbrother. He left a long, long time ago and became a bank manager. Barry is unlike his brother and presumably they grew up in the same circumstances.
Barry became a bank manager but his brother SImon passed through prison.

Simon Price, born and raised in the Fields estate, but living in the posh village now with a nurse wife, Ruth, is also a violent abuser - but neither wife nor the two children have taken any action at all against him. He has been on the verge of beating up a neighbour's son for damaging a shelf in his garage, held back at the last moment by the boy's mother. He regularly strikes his elder son and his wife. He is not quite as sociopathic as others on the estate, being as he left it years ago, became an apprentice printer and then print-works site manager but not senior management. (One of the lucky ones obviously somehow became trained and climbed up from the shop-floor whilst the printing industry was being decimated in the 1970s and 1980s).

His behaviour makes no sense in general, he is just out on the grasp for no good reason at all. He serially practices fraud in the Harcourt Walsh print-works, and also deals in burglarised goods only for himself, managing to associate himself with Obbo in the process, even though Obbo, we are told, is also known character as a pimp and supplier. Throughout the novel he never calls his son by his real name (Andrew) but Pizza Face because of his acne. We learn little about him beyond generalised violence and paranoia except that since he has moved out of the Fields he looks down on its inhabitants, plus one fact: he watches Match of the Day.

The deepest sentences we ever get on Simon: "passing the house in which Simon had grown up. He had not been past the place for years; his mother was dead, and he had not seen his father since he was fourteen and did not know where he was. It unsettled and depressed Simon to see his old home with one window boarded over and the grass ankle-deep. His late mother had been house proud."

Not a single male currently living on Fields has any redeeming qualities at all.
 
It's by far the most enfuriating novel of ideas I've ever read.

What kind of writer writes stuff like this: "they would return again to that nightmare place where Terri became feral, when she would again start opening her broken-toothed mouth for strangers’ dicks, so she could feed her veins. And Robbie would be taken away again, and this time he might not come back."
 
opiate dose notoriously effective for ones ability to sustain a hard on of course :rolleyes:. I know thats a minor aside but ffs. Yeah I read an excerpt when the book was released. Total caricatures based on zero knowledge
 
It's by far the most enfuriating novel of ideas I've ever read.

What kind of writer writes stuff like this: "they would return again to that nightmare place where Terri became feral, when she would again start opening her broken-toothed mouth for strangers’ dicks, so she could feed her veins. And Robbie would be taken away again, and this time he might not come back."
A shit kind of author
 
It's by far the most enfuriating novel of ideas I've ever read.

What kind of writer writes stuff like this: "they would return again to that nightmare place where Terri became feral, when she would again start opening her broken-toothed mouth for strangers’ dicks, so she could feed her veins. And Robbie would be taken away again, and this time he might not come back."
And the astonishing thing is she said that in contemporary society:
The poor are discussed as this homogeneous mash, like porridge. The idea that they might be individuals, and be where they are for very different, diverse reasons, again seems to escape some people
I was so astonished by the book when I read it, I looked up a couple of reviews. Most of them missed the points we are making entirely and had it as 'gritty' and 'brave novel'. :facepalm: In fact the Mail (or perhaps the Telegraph) were up in arms about the attacks it makes on the middle classes! To be fair to her, it does attack their small minded judgementalism, but in doing so reveals she has a much deeper contempt and, almost certainly, fear of the poor.
 
Back
Top Bottom