Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Labour leadership

Maurice Picarda said:
Talking of Corbyn, would you invite Raed Salah to tea, VP? Just out of interest.
Click to expand...

Raed Salah is a saint compared to most of the tyrants Tony Blair has shilled on behalf while in and out of office.

Raed Salah has said bigoted, racist things and Corbyn has met with him.
Islam Karimov executes pro-democracy protesters by boiling them alive and freezing them to death, in power Blair ensured that his regime received weapons and since then he has been its cheerleader.

Do you agree with boiling people alive or is that another bit of Blair's legacy (and present) that you'd like to opt out of?
 
J Ed said:
Raed Salah is a saint compared to most of the tyrants Tony Blair has shilled on behalf while in and out of office.

Raed Salah has said bigoted, racist things and Corbyn has met with him.
Islam Karimov executes pro-democracy protesters by boiling them alive and freezing them to death, in power Blair ensured that his regime received weapons and since then he has been its cheerleader.

Do you agree with boiling people alive or is that another bit of Blair's legacy (and present) that you'd like to opt out of?
Click to expand...
none of them are in touch with the people
 
J Ed said:
Raed Salah is a saint compared to most of the tyrants Tony Blair has shilled on behalf while in and out of office.

Raed Salah has said bigoted, racist things and Corbyn has met with him.
Islam Karimov executes pro-democracy protesters by boiling them alive and freezing them to death, in power Blair ensured that his regime received weapons and since then he has been its cheerleader.

Do you agree with boiling people alive or is that another bit of Blair's legacy (and present) that you'd like to opt out of?
Click to expand...

I can't find any links to Blair working with Karimov since stepping down, could you oblige?
 
I was 16 when clause 4 was changed... At that time my knowledge of party politics was of watching the news and question time with my parents and what I understood as 'socialist' was social democratic old labour in a very fuzzy kinda way. Compared to what I know now was the square root of fuck all and even more so in comparison to average posters on here. Yet I knew that when clause 4 was changed and when Blair got into power that the Labour Party as a socialist party was over/dead/finished... It was pretty self evident..

It amazes me that there are people on here with the knowledge and socialist values that they have could maintain - 20 years later when all that has been said and done by labour subsequent to 1995 - a position of some fidelity to the Labour Party that there is something worth fighting for there

wtf man!!
 
Maurice Picarda said:
You mean, apart from Sure Start centres, the minimum wage, tax credits and the EMA?
Click to expand...
Sure start centres opened but no free nursery place past 3 yrs old...i had 2 kids in nursery under labour and it cost £35 per day for each child to go to nursery...my kids went 3 days a week each and cos of the 5 yr age difference it cost us £105 per week for 50 weeks a year for 7 years ... we had a joint income of less than £35,0000 per year. ... before tax. Millions were in the same or worse positions than us...but guess you, like AC14 think this is merely an anecdote so not worth listening to.

The minimum wage...why was is set lower than what McDonalds pay? Why do under 21yr olds get less...are they charged less for food, rent etc.

EMA....great, but then university charges were introduced, so they simply stole from one set of students to help another.

Tax credit...why did millions get paid so little that we had to claim a fucking benefit even though we worked? Oh yeah, I remember...cos labour put a pay freeze on public sector workers and set the minimum wage so low.

even the positives you cling to are tainted. ..and at the same time you and AC14 refuse to comment on my previous posts...instead you play the victims of nasty dinosaur socialists.

You embarrass the concept of social justice by defending a 13 yr labour government which left us with a greater gap between rich than poor than under the tories.
now you tell us that it is worse under the tories so we must vote labour. .. if our living standards went up then you would have a point but they dont ...they got worse but just at a slower rate.

its like telling someone that is weighted down in an empty pool that is filling up with water from 2 taps that you have made things better cos you have turned 1 tap off...they will still drown unless you turn the both off and drain the water...anything else is simply bollocks and that is how millions of people feel.

but you carry on with your 'well how much is too much pay...50k, 110k or £1m' rubbish... the vast majority of people would kill to be on 25k a year yet you and the other labour defenders refuse to acknowledge how bad thing were for us under your beloved party.
 
xslavearcx said:
I was 16 when clause 4 was changed... At that time my knowledge of party politics was of watching the news and question time with my parents and what I understood as 'socialist' was social democratic old labour in a very fuzzy kinda way. Compared to what I know now was the square root of fuck all and even more so in comparison to average posters on here. Yet I knew that when clause 4 was changed and when Blair got into power that the Labour Party as a socialist party was over/dead/finished... It was pretty self evident..

It amazes me that there are people on here with the knowledge and socialist values that they have could maintain - 20 years later when all that has been said and done by labour subsequent to 1995 - a position of some fidelity to the Labour Party that there is something worth fighting for there

wtf man!!
Click to expand...

I'm the same generation as you and have the same experience as you. The idea of common ownership of the means of production was alien to most of us who only had memories of Thatcher as PM: but while the death of Clause 4 didn't upset me for what it stood for in itself, I understood it's broader symbolism and that the party (which I then liked) was about to consign much of what I liked about it to history.
 
Maurice Picarda said:
At what level of salary is one's job no longer work, and at what point does it become instead the voluntary and gleeful participation in oppression and exploitation? £50k? £150k? £1m? And I get that there's no such things as work in EC4, but what about Farringdon or Shoreditch?
Click to expand...
My boss is the owner of the business. He owns it takes the profits for himself and does very well for himself. He also works fucking hard, considerably harder than me but probably less hard than some of the other employees. He is definitely a workng person even a hard working person and part of a hard working family but in no way is he working class. Other than limits placed on him by government legislation he is able to decide what the rest of us are paid. Despite working harder than most of us his extra income far outstrips any extra effort he puts in. Where does the rest of that money come from? The work the rest of us do that we are underpaid for. If we were to divide up the business into chunks based on effort and sell it he would be able to buy backs his efforts plus a portion of mine and everyone else's where as the rest of us cannot even buy back our own efforts. It is in his interest to get as much of our efforts turned into profits as he can and lose as little as possible to our wages. That is why no matter how hard he works he cannot be working class.
 
CNT36 said:
My boss is the owner of the business. He owns it takes the profits for himself and does very well for himself. He also works fucking hard, considerably harder than me but probably less hard than some of the other employees. He is definitely a workng person even a hard working person and part of a hard working family but in no way is he working class. Other than limits placed on him by government legislation he is able to decide what the rest of us are paid. Despite working harder than most of us his extra income far outstrips any extra effort he puts in. Where does the rest of that money come from? The work the rest of us do that we are underpaid for. If we were to divide up the business into chunks based on effort and sell it he would be able to buy backs his efforts plus a portion of mine and everyone else's where as the rest of us cannot even buy back our own efforts. It is in his interest to get as much of our efforts turned into profits as he can and lose as little as possible to our wages. That is why no matter how hard he works he cannot be working class.
Click to expand...

Quite - Pickmans was claiming that City folk weren't working people, though, which is what I was arguing against.
 
Maurice Picarda said:
Quite - Pickmans was claiming that City folk weren't working people, though, which is what I was arguing against.
Click to expand...
I thought you said 'working people' meant the same as working class people after posters criticised the cretins wanting to run labour cos they kept talking about working people...so if i understood pickman correctly that means he was saying that 'city folk' were not working class.
 
comrade spurski said:
I thought you said 'working people' meant the same as working class people after posters criticised the cretins wanting to run labour cos they kept talking about working people...so if i understood pickman correctly that means he was saying that 'city folk' were not working class.
Click to expand...

I have never said that the two terms meant the same. I didn't even address the question. And Pickmans quoted the term "working people" in his post.
 
Maurice Picarda said:
I have never said that the two terms meant the same. I didn't even address the question. And Pickmans quoted the term "working people" in his post.
Click to expand...
My mistake...it was AC14 that said they were the same but i think you are playing a game because I assume that,as you said "I agree with everything you said' to AC14 in post #1487, it included his or her view that working class and working people meant the same thing.
 
I remember Cameron in one speech talking about looking after the "blue collar workers". There is only one place where he can have got that phrase, and that is America. In the UK we don't use that expression. He is trying to cosy up to technical workers, plumbers, electricians and skilled factory workers. Perhaps he is wanting some work done on his house.
 
comrade spurski said:
My mistake...it was AC14 that said they were the same and I assume that,as you said "I agree with everything you said' to AC14 in post #1487, it included his or her view that working class and working people meant the same thing.
Click to expand...

No, I wanted to give AC14 some support as he or she was brand new, engaging in a friendly and non-combative way, posting perfectly sensible stuff and getting treated like shit. So perhaps I offered too much of a blanket endorsement.

I don't think that there's a homogeneous working class with homogeneous interests. It's an overly crude label, as useless for market research as it is for political insight. The term "working people" or "hard working families" is even less helpful, though, if that is meant to be an interest group. I think that there are sensible things that can be said individually about the precariat, about the long-term unemployed in areas of high unemployment, about low-income earners and about, say, middle-income earners with multiple dependents. All of these groups should expect that a Labour government is thinking about their interests, which are not by any means aligned.

So, as I'm deeply suspicious of both terms, I'm hardly likely to say that they are synonyms. They are loaded political weapons, overdue for decommissioning.
 
Maurice Picarda said:
No, I wanted to give AC14 some support as he or she was brand new, engaging in a friendly and non-combative way, posting perfectly sensible stuff and getting treated like shit. So perhaps I offered too much of a blanket endorsement.

I don't think that there's a homogeneous working class with homogeneous interests. It's an overly crude label, as useless for market research as it is for political insight. The term "working people" or "hard working families" is even less helpful, though, if that is meant to be an interest group. I think that there are sensible things that can be said individually about the precariat, about the long-term unemployed in areas of high unemployment, about low-income earners and about, say, middle-income earners with multiple dependents. All of these groups should expect that a Labour government is thinking about their interests, which are not by any means aligned.

So, as I'm deeply suspicious of both terms, I'm hardly likely to say that they are synonyms. They are loaded political weapons, overdue for decommissioning.
Click to expand...
That is a very strange post. I don't think there is any point in trying to deconstruct it. I will leave it alone without further comment.
 
Not true re AC14...at no point was I aggressive or rude but they were happy enough to patronise me, dismiss my views or simply ignore them and generally act arrogantly towards me.
They did the same to others.
And imo they treated me like shit.
As for your support of them...if you write "I agree with everything you said" then people are reasonable when they take you at your word.
you and AC14 have cherry picked what you will respond to ... and that is disingenuous at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
yvette cooper's pitiful politics
Replies
0
Views
175
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
hitmouse
Unions and Labour
Replies
20
Views
920
Fedayn
Fedayn
Humberto
Home Building Labour guff
Replies
1
Views
244
Humberto
Humberto
Kid_Eternity
New Labour government - legislative agenda
25 26 27 28 29
Replies
843
Views
24K
two sheds
two sheds
frogwoman
Jas Athwal - Labour MP owns several London flats full of ants and black mould
Replies
13
Views
729
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom