Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rachel Reeves-Today Guardian

Grandma Death

Grandma Death

Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
This woman is vile-I am gobsmacked...these words couldve come from McVey "However, Reeves said Labour did not want to be seen to be the party of the welfare state. “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.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...e-reliance-on-food-banks-if-it-comes-to-power

Can labour get any lower in this entire welfare debate?
 
Bit in bold is a bit fucked. :facepalm:

You'd hope it was some kind of momentary slip of the tongue, it doesn't match the tone of the interview as a whole The real problem is that the media won't even pick up on it, though - it's just normal now to equate political enfranchisement with having a job - 'hardworking families' and all that shit. :(
 
Plenty of 'hard working' people are on benefits

its interesting this is the first major comment on benefits for some time, it looks like at least Ed is just not wanting to raise the issue, for good or bad.
 
She's quite scary when you see her on the telly. Always staring dead ahead, throwing out rehearsed statements pretty much at random. The overall impression is of a malfunctioning robot.

The shit she comes out with is just another example of what Labour are about these days, so desperate to appeal to tory voters that they don't dare deviate from the basic tenets of tory rhetoric. People on benefits = scum, immigrants = bad, business = good. No fucking nuance in anything they say, just these endless pitiful attempts to offer a slightly nicer version of the same shit policies.

They seem to take the votes of everyone who isn't a cunt for granted, and have chosen to focus instead on poaching enough tory voters to win the election. That strategy has already cost them pretty much the whole of Scotland, and may yet cost them the entire general election.
 
8ball said:
Bit in bold is a bit fucked. :facepalm:

You'd hope it was some kind of momentary slip of the tongue, it doesn't match the tone of the interview as a whole The real problem is that the media won't even pick up on it, though - it's just normal now to equate political enfranchisement with having a job - 'hardworking families' and all that shit. :(
Click to expand...
Yes, she is saying that Labour intend to make it less likely for claimants to get sanctioned or their benefits cut & also to end the bedroom tax, the tone is that she wants to end the demonisation of those on benefits, which is good if she actually does it. The bolded bit will be the counter argument in advance to the right wing press I suppose?
 
nino_savatte said:
John McDonnell? Dennis Skinner? People that have no chance of ministerial power, in other words.
Click to expand...

Thing is, at election time they just shut the fuck up don't they?

I really respect John and Dennis, and Jeremy Corbyn and a few others at well. But at what point is silence complicity?

Thank you Rachel Reeves for demonstrating more clearly than I ever could just how rotten the carcass of the Labour party is. Some day soon, even the careerist vultures won't want it any more...
 
SaskiaJayne said:
Yes, she is saying that Labour intend to make it less likely for claimants to get sanctioned or their benefits cut & also to end the bedroom tax, the tone is that she wants to end the demonisation of those on benefits, which is good if she actually does it. The bolded bit will be the counter argument in advance to the right wing press I suppose?
Click to expand...
Let's get this right then: She added in a load of historically dodgy and smearing shit because she had to, not because she really believes it. Despite when being in power it being the central plank of their approach to benefits and a long record of establishing the legitimacy of the same. Uh huh. Did you also expect Blair to whip off his mask and reveal himself as the new Nye in may 97?

Amazing, someone tries to look duplicitous and two faced in public and you see it as mark of integrity.
 
butchersapron said:
Let's get this right then: She added in a load of historically dodgy and smearing shit because she had to, not because she really believes it. Despite when being in power it being the central plank of their approach to benefits and a long record of establishing the legitimacy of the same. Uh huh. Did you also expect Blair to whip off his mask and reveal himself as the new Nye in may 97?

Amazing, someone tries to look duplicitous and two faced in public and you see it as mark of integrity.
Click to expand...
No its just politicking & should be seen as such. It is as I described it. It attempts to attract votes from the w/c while countering any r/w press comments. I made no comment as to the integrity of any politician. Anything coming from any politician between now & GE should be seen only as attempts to win votes & nothing else. Urban is entitled to be enraged about the hypocricy of it all, of course.
 
Last edited:
SaskiaJayne said:
No its just politicking & should be seen as such. It is as I described it. It attempts to attract votes from the w/c while countering any r/w press comments. I made no comment as to the integrity of any politician. Anything coming from any politician between now & GE should be seen only as attempts to win votes & nothing else. Urban is entitled to be enraged about the hypocracy of it all, of course.
Click to expand...
Ah right,it's politics. Thank you so much. There's no hypocrisy then surely?
 
articul8 said:
what to do? Apologise, reflect and undo all that shit especially from Purnell onwards
Click to expand...


But are they likely to do that?, I don't think Ed really believes in the type of 'reform' we have seen for the last ten years, but he is scared to upset the tabloids, which is a real democratic deficit which impacts millions.
 
Why the insistentence that both Reeves and MIliband (and by extension the whole party leadership) are really just nice people like us, bumped into being arseholes by Murdoch. How can anyone over 21 still believe this? Treelover, you have 30+ years life experience to draw on, yet you manage to fool yourself with the above?
 
This is the root of it - absolutely petrified of being painted as the party of "benefits as a lifestyle choice". They don't push back and contest that stereotype as a right wing tabloid creation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
rachel reeves: plagiarist
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Epona
Epona
hash tag
Blind Date in the Guardian
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
MickiQ
MickiQ
V
Hooray,hooray,hooray; we're Tory free today
Replies
0
Views
132
vanya
V
Pickman's model
Stories that ought to have been in the guardian
Replies
12
Views
736
_Russ_
_Russ_
teqniq
Data breaches/IT security failures at Sellafield, the British Library, the Guardian and UK businesses
2 3
Replies
68
Views
3K
Winot
Winot
Back
Top Bottom