Rachel Reeves-Today Guardian

[articul8]

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?

it's not so much about arguing they are too "nice" to believe in it - it's about understanding the difference between those with a zelous ideological commitment to it (like Purnell) and those who allow themselves to be backed into a corner on it.

 

[butchersapron]

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

Maybe they embrace it because that's what they think? Maybe you should forget Keir Hardie and take a leap into the 21st century.

 

[Teaboy]

it's not so much about arguing they are too "nice" to believe in it - it's about understanding the difference between those with a zelous ideological commitment to it (like Purnell) and those who allow themselves to be backed into a corner on it.

What's the difference in real terms?

 

[butchersapron]

it's not so much about arguing they are too "nice" to believe in it - it's about understanding the difference between those with a zelous ideological commitment to it (like Purnell) and those who allow themselves to be backed into a corner on it.

Yes, everyone else an empty vessel waiting for you to fill them. No ideological commitments of their own despite laying them out in great detail day after day, year after year, policy after policy, act after act.

 

[butchersapron]

it's not so much about arguing they are too "nice" to believe in it - it's about understanding the difference between those with a zelous ideological commitment to it (like Purnell) and those who allow themselves to be backed into a corner on it.

Whose understanding?

 

[articul8]

The difference is that there is a more realistic chance of persuading the latter that their own position isn't inevitable and is self-defeating

 

[butchersapron]

The difference is that there is a more realistic chance of persuading the latter that their own position isn't inevitable and is self-defeating

How's that working out then? Did you see what this person you're working on outlined as labours approach to benefits yesterday?

 

[butchersapron]

The difference is that there is a more realistic chance of persuading the latter that their own position isn't inevitable and is self-defeating

Seriously, forget you and your labour left as secret string pullers. You mean nothing to these people. Sheer fantasy to imagine otherwise.

 

[articul8]

Seriously, forget you and your labour left as secret string pullers. You mean nothing to these people. Sheer fantasy to imagine otherwise.

well if they persist in ignoring us they will go down to an unforgiveable defeat. As I said - self-defeating.

 

[butchersapron]

well if they persist in ignoring us they will go down to an unforgiveable defeat. As I said - self-defeating.

Oh fanastic! You're threatening them, isn't that cute!

 

[Favelado]

The difference is that there is a more realistic chance of persuading the latter that their own position isn't inevitable and is self-defeating

But we've just seen everything that's happened in Labour over the past thirty years that shows that this isn't true. How much more evidence do you need?

 

[articul8]

it's not (just) about threatening them - they would fail in their own terms if they persist

 

[articul8]

But we've just seen everything that's happened in Labour over the past thirty years that shows that this isn't true. How much more evidence do you need?

There's no chance of persuading the Purnell/Mandelson's. If they come back, it's over - I'm out of here. But there's still a window for persuading this lot how stupid this shit is

 

[SaskiaJayne]

well if they persist in ignoring us they will go down to an unforgiveable defeat. As I said - self-defeating.

The best bet for the 'old Labour' left to have some influence is with Labour as largest single party but no overall majority, coalition or whatever. I'm beginning to come round to this.

 

[butchersapron]

The difference is that there is a more realistic chance of persuading the latter that their own position isn't inevitable and is self-defeating

Realistic? In what sense is the suggestion that you and your tiny band of labour-leftists (around 100 people isn't it?) turn the ship of labour around from a 3 decade open embrace of straight up neo-liberalism realistic? In what way is than an example of political realism?

 

[Favelado]

There's no chance of persuading the Purnell/Mandelson's. If they come back, it's over - I'm out of here. But there's still a window for persuading this lot how stupid this shit is

Most of them believe the right-wing rhetoric now. In any case, what kind of people are they who are so dominated by fear that they won't express a principled opinion.

I'm so afraid of what the Tories say, I won't stand up for the sick and the poor.

Fuck Labour if that's what they stand for now. What kind of party is that?

 

[treelover]

it's not so much about arguing they are too "nice" to believe in it - it's about understanding the difference between those with a zelous ideological commitment to it (like Purnell) and those who allow themselves to be backed into a corner on it.

I remember speaking to a LP M.P's aide, this was some time ago: he said there were two schools of thinking, the Brownites, those who thought reform was needed, it would help people, but should not be punitive, and the Blair/Purnellites who basically consider claimants as scroungers and needed a kick up the arse, both approaches don't help claimants in reality.

 

[articul8]

Realistic? In what sense is the suggestion that you and your tiny band of labour-leftists (around 100 people isn't it?) turn the ship of labour around from a 3 decade open embrace of straight up neo-liberalism realistic? In what way is than an example of political realism?

No it's several hundred. And it's the objective circumstances - if they want to win an election they won't succeed on this basis.

 

[butchersapron]

it's not (just) about threatening them - they would fail in their own terms if they persist

Oh right, looks to me like they're going to be largest party at the next election.

But it's ok because the dead mans switch lets you say this success in their own terms is actually a failure.

 

[butchersapron]

No it's several hundred. And it's the objective circumstances - if they want to win an election they won't succeed on this basis.

They won't win without you. Fantasy analysis matched with megalomania. Brilliant stuff.

 

[articul8]

Oh right, looks to me like they're going to be largest party at the next election.

But it's ok because the dead mans switch lets you say this success in their own terms is actually a failure.

If they lack a majority, they'll be vulnerable to a voting bloc of the labour left, nats, and Greens

 

[butchersapron]

Do what i say or you lose the election. I was in quite a bad mood earlier. No longer. Cheers articul8. Needed that.

 

[treelover]

@BA
Are you still sure of that, I really think its going to be a Tory/UKIP/DUP/UUP lash up of some kind, I really hope I am wrong.

 

[butchersapron]

If they lack a majority, they'll be vulnerable to a voting bloc of the labour left, nats, and Greens

Oh, you command MPs now. Even better. The fate of the class is in your hands. Use the fork luke, the fork. But use it wisely.

 

[emanymton]

If they lack a majority, they'll be vulnerable to a voting bloc of the labour left, nats, and Greens

What greens?

And isn't lieying about being ant-benifit worse than actually beliveing it? Saying all benifit claiments are scum and believing it is one level of vileness, saying it and not beliveing it is a whole other level.

 

[smokedout]

it's not so much about arguing they are too "nice" to believe in it - it's about understanding the difference between those with a zelous ideological commitment to it (like Purnell) and those who allow themselves to be backed into a corner on it.

have you not read any of the think tank reports that this stuff is coming from? they don't just believe in destroying the benefits system, they think it is a moral imperative, just like Iain Duncan Smith. Work is good for you and makes you free. Just the same.

 

[8ball]

@BA
Are you still sure of that, I really think its going to be a Tory/UKIP/DUP/UUP lash up of some kind, I really hope I am wrong.

Fucking hell, I hope you're wrong too!

 

[smokedout]

don't forget Blair smashed up social security like no other prime minister, and he did it to help us, and there was silence

 

[SpookyFrank]

don't forget Blair smashed up social security like no other prime minister, and he did it to help us, and there was silence

He also introduced subsidies for employers who pay less than a living wage, or 'tax credits' as I believe they're officially called.

 

[SpookyFrank]

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...

I would expect most of said vultures to jump ship in short order if Miliband doesn't manage to claw his way into some kind of viable government after the GE.