Rachel Reeves-Today Guardian

[treelover]

Amelia Gentleman belatedly posted the full quote from Reeves in context, under her article - the one which is at the centre of this furore:


"Is it a problem if Labour is seen as the party of the welfare state?"

"Yes of course, but we’re not. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work. Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people – the clue is in the name. We are the Labour party – we are not the party of people on benefits. But the welfare state was always supposed to be there to protect people in times of need, whether that was because they lost their job, or they became disabled, or they had a child who is disabled, to help with the cost of childcare, to help you when you are no longer earning because you are retired. That's what the welfare state was created for. I want to ensure that the welfare state is there for my children and their children in the future."

Apparently Amelia didn't post the full quote, its slightly different in nuance?

 

[butchersapron]

No.

 

[treelover]

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-c7b5-The-dehumanisation-of-our-welfare-state

 

[butchersapron]

That changes nothing.

 

[Grandma Death]

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. .

Im not entirely convinced this is the case. I think its more to do with poll after poll shows the tories have won the debate on this-and bashing people on welfare is popular with the electorate. Labour dont want to be seen to break away too much from that narrative because they know its popular. Welfare is the one debate the tories are winning sadly

 

[Puddy_Tat]

It's quite astounding how clueless these people are. Consider this quote:

' An economy that has too many people needing support from the state is an economy that is failing. '

The whole damn economy depends on support from the state! To not see that glaringly obvious fact is pretty astounding.

Dunno.

Depends how you mean / interpret that.

I would tend to agree.

In the sense that an economy where a heck of a lot of people are stuck in insecure / zero hours / part time / low wage jobs and getting stung for extortionate rents, and need to claim benefits because of that is failing.

It is a failing of the economy / structure, not a failing of those people.

I can't say whether that's what was meant by the person saying it.

TBH, this whole thing sounds typical new-labour fudge - trying to be all things to all people and managing to piss everyone off...

 

[Doctor Carrot]

I am being picky of course but it's worth pointing out I think. The writer of that article is right to say it but they only tell one half of the story. A party that actually stood for who they claim would make sure their voters knew just how much the rich depend on state support and that it goes way beyond just bailouts.
It's just the usual 'The structure is fine it just needs a few screws tightening here and there' bollocks we hear from all parties. Keep capitalism just make it fairer. No thanks.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Im not entirely convinced this is the case. I think its more to do with poll after poll shows the tories have won the debate on this-and bashing people on welfare is popular with the electorate. Labour dont want to be seen to break away too much from that narrative because they know its popular. Welfare is the one debate the tories are winning sadly

I expect part of the reason this benefits-bashing stuff is popular because there are no mainstream politicians making the argument for a universal welfare state any more. There are plenty of ordinary people who think the benefits system should be made less punitive, not least the ever-growing numbers of people who have been unfairly shafted by it already, but I suppose they are still outnumbered by those who follow the government/media narrative on this.

The tories haven't won any debate. There never was a debate, only a sustained campaign to scapegoat and disenfranchise the poor. If there was a debate, a real debate, it would have to be grounded in facts. One key fact is that besides pensions, the main cost of benefits is direct subsidies to employers and landlords.

 

[nino_savatte]

Whatever they might say, if you Labour in their constituencies your vote still goes towards putting Miliband's policies into action, not theirs.

I'm under no illusions. It's Labour. Plus ça change, plus la même chose.

 

[butchersapron]

Im not entirely convinced this is the case. I think its more to do with poll after poll shows the tories have won the debate on this-and bashing people on welfare is popular with the electorate. Labour dont want to be seen to break away too much from that narrative because they know its popular. Welfare is the one debate the tories are winning sadly

Underneath omg

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm under no illusions. It's Labour. Plus ça change, plus la même chose.

I meant "one" rather than you personally, just to be clear.

(Also, I omitted the word "vote").

 

[Grandma Death]

The tories haven't won any debate. There never was a debate, only a sustained campaign to scapegoat and disenfranchise the poor. If there was a debate, a real debate, it would have to be grounded in facts. One key fact is that besides pensions, the main cost of benefits is direct subsidies to employers and landlords.

Theyve won the debate in the sense they are in power-and along with the media they have made it a key policy up there with the NHS and immigration. They are driving the narrative amongst the established political system-and labour are falling into line with that debate. I agree what you've said about facts-but I dont think facts matter in this poisoned discourse. Welfare bashing is all that matters because its classic divide and rule innit,

 

[Favelado]

I Labour dont want to be seen to break away too much from that narrative because they know its popular./QUOTE]

Well fuck Labour then. We're talking about people on the brink. They're so ill they can't work. They can't feed themselves and their kids properly. Some of them kill themselves when their benefits get cut. This is exactly what a theoretically left-wing party should be screaming about.

So, what's the point in existing if you won't fight for that? The point is furthering your own career, because career politicans so heavily outnumber conviction ones. If you get into politics because of your beliefs you might fight. If you get into politics because you like playing around with the levers of power, who gives a toss about policy? Just do what works for you.

 

[Pickman's model]

I am being picky of course but it's worth pointing out I think. The writer of that article is right to say it but they only tell one half of the story. A party that actually stood for who they claim would make sure their voters knew just how much the rich depend on state support and that it goes way beyond just bailouts.
It's just the usual 'The structure is fine it just needs a few screws tightening here and there' bollocks we hear from all parties. Keep capitalism just make it fairer. No thanks.

i would agree capitalists have a few screws loose tho

 

[Pickman's model]

Theyve won the debate in the sense they are in power-and along with the media they have made it a key policy up there with the NHS and immigration. They are driving the narrative amongst the established political system-and labour are falling into line with that debate. I agree what you've said about facts-but I dont think facts matter in this poisoned discourse. Welfare bashing is all that matters because its classic divide and rule innit,

how do you know they've won the debate when you don't understand what's going on?

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

It's not about being wary of upsetting the tabloids. It's about not challenging the neoliberal predicates that inform their policy-making because capitalism doesn't require or want it to be challenged.
You believe they govern by "the will of the people", when the reality has long been that "the will of the people" is a figleaf for pseudo-democratic rule.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What's the difference in real terms?

Nothing whatsoever. The effect is the same whether they're ideologically-committed or not.

 

[articul8]

articul8 the last time i mentioned 'red pepper' was in this context[/QUOTE]
it was factually incorrect and stupid that time too

 

[articul8]

Is your shit Stewart Lee mag smug_calling for an anti Labour vote then?

Stewart Lee? No it's not, but it's not calling for a Labour vote either. It's looking at the contradictions of the situation, and even has a sympathic profile of a certain Class War candidate.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Stewart Lee? No it's not, but it's not calling for a Labour vote either. It's looking at the contradictions of the situation, and even has a sympathic profile of a certain Class War candidate.

Let me guess - when you say sympathetic you mean patronising. I bet it uses the word 'retro' in their somewhere.

And where's our fucking TUSC profile?

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

So that's what it would take? Purnell, Mandelson, or someone similar? You'd leave then?

How many times did they bring back Mandelson again?

And WHERE is this window? The election is 6-7 weeks away. How are you using this window? What's the strategy?

You're the shittest Geppetto ever.

 

[treelover]

Well fuck Labour then. We're talking about people on the brink. They're so ill they can't work. They can't feed themselves and their kids properly. Some of them kill themselves when their benefits get cut. This is exactly what a theoretically left-wing party should be screaming about.

So, what's the point in existing if you won't fight for that? The point is furthering your own career, because career politicans so heavily outnumber conviction ones. If you get into politics because of your beliefs you might fight. If you get into politics because you like playing around with the levers of power, who gives a toss about policy? Just do what works for you.

The dwindling Campaign group have been very quiet on these issues recently, McDonnell, etc, which is disheartening.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It is possible to suggest they're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome... or they're so inured that they can't envisage a life outside the party. Whatever the case, while they're inside the Labour Party, they're outnumbered by Blairite filth and can do very little. We need PR.

I think they could do more actually. Why not make public statements criticising the approach and telling people what they think Labour should be saying?

What do they have to lose?

What do they even do except speak at meetings?

Jeremy Corbyn came to a UCU conference recently and told us he was "really hopeful" that there would be "something" in the Labour manifesto about scrapping zero hours. I asked him if that was all he could say why trade unionists should vote for Labour. He said "maybe you shouldn't." If he thinks that what's he doing with his life?

 

[treelover]

If some of these M.P's broke away, even became independents, they could make a considerable impact in a hung parliament or where labour is a minority govt

 

[butchersapron]

Are we watching the same film?

 

[SpackleFrog]

If some of these M.P's broke away, even became independents, they could make a considerable impact in a hung parliament or where labour is a minority govt

Treelover, lately you're making the odd correct factual observation and its scaring me.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Are we watching the same film?

I get what you're saying, and it's not like I've ever expected much from them. But something seems to have shifted imo if they can't even be bothered to do the Vote Labour with no illusions schtick.

 

[nino_savatte]

Jeremy Corbyn came to a UCU conference recently and told us he was "really hopeful" that there would be "something" in the Labour manifesto about scrapping zero hours. I asked him if that was all he could say why trade unionists should vote for Labour. He said "maybe you shouldn't." If he thinks that what's he doing with his life?

You've more or less answered your own question here.

 

[SpackleFrog]

You've more or less answered your own question here.

I'm not sure I have - I'm asking why they bother maintaining this Labour Left reputation.

 

[Pickman's model]

If some of these M.P's broke away, even became independents, they could make a considerable impact in a hung parliament or where labour is a minority govt

what, you mean an impact along the lines george galloway has had?

 

[Pickman's model]

it was factually incorrect and stupid that time too

how was it factually incorrect?