Why Labour are Scum

[Humberto]

How will the Tories be obliterated? They'll lose one election, most likely, and will have a decent chance at the next one, once Labour fail to address any of the major issues facing the country in any meaningful way. Think of all the shit the Tories have done, all the lives they've ruined, and they're still one of the 2 dominant forces in British politics. Who votes for them/likes them? History says a huge chunk of the electorate, which tells us there's one hell of a lot of vapid, greedy, self-serving, ignorant and all-round horrible cunts out there.

Maybe there are just too many 'horrible cunts' who will elect them for the Tories to fade into obscurity, I don't know. But after three Labour victories, unpopular wars and an economic crisis etc the Tories still only managed to win the election through a coalition agreement. I may be wrong but the Tories will hopefully do rather badly.

 

[SikhWarrioR]

Maybe there are just too many 'horrible cunts' who will elect them for the Tories to fade into obscurity, I don't know. But after three Labour victories, unpopular wars and an economic crisis etc the Tories still only managed to win the election through a coalition agreement. I may be wrong but the Tories will hopefully do rather badly.

It would be interesting to see just how ,many tories are going to jump ship to UKIP not that UKIP would be any better than the tories

 

[ViolentPanda]

It would be interesting to see just how ,many tories are going to jump ship to UKIP not that UKIP would be any better than the tories

It would, however, help seperate those who are willing to wear their cuntishness on their sleeve, from those who are not.

 

[Sue]

It would, however, help seperate those who are willing to wear their cuntishness on their sleeve, from those who are not.

 

[ViolentPanda]

UKIP don't have quite the degree of worry about the image they project that the Tories do. That may change if/when they edge closer to power, but at the mo it's part of their appeal to some Tories, the wearing of their cuntishness on their sleeve - the whole "we don't give a fuck about anyone except UK PLC, and those who sail in her" schtick.

 

[Sue]

UKIP don't have quite the degree of worry about the image they project that the Tories do. That may change if/when they edge closer to power, but at the mo it's part of their appeal to some Tories, the wearing of their cuntishness on their sleeve - the whole "we don't give a fuck about anyone except UK PLC, and those who sail in her" schtick.

Though many of the Tories are already doing a very good job of it, if with an extremely thin veneer of doing it for people's own *good*. (IDS and Gove spring to mind. Alas.)

 

[SikhWarrioR]

UKIP don't have quite the degree of worry about the image they project that the Tories do. That may change if/when they edge closer to power, but at the mo it's part of their appeal to some Tories, the wearing of their cuntishness on their sleeve - the whole "we don't give a fuck about anyone except UK PLC, and those who sail in her" schtick.

"we dont give a fuck about anyone except UK PLC and those who sail in her".............DING, DING, DING, What do you see? Iceberg right ahead

 

[ViolentPanda]

"we dont give a fuck about anyone except UK PLC and those who sail in her".............DING, DING, DING, What do you see? Iceberg right ahead

"RAMMING SPEED, Captain Falange!!!"

 

[Superdupastupor]

"RAMMING SPEED, Captain Falange!!!"

a tv docu i saw said the titanic wouldnt have sunk if it struck the berg head(prow?) on. i don't know where that leaves this analogy....

 

[SikhWarrioR]

a tv docu i saw said the titanic wouldnt have sunk if it struck the berg head(prow?) on. i don't know where that leaves this analogy....

True if Titanic had hit the berg head on it would have survived this has been proved before and since Titanic see a ship called SS Arizona which hit an iceberg head on damaging its bows but the watertight bulkheads behind did their job and she not only remained afloat but made it to port [slowly] under her own power. The bad helm orders [and the lookouts lack of binoculars] on the Titanic's bridge presenting her side to the berg in trying to avoid the berg opened up several watertight compartments and doomed her

 

[FNG]

sometimes i feel a tiny bit guilty
in 1913 a lady apparently killed herself with the aid of a horse
in protest of women not being allowed to vote

and i have never registered or voted
i have yet to find a political movement that i consider to be trust worthy
maybe they were trust worthy in 1913, or maybe she died for nothing
it all seems such a sorry business

you might not be getting the wealth of difference between being denied the vote and exercising your right not to vote

 

[Quartz]

We can't have soldiers being exposed to violence. This is right up there with, 'you can't fight in here, this is the war room!'

Do you not think that this is more to protect non-soldiers? I have worked with a number of ex front-line military and they all told me tales of having to rein in their training despite provocation. These are, after all, people trained to be aggressive and to kill. A friend, a Royal Marine, was drinking in a pub with another RM and was advised that he was going to be attacked once they left the pub. Sure enough there was a gang waiting for them so they started screaming, "We're just back from Iraq and we're going to f*** you up!" They then chased the would-be assailants up the high street. But he told me that it was really hard to not actually attack them. And they would have been dead meat.

 

[Quartz]

and i have never registered or voted
i have yet to find a political movement that i consider to be trust worthy
maybe they were trust worthy in 1913, or maybe she died for nothing
it all seems such a sorry business

But you now have that choice, do you not?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Do you not think that this is more to protect non-soldiers? I have worked with a number of ex front-line military and they all told me tales of having to rein in their training despite provocation. These are, after all, people trained to be aggressive and to kill. A friend, a Royal Marine, was drinking in a pub with another RM and was advised that he was going to be attacked once they left the pub. Sure enough there was a gang waiting for them so they started screaming, "We're just back from Iraq and we're going to f*** you up!" They then chased the would-be assailants up the high street. But he told me that it was really hard to not actually attack them. And they would have been dead meat.

I suspect this may not be a very common occurrence. My experience of growing up in a town full of marines was that you stayed the fuck away from them because they would beat the shit out of anyone they took a dislike to. I saw what they, or their 'training' did to people. I didn't care what the backstory was to these fights, I just saw drunken mindless savagery.

So if we want to protect non-soldiers then IMO we should throw all the servicemen in this country in a fucking zoo where they belong.

 

[stethoscope]

Chuka pretty much rules out re-nationalisation of Royal Mail (what a surprise):
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/29/labour-stamp-prices-royal-mail

 

[DaveCinzano]

True if Titanic had hit the berg head on it would have survived this has been proved before and since Titanic see a ship called SS Arizona which hit an iceberg head on damaging its bows but the watertight bulkheads behind did their job and she not only remained afloat but made it to port [slowly] under her own power. The bad helm orders [and the lookouts lack of binoculars] on the Titanic's bridge presenting her side to the berg in trying to avoid the berg opened up several watertight compartments and doomed her

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ANALOGY?!

 

[Sprocket.]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ANALOGY?!

The only analogy I see is with the iceberg likened to UKIP's membership and policies, that 8/9ths are out of sight and bob along below the surface scraping the lower parts of the Tory party into a mushy tangled froth, hopefully sinking them without trace.

 

[nino_savatte]

Chuka pretty much rules out re-nationalisation of Royal Mail (what a surprise):
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/29/labour-stamp-prices-royal-mail

Leopards and spots. Typical Labour.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Chuka pretty much rules out re-nationalisation of Royal Mail (what a surprise):
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/29/labour-stamp-prices-royal-mail

Chuka would boil his mum in a vat of piss if it got him a step nearer to the party leadership, so his playing along with neoliberalism isn't surprising.
Of course, if he could make political brownie points from his colleagues off of a re-nationalised Royal Mail, he'd be on it like a shot. The careerist cunt.

 

[rostabeef]

With Labour seemingly being the only game in town I think we need a thread illustrating why anybody with any sense wouldn't touch them with a bargepole and exactly what Labour members are supporting.

So here are two stories to kick it off.


Destroying the arts and closing over half the libraries in Newcastle

 

[treelover]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-rachel-reeves-welfare?guni=Keyword:news-grid main-1 Main trailblock:Editable trailblock - newsosition4


Rachel Reeves, new Shadow DWP Secretary, "We will be tougher than the Tories on welfare"

so, no change, in fact she may be worse than Byrne, at least he was calling it Social Security

Oh, and Tristam Hunt, "Labour will support free schools"

Why do they not just join the Tories?, its clear they got rid of the Blairites' in the reshuffle, not because they were, but because they were under-performing, now they have the people they need to sell 'reform'

 

[treelover]

Btw, Reeves is 34 and an economist, 34 ffs, how long was she an economist.

 

[brogdale]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-rachel-reeves-welfare?guni=Keyword:news-grid main-1 Main trailblock:Editable trailblock - newsosition4




Oh, and Tristam Hunt, "Labour will support free schools"

Why do they not just join the Tories?'

We have to clear up this question which has dogged Labour education policy since we entered opposition and since Michael Gove began his reforms, as to what we'd do. We just want to say, 'You are setting up these schools, we are behind you'."

Something about that surname...

 

[nino_savatte]

Btw, Reeves is 34 and an economist, 34 ffs, how long was she an economist.

Er, since she was 6? [gets coat]

 

[treelover]

Already around the social media sites, people are 'warming' to Reeves and think her 'offer' is much better than the Tories and not as brutal

 

[treelover]

110,000 people applied for 100 minimum wage jobs at an opening supermarket in Yorkshire..

Wonder why Reeves doesn't mention this?

It's clear now Milliband wanted 'reformers' in place, N/S bloggers, as much as I hate them were right when they predicted this.

 

[belboid]

why cant you be a 34 year old economist? Is it something only old blokes can lay claim to? Bizarre comment

 

[treelover]

I meant the most experience she could have is ten years and very little of how ordinary people live their lives, as i'm sure you know.

 

[belboid]

so no 34 year olds should be appointed? fuck young people!

i have as little idea about what you think as you do

 

[treelover]

To a senior political position which if she became DWP Sec would affect millions, no I don't think they should be appointed, remember Jim Murphy, another ruthless blairite