Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why Labour are Scum

I'll have a stab at this. Is it because the bedroom tax is tied up in the welfare reform act and changing one aspect of an act is not possible because it would require the whole act to be changed. This would then require another vote on a re written act meaning that the coalition would win because their majority? Therefore it's cynical Labour PR.
It's because this was just a vote on a debate, on a motion put to the house, it is irrelevant and non-binding in terms of legislation - even if it was won by 600+ votes. It's like say us on here having a formal debate then a vote on it.
 
I'll have a stab at this. Is it because the bedroom tax is tied up in the welfare reform act and changing one aspect of an act is not possible because it would require the whole act to be changed. This would then require another vote on a re written act meaning that the coalition would win because their majority? Therefore it's cynical Labour PR.

That and (this is more IMO) the bedroom tax is just one aspect of a shit soup that gets focused on too much whilst ignoring the rest of the coalition's attacks like local housing allowance for all under 35s, benefit sanctions etc. None of which Labour will reverse come the next election.
But won't they have to change the whole act anyway, if they plain to repeal the tax in 2015? Obviously they'll have more power if they become government, but wouldn't there still have to be a vote?
 
But won't they have to change the whole act anyway, if they plain to repeal the tax in 2015? Obviously they'll have more power if they become government, but wouldn't there still have to be a vote?

That would be problematic for them; many of the other 'reforms' would actually cost to reverse.
 
But won't they have to change the whole act anyway, if they plain to repeal the tax in 2015? Obviously they'll have more power if they become government, but wouldn't there still have to be a vote?
Aspects of legislation are amended all the time by a variety of methods. Including voting. A labour majority govt would have no problem changing the legislation if it wanted to.
 
It's because this was just a vote on a debate, on a motion put to the house, it is irrelevant and non-binding in terms of legislation - even if it was won by 600+ votes. It's like say us on here having a formal debate then a vote on it.

Oh is that all it was? That's quite common isn't it?
 
Sheffield Central MP paying 3 quid an hour on the apprenticeship scheme to get around paying minimum wage

734412_10153463471785344_1312824313_n.jpg

Good spot, thought he was alright.
 
However bad labour are, they'll always be a million times better than the fucking Tories.

Not so. The current welfare reforms were started by the previous government. There is now no 'Labour Party', NL and the Conservatives are only a few degrees apart.

The de facto conjunction in terms of policy, between the Conservatives and NL in their sycophancy towards big business, has in effect disenfranchised millions of people. If there is no real choice, there is little point in voting.
 
while i agree there's little to choose between the labour party and the tory vermin, for people on the edge - and that's a huge number of people - those 'few degrees' were all that kept them from tumbling over.
 
This has always been the mantra right across the Left - even from those with no patience with the consistent pro capitalist status quo record ofall previous Labour Governments . Defenders of this position rightly point to the very real gains made for the working classs by some previous Labour Governments, the post WWII Welfare state obviously being the biggie. TODAY though does New Labour really have any residual connection or loyalty to its traditional working class base ? One only has to look at the social background of the current Parliamentary Labour Party, the money they got/ get from snake-eyed capitalist firms, the penetration of their ranks by "advisors" seconded by Price waterhouse, etc, and the pro-banker, pro capitalist policies of the blair/Brown era, to see that the old mantra is now wildly outdated. The likes of scum like Alan Johnson, entirely dependant on his trades union career for his current status and lifestyle, feels perfectly comfortable , just the other day, to verbally piss on trades unionism yet again ! New Labour have morphed qualitatively over the last 30 years or so, from a generally collaborationist but nevertheless mass reformist party of organised labour and the working class, to a purely pro-capitalist party, competing only on the fine policy detail of the shared neoloberal economic/political/social agenda. If New Labour were in office today they would be implementing pretty much the IDENTICAL austerity policies of the Coalition. They might be doing it more gradually, and with crocodile tears, but implement them they would. Unlike the class hate-filled Tories, Labour has always understood the need to "boil the (working class) frog ... sloooooowwwly" in case we get too angry, see clearly what's going on, and leap out of the societal boiling pan and rip their fucking throats out !

With the Trot Left apparently entering long overdue final organisational and doctrinal meltdown, and New Labour utterly lost to any progressive pro-working class role, we all collectively have to seriously start thinking about a building a new mass party of radical left resistance - even if its initially a rag-bag alliance of everyone who simply wants to resist - on the Syriza model. It obviously wouldn't survive forever as a radical route forward - but might at least organise meaningful mass resistance in the medium term. Unfortunately, the chaos on the Trot Left also seems to have given comfort to even more reactionery pseudo-socialist forces - like the neo-stalinist apologists across the blogosphere who currently are salivating at the collapse of the SWP, those who run the "Socialist Unity" blog for instance - cynically masquerading as proponents of openness and free debate , in contrast to the cultishness of the SWP - whilst constantly denying the monstrous crimes of stalinism. One things for sure , if the broad Left are ever to attract masses of normal working class people to their ranks they'll/we'll have to rid themselves/ourselves of an awful lot of ideological baggage and organisational habits -- and stop suggesting, a la that epochal world class philosopher and sage, Owen Jones , that we now need to prioritise "getting a real socialist movement together to get Labour elected !" .

Excellent post.
 
Gordon Brown open mike incident possibly alienated supporters sitting on the fence? From wiki:
  • "GB: That was a disaster. Sue should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?
  • JF: I don't know, I didn't see her.
  • GB: Sue's I think [Brown's gatekeeper]. Just ridiculous ...
  • JF: What did she say?
  • GB: Everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour. I mean, it's just ridiculous. Sue pushed her up towards me."[45]
Brown's remarks were recorded by a Sky News microphone he was still wearing, and widely broadcast. Soon after the incident, Brown talked to Jeremy Vine live on BBC Radio 2 where he publicly apologised to Mrs Duffy. Subsequently Brown visited her house for 43 minutes in order to apologise in person. Upon emerging, he described himself as a "penitent sinner",[46] while Duffy refused to speak to the press and would not shake hands with him in front of the cameras. She said the incident had left her feeling more sad than angry and that she would not be voting for Labour or any other party.[47] The incident subsequently has been dubbed as "Bigotgate".

Then she sold the story to the Daily Mail(?) . Anyway just about sums them all up as that brief encounter highlighted for me what they really think of there supporters.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, but it wouldn't be natural not to have an opinion about someone you've just spoken to, particularly if they were as ignorant as she was. Gettuing caught out was unfortunate and stupid.

This sort of situation is exactly what's wrong with the media these days.
 
Gordon Brown open mike incident possibly alienated supporters sitting on the fence? From wiki:
  • "GB: That was a disaster. Sue should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?
  • JF: I don't know, I didn't see her.
  • GB: Sue's I think [Brown's gatekeeper]. Just ridiculous ...
  • JF: What did she say?
  • GB: Everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour. I mean, it's just ridiculous. Sue pushed her up towards me."[45]
Brown's remarks were recorded by a Sky News microphone he was still wearing, and widely broadcast. Soon after the incident, Brown talked to Jeremy Vine live on BBC Radio 2 where he publicly apologised to Mrs Duffy. Subsequently Brown visited her house for 43 minutes in order to apologise in person. Upon emerging, he described himself as a "penitent sinner",[46] while Duffy refused to speak to the press and would not shake hands with him in front of the cameras. She said the incident had left her feeling more sad than angry and that she would not be voting for Labour or any other party.[47] The incident subsequently has been dubbed as "Bigotgate".

Then she sold the story to the Daily Mail(?) . Anyway just about sums them all up as that brief encounter highlighted for me what they really think of there supporters.

In the context of 'bigotgate' and its impact (a week before the election) do you remember the leaks appearing a decade earlier in the Murdoch press featuring memos from nuLabour's (deceased) chief pollster Philip "politics of grievance" Gould?
In the frank memo Mr Gould, who conducts focus groups for Tony Blair, warns that the government could have its parliamentary majority slashed at the next election, and that it risked being seen as ineffective in tackling key issues. <snip>

This latest leak follows last week's revelation - also on the front pages of The Sun and The Times - of Mr Blair's memo to close allies expressing fears that his government was regarded as "out of touch" on issues such as crime and asylum seekers. <snip>

A Downing Street spokesman said the leak was plainly designed to undermine the prime minister. While Education Secretary David Blunkett said he believed there was a "mole" in Downing Street with a grudge against the government.

The memo - Getting the Right Place in History and not the Wrong One - was sent by Mr Gould before May's local elections. It is the latest in a series of documents leaked to newspapers.

Shadow chancellor Michael Portillo denied his party had anything to do with the leak. He said the memo showed the insincerity of ministers. He told the BBC: "This theory that it is someone from another party, or some kind of electronic hacking, is not borne out by the journalists who actually know."

Of the New Labour "brand" Mr Gould writes in his memo: "It is the object of constant criticism, and even worse, ridicule, undermined by a combination of spin, lack of conviction and apparently lack of integrity, manifested by the [London] mayor selection process."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/840440.stm

See also:
Gould's analysis still dominates political thinking in the Labour Party and beyond — the idea that electoral political narratives should be driven by ‘the politics of grievance’ where working people, particularly the ‘white working class’ instinctively blame ‘the immigrant’ for their economic and social exploitation and marginalisation. <snip>

"A call for fairness has become a cry of grievance, resentment and anger, expressing the view that my life is bad because others are unfairly benefitting. Clearly this is fertile ground not just for the right but for the far right … every voice should be heard: we should listen to opinions that we may not like … The politics of grievance can be harsh … a start was made (by New Labour) in dealing with immigration."
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-grayson/welcome-to-britain-go-home-or-face-arrest
 
Last edited:
The link below has excerpts (I don't know what's been edited out) from the 2000 memo mentioned above. One has to wonder to what extent they're still being driven by concerns that they'll be 'outflanked' on (to a considerable degree) reactionary right-wing dog-whistle issues?
We are outflanked on patriotism and crime; we are suffering from disconnection; we have been assailed for spin and broken promises.

We are not believed to have delivered; we are believed by a huge margin to be slowing down rather than speeding up; we are disliked on the left wing for being right wing, on the right wing for being politically correct.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/840548.stm
 
Last edited:
Quote from Balls in the NS, musing on the propects of a Lab-Lib pact retaining Clegg as LD leader/DPM emphasises the complete inter-changability between the 3 largest* parties. They're not even pretending to differ over aspects of the 'shallow state' these days...

I think what you always have to do is deal with politics as you find it. We’re fighting hard for a majority, who knows how things will turn out, I think, look, very many Labour Party members, voters, supporters, would find that very difficult and some Liberal Democrat voters would find that very difficult as well, but we’ll deal with the situation as we find it. I saw that subsequently he (Clegg) made a further statement to one of the newspapers that these things weren’t about personalities, and I think he’s right about that.

Christ-on-a-bike :facepalm:

* @ 2010 GE
 
Not sure what to think of universal free school meals - on the one hand it means every kid gets 5 decent (hopefully) meals a week, on the other if everyone gets free school meals you're gonna really struggle to sell yer dinner tickets to buy fags - I'd never have made it through the 4th year!
 
To get on teacher training courses you already needs to sit patronising maths and English tests now. Imagine if all the money spent on gimmicks, bullshit and fancy buildings was spent on smaller class sizes. Smaller class sizes are just for private school poshos though :(

Quite.

The Guradian actually hits the nail on the head...
In a sign of how Labour hopes to outflank education secretary Michael Gove on teaching standards, Hunt is to revive a plan the last government abandoned on the eve of the 2010 general election.

This is, of course, crude politiking that has fuck all to do with children's experience in the classroom.

Many of us know that, in practice, this would amount to another, enhanced opportunity for HTs and their henchmen to undertake bullying and vindictive, partial assessments against overly proscriptive criteria against any teachers who may question the state driven orthodoxy handed down to these tin-pot martinets.

Awful.

And this party expects teachers to continue to support them?
 
Back
Top Bottom