Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why Labour are Scum

It's you that doesn't get it.

The tories think labour are socialist lefties. Voting the tories out sends them a message. It makes them think. It makes them pick useless leaders like Hague, Howard and IDS, while they sit in the wilderness.

The Tory membership may believe such things of Labour. The parliamentary party does not, they're merely cynically use such beliefs for their own ends - to set up an opposition that in political terms, no longer exists. Hague et al failed because of 18 years of Tory rule prior to '97, not because they offered policies that were significantly different to, or worse than those of new Labour. That's obvious through comparison of manifestos, and through reading through the "call and response" pantomime post-such events as budgets or the Queen's Speech.

If all things are completely equal, and they are not, then this alone is better than the current situation which is the best case scenario if you refuse to vote next year.

You perceive this to be the case. It's what is known as "the triumph of hope over experience".

You keep missing the point: it isn't about whether or not Labour are wonderful and lovely. It's about the fact they are NOT the tories.

Except that, in all but name, in all the ways that really matter - in politics, in rhetoric, in intention, they're the same as the Tories.
Given that they accept the same economic predicates as the Tories, as the Lib-Dems, and as UKIP, they can't be anything but "the same as the Tories".

It's about getting this current lot, including the likes of IDS, out. Noone comes close to this guy for sheer bloody minded almost religious zealotry. if we manage to get him out then that alone is enough of a victory.

And replaciing him with someone who's core policies will be the same as his, merely presented in a more people-friendly manner. We know this because Reeves has stated her intentions clearly and plainly - more of the same.
Unlike you, I don't believe that replacing an unpleasant megalomaniacal cunt with a smug deceptive cunt is a win for anyone.

At the very least they have more wright of expectation than any other government if they get in. They have promised a repeal of the Bedroom Tax, whether or not you believe they will follow through, that's still more than you will get from the tories, which is who will win othereiwse.

Labour had a massive weight of expectation on them in '97, history shows us that they fulfilled about 5% of that expectation.

Like it or not, Labour are the ONLY choice next year. The electoral system isn't going to change and while it might be a self fulfilling prophecy to say so, the Greens are too much of a gamble, even though i'd happily give them a chance.

And while people say "Labour is the NLY choice next year. The electoral system isn't going to change...", nothing will change, because no message other than "we'll put up with just about any shit as long as it's not Tory shit, Ed", gets sent.

You're bending the knee and bearing your throat to the same politics that's already seen disabled people attacked and degraded, all on the chance that they'll say "sir" at the end of calling you a useless scrounging cunt.
 
You're bending the knee and bearing your throat to the same politics that's already seen disabled people attacked and degraded, all on the chance that they'll say "sir" at the end of calling you a useless scrounging cunt.

No, that's just your bias speaking.

And frankly, your bias means fuck all when the culmination puts IDS back in charge knowing full well that's what's going to happen - unless of course you have abetter alternative than the childish defeatism i've heard so far.

EDIT: what I mean by bias is your bias against me. You are asserting that i am, at best, naive, about the politics of the labour party. That fact misses the point entirely. Its also completely incongruous with everything i have said and posted on this forum. If that is the logic you employ to respond, then don't bother.
 
Last edited:
No, that's just your bias speaking.

And frankly, your bias means fuck all when the culmination puts IDS back in charge knowing full well that's what's going to happen - unless of course you have abetter alternative than the childish defeatism i've heard so far.

Because, of course, "vote Labour" isn't even akin to childish defeatism.

EDIT: what I mean by bias is your bias against me. You are asserting that i am, at best, naive, about the politics of the labour party. That fact misses the point entirely. Its also completely incongruous with everything i have said and posted on this forum. If that is the logic you employ to respond, then don't bother.

Bias against you? Don't flatter yourself.
I'm asserting that you're naive, shading into wilfully-ignorant, not just about labour, but about politics as a whole. I'm asserting that by saying "anything is better than IDS's boot on my neck", you're merely asking for another boot on your neck, and that Labour will be as happy to put their boot on your neck as the Tories were. I'm asserting that our current system of representation is broken, and that effort would be better spent trying to do something about that, than punting a change of government as any kind of solution, or even as a respite.

I'm asserting that do-nothings like you will sit at home fiddling with yourselves as Rome burns, and then blame everyone except yourself when the flames start licking at your toes.
 
You perceive this to be the case. It's what is known as "the triumph of hope over experience".

Ok, so?

Except that, in all but name, in all the ways that really matter - in politics, in rhetoric, in intention, they're the same as the Tories.

That's a claim. They are similar in a great many ways, that isn't the same as being the same.

That doesn't mean they are objectively worth supporting, but that is not my position.

My position is that: there are two outcomes next year Tory or Labour. There are no other outcomes. If you find labour objectionable, then by not voting you help to guarantee a Tory win.

And replaciing him with someone who's core policies will be the same as his, merely presented in a more people-friendly manner. We know this because Reeves has stated her intentions clearly and plainly - more of the same.

Then how is she being deceptive, which you subsequently claim?

She has stated she will be tougher than the tories on the benefit bill. I agree that is a sinister statement, or at the very least clumsily pandering to the right. It doesn't follow that she will not repeal the BT, for example, or that she will enact policy as vicious as this government.

Unlike you, I don't believe that replacing an unpleasant megalomaniacal cunt with a smug deceptive cunt is a win for anyone.

Whether or not she is smug (she may be many things, but that wouldn't be an epithet I would have chosen) is irrelevant. She can be as smug as she likes if she behaves even marginally better than IDS.

Labour had a massive weight of expectation on them in '97, history shows us that they fulfilled about 5% of that expectation.

That is not evidence that Labour will be worse than the tories in 2015.

And while people say "Labour is the NLY choice next year. The electoral system isn't going to change...", nothing will change, because no message other than "we'll put up with just about any shit as long as it's not Tory shit, Ed", gets sent.

Then if the only difference is IDS is not in charge that itself, while I grant isn't ideal, is better than nothing.
 
Because, of course, "vote Labour" isn't even akin to childish defeatism.

I haven't said Labour will fix everything. I have said that the chance they might just do one thing to help, such as repeal the BT, is enough to kick out the Tories.

I'm asserting that you're naive, shading into wilfully-ignorant, not just about labour, but about politics as a whole.

And in so doing you are demonstrating your bias. My knowledge of politics as a whole is irrelevant to this discussion. Your constant attempts to appear as the Grand Meister with allthe secrets are really quite childish.

I'm asserting that by saying "anything is better than IDS's boot on my neck", you're merely asking for another boot on your neck, and that Labour will be as happy to put their boot on your neck as the Tories were.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

I'm asserting that our current system of representation is broken, and that effort would be better spent trying to do something about that, than punting a change of government as any kind of solution, or even as a respite.

And I have repeatedly said the same thing. It's a pity you people don't read.

But we aren't going to get a better system in time for 2015.

I'm asserting that do-nothings like you will sit at home fiddling with yourselves as Rome burns, and then blame everyone except yourself when the flames start licking at your toes.

Which is meaningless hyperbole and ad hom.
 
My position is that: there are two outcomes next year Tory or Labour. There are no other outcomes. If you find labour objectionable, then by not voting you help to guarantee a Tory win.

Could you explain why then the Electoral Reform Society concluded in a report that as few as 8000 swing voters in a handful of seats are the only ones out of 30 million voters whose vote actually effects the outcome. Why nearly 400 of 600 seats are safe seats that will not change hands no matter what? And what that means for your argument that every vote counts? Because i think it blows it out of the water frankly.
 
I think my point was clearly explained, even for a simpleton like you.
your point was clearly explained. but it's bollocks. not voting is not in all cases a vote for the tories. there are more than two possible outcomes to the election next year, and none of them are palatable. and frankly i'd rather have the genuine tories than some we're not really tory tories - the original is usually best. ideally, of course, we wouldn't have the red scum or the blue scum - nor, indeed, the yellow scum.

i'm rather surprised, bo, that you no longer seem to be ignoring me.
 
I haven't said Labour will fix everything.

Which makes it fortunate that I haven't claimed anything of the sort, does it not?

I have said that the chance they might just do one thing to help, such as repeal the BT, is enough to kick out the Tories.

You've also written a load of cant about how getting IDS out is imperative.

As has been said by others and myself elsewhere, the Bedroom Tax is a busted flush. Regardless of who is in power, it'll be gone in a year or so, having done its' job.

And in so doing you are demonstrating your bias. My knowledge of politics as a whole is irrelevant to this discussion. Your constant attempts to appear as the Grand Meister with allthe secrets are really quite childish.

Except that I'm not making any such "attempts", I'm merely speaking from a perspective that includes studying and trying to learn from the past.
And your knowledge of politics is precisely relevant, in that informs your perspective.


That you see contradiction of your opinions in the light you invariably do (and I'm talking contradiction in general, not just my contradictions) as posturing (or harrassment, or what-fucking-ever) rather than as critique, signals...well, I won't analyse you publicly.



Now you are putting words in my mouth.

No, I'm not, I've condensed and am paraphrasing your own posts.


And I have repeatedly said the same thing. It's a pity you people don't read.

You haven't said the same thing, not even close. You've said that something should be done within the system, which kind of misses the point that the system survives through minimal concession.
And "you people"? There's only one of me.

But we aren't going to get a better system in time for 2015.

So let's not bother, eh? let's just let everything carry on as it is, towards what at best will be a neo-Victorian nightmare realm.
Fuck it, we can't have it in time for the next election, so lets stay with the rigged political "consensus" instead. let's be dupes for the neoliberal!


Which is meaningless hyperbole and ad hom.

It'd only be hyperbole if it didn't reflect the gist of your posts here. It'd only be an ad hominem if it didn't reflect the gist of your posts here.
 
Could you explain why then the Electoral Reform Society concluded in a report that as few as 8000 swing voters in a handful of seats are the only ones out of 30 million voters whose vote actually effects the outcome. Why nearly 400 of 600 seats are safe seats that will not change hands no matter what? And what that means for your argument that every vote counts? Because i think it blows it out of the water frankly.

Come on, we know it blows his argument out of the water!
Not that it matters. He's more intent on justifying his position than he is in considering anything as quotidian as fact.
 
I'm in a very safe Labour seat. By not voting, or not voting Labour, I do fuck all for a Tory win.
There is that.

But i wouldn't criticise in a situation that's out of your control. That's not just sitting back and advocating doing nothing.
 
I'm in a very safe Labour seat. By not voting, or not voting Labour, I do fuck all for a Tory win.

Same here. Same for so many of us.
In my opinion, the only action we have left to us, given being in safe Labour constituencies, is to withdraw our support, and the way to withdraw support isn't to place our votes elsewhere, it's to boycott the process, and make it clear why we're doing so.

As with consenting to being governed, our consent to be represented is:
a) taken for granted by our "representatives", and
b) contingent on our allowing ourselves to be used as a cock-sock by those "representatives".
Remove that consent, and the claimed mandate of these political vampires disappears into the aether.
 
Which makes it fortunate that I haven't claimed anything of the sort, does it not?
Not directly, no.

You've also written a load of cant about how getting IDS out is imperative.

Correct.

As has been said by others and myself elsewhere, the Bedroom Tax is a busted flush. Regardless of who is in power, it'll be gone in a year or so, having done its' job.

That's an assumption. It's not the only thing labour has spoken on either.

Except that I'm not making any such "attempts", I'm merely speaking from a perspective that includes studying and trying to learn from the past.

Great. Learn all you can.

And your knowledge of politics is precisely relevant, in that informs your perspective.

What informs my perspective in this case is the situation in 2015. Again, i am not endorsing labour politics as anything but relative to the viciousness of a tory governemtn if one takes over next year. I don't believe I lack any particular knowledge relevant to that.

That you see contradiction of your opinions in the light you invariably do (and I'm talking contradiction in general, not just my contradictions) as posturing (or harrassment, or what-fucking-ever) rather than as critique, signals...well, I won't analyse you publicly.
I haven't contradicted myself in this discussion. I'm sure i have done so in other discussion i have participated in, here and elswhere. I don't contend to be infallible any more than I contend to be 100% correct 100% of the time. So what? All I see here are more ad hominems in place of an argument.

No, I'm not, I've condensed and am paraphrasing your own posts.

You are, since I didn't say what you put in quote marks. You are intellectually dishonest.

You haven't said the same thing, not even close. You've said that something should be done within the system, which kind of misses the point that the system survives through minimal concession.
And "you people"? There's only one of me.

Which therefore means I wasn't simply referring to you.

The system will survive until 2015 and, as i've made abundantly clear, I am speaking about that election. I have also made it clear that we should press for a better system, but that will not happen for next year.

So let's not bother, eh? let's just let everything carry on as it is, towards what at best will be a neo-Victorian nightmare realm.

Now you're putting words in my mouth again.

It'd only be hyperbole if it didn't reflect the gist of your posts here. It'd only be an ad hominem if it didn't reflect the gist of your posts here.

No, that was your post misrepresenting my arugment and in a derogatory way. So yes, it was ad hom and yes it was hyperbole, and a straw man.
 
Same here. Same for so many of us.
In my opinion, the only action we have left to us, given being in safe Labour constituencies, is to withdraw our support, and the way to withdraw support isn't to place our votes elsewhere, it's to boycott the process, and make it clear why we're doing so.

As with consenting to being governed, our consent to be represented is:
a) taken for granted by our "representatives", and
b) contingent on our allowing ourselves to be used as a cock-sock by those "representatives".
Remove that consent, and the claimed mandate of these political vampires disappears into the aether.
This. Although, I'd probably vote hard left / NHS action or whatever if it was an option.

I would vote labour if if was actually a choice between labour and tories or the yellow scum tbf. But only to hurt the tories or the yellow scum. And I certainly wouldn't advocate anyone else doing it.
 
I would have voted for sawford jnr (corby indy-labour lash up) when mensch bailed. Wasn't registered at the time alas. Now I'm back in Kettering, nothing can unseat the Hollobonate, so no vote is a good vote.
 
was talking to my dad yesterday. he's life long labour, union rep in the factories and warehouses he's worked in, always goes to labour, union, co-op conferences and is out and about every election. has been a councillor previously and god knows how many tens of thousands of hours of his life he's given to the party. anyway he wanted to put his name forward for nomination to stand for councillor again at the next local election but some regional full timer is essentially trying to make it impossible for him to stand again. apparently they are really keen to make sure that no 'union people' are allowed to be candidates - they want all candidates to be from the professional middle clas. to say he's annoyed is putting it mildly!

of course i don't think it's surprising to many people here but i've never known him so disillusioned
 
was talking to my dad yesterday. he's life long labour, union rep in the factories and warehouses he's worked in, always goes to labour, union, co-op conferences and is out and about every election. has been a councillor previously and god knows how many tens of thousands of hours of his life he's given to the party. anyway he wanted to put his name forward for nomination to stand for councillor again at the next local election but some regional full timer is essentially trying to make it impossible for him to stand again. apparently they are really keen to make sure that no 'union people' are allowed to be candidates - they want all candidates to be from the professional middle clas. to say he's annoyed is putting it mildly!

of course i don't think it's surprising to many people here but i've never known him so disillusioned
What, how? (I don't know how candidate selection for councillors works TBF.) Filthy bastards.
 
Then if the only difference is IDS is not in charge that itself, while I grant isn't ideal, is better than nothing.

It's not better than nothing, just a different shade of nothing. Vote for these cunts so these other cunts don't win. They are the same cunts, the same class, same minority interest of privilege. This is the easiest bit to get, even a simpleton like me gets it.
 
It's not better than nothing, just a different shade of nothing. Vote for these cunts so these other cunts don't win. They are the same cunts, the same class, same minority interest of privilege. This is the easiest bit to get, even a simpleton like me gets it.
Oh i get it, I just don't agree.
 
Oh i get it, I just don't agree.

So Neoliberals with a guilt complex, who might brush some crumbs from the table for the rest of us, is this where our energies must be directed? The compromise didn't work last time. It provided a solid platform for the current lot to entrench class division and inequality. And so it goes on. The emperor is naked. No conviction behind the managerial bullshit.

I get where you're coming from. In 1997 I went that way. But I don't agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom