Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why Labour are Scum

Got to say, this 'We'll restrict profits a bit ... ' stuff is falling rather short of my expectations of what 'We'll protect the NHS' should mean ...

5% margin is pretty low, surely it'll just encourage more complex services contracts where they buy from other companies to reduce their profit; if coffee companies can do it I'm sure health companies can.

While I'm at it why does the NHS get special attention, if Labour think they can cap profits on NHS contracts why not on all public services contracts? Why not cap profits on road construction, military contracts and public transport outsourcing?

I really can't see this reducing the cost of contracting on the NHS.
 
As well as that 5% you've still got all the money wasted on the comissioning process. And even 5% is quite a lot if you think about increasing the NHS budget by that amount instead of letting profiteers make off with it.

And yes, I would expect to see daisy-chains of outsourcing from one firm to another. If that's not happening already.

Simply pledging to restrict profits is typical of this current labour lot, and it looks a lot like the energy price freeze thing. No structural change to the system that caused the problem in the first place, just superficial and probably doomed policies which strongly suggest that the people who thought them up don't have the first clue how the world actually works. Policies created by idiots, for idiots.
 
Not mentioned on this thread (that I saw) but the "zero hours" thing:
"The next Labour government will ban zero-hour contracts for employees who are in practice working regular hours. This absolute new legal right to a regular contract will apply to workers after just 12 weeks"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...racts-to-get-regular-contracts-after-3-months

So, if you work regular hours in your zero hour contract it will have to be converted to a non zero hour one after 12 weeks. Great. Of course if you don't work regular hours, nope. So basically this encourages companies doing zero hour contracts to give workers even less regular work than they do right now.
 
Last edited:
aec4e644-da2c-4c13-91ae-bd34ee883018_zpszakcni2m.png


Mr. Pink: Hey, why am I Mr. Pink?

Joe: Because you're a faggot.

Mr. Pink: Why can't we pick our own colors?

Joe: No way, no way. Tried it once, doesn't work. You got four guys all fighting over who's gonna be Mr. Black, but they don't know each other, so nobody wants to back down. No way. I pick. You're Mr. Pink. Be thankful you're not Mr. Yellow.

Mr. Brown: Yeah, but Mr. Brown is a little too close to Mr. Shit.

Mr. Pink: Mr. Pink sounds like Mr. Pussy. How 'bout if I'm Mr. Purple? That sounds good to me. I'll be Mr. Purple.

Joe: You're not Mr. Purple. Some guy on some other job is Mr. Purple. Your Mr. PINK.

Mr. White: Who cares what your name is?

Mr. Pink: Yeah, that's easy for your to say, you're Mr. White. You have a cool-sounding name. Alright look, if it's no big deal to be Mr. Pink, you wanna trade?

Joe: Hey! NOBODY'S trading with ANYBODY. This ain't a goddamn, fucking city council meeting, you know. Now listen up, Mr. Pink. There's two ways you can go on this job: my way or the highway. Now what's it gonna be, Mr. Pink?

Mr. Pink: Jesus Christ, Joe, fucking forget about it. It's beneath me. I'm Mr. Pink. Let's move on.

Joe: I'll move on when I feel like it... All you guys got the goddamn message?... I'm so goddamn mad, hollering at you guys I can hardly talk. Pssh. Let's go to work.
 
So, there was I minding my own business and the jumble sale table, when two of the local Labour ward councillors come over and attempt a charm offensive of "come on, we're human beings just like you".

Human beings or not, they've badly let this estate down. They've reassured us, while not even keeping track of what the council are doing in their name. They said they weren't happy about what's happened, but had nothing to say about what exactly they'd do to help us or stop 'regeneration'. They had no idea that only householders (one adult per dwelling) instead of every adult on the electoral roll would be asked for their views. Again, their main response was "sorry, we didn't know".

Okay. You didn't know. You didn't know that Chukka Umunna (Labour) is apparently being led by the nose by Matthew Bennett (Labour), who's on the cabinet for housing and dead set on regeneration across the borough at any cost - be it social or financial. You didn't know that Labour have been claiming that they care but are powerless at every single bloody level to do anything at all to help.

You didn't know? It's been your job to know, and you do now. Either help, or lose your jobs next month.
 
So, there was I minding my own business and the jumble sale table, when two of the local Labour ward councillors come over and attempt a charm offensive of "come on, we're human beings just like you".

Bargain hunt staring Maggie T & Chucka (even J. Stathem couldn't couldn't look this hot imho although he might be able to aford my suit) fucking over the rural poor (not in expenses paid central London flats/houses) for 50p and a tea bag?
 
I'm getting the idea that their incredibly expensive political research team is telling them that they need to push out a few last minute left-ish promises on stuff like this if they want to win in some of their target seats or even in some cases to have a chance of winning (e.g. in Scotland)

I'm pretty sceptical that they've experienced a sudden conversion to socialism given that their policy team was moving in quite the opposite direct last year.

See e.g. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/nick-dearden/labour-and-ttip-things-just-got-worse
 
So Labour are claiming that they're changing their tune on TTIP. Does anyone believe this is real?




If that's the case , this is significant, Labour do seem to be shifting on some N/L shibboleths.

Whether that is a permanent policy change or just electioneering is indeed an open question.
 
Seymour appears to have been to the LSE's Wolfgang Streeck lecture...

Given the success of the rich in lobbying against tax increases, and in avoiding paying tax in the first place, it is increasingly difficult to raise the revenues needed for existing services. Taxes on consumption – which hit the poor hardest – have been implemented, but there is limited political tolerance for these. States are increasingly left with very little room to manoeuvre, while the growing domination of government discourse by neoliberal doctrine tends to suppress policy choices which are not ‘market-friendly’.

and then uses Doran's phrase to describe Labour's 'lose, lose' electoral prospects as "Pasokification"...

The party is trapped in a spiral of self-destruction, which James Doran, a Labour activist, has called ‘Pasokification’. Greece’s dominant centre-left party implemented austerity and its vote collapsed from 43.9 per cent in 2009 to 4.7 per cent in 2015 – but Pasok’s fate is only an extreme form of the implosion threatening most European social democratic parties, from the German Social Democrats to the French Socialists. The Labour Party faces a dilemma in May. Defeat will be demoralising and will increase the possibility that the party will ultimately collapse. There is little evidence that any significant force, other than the Blairites, would be in a position to take advantage of Miliband’s loss, and certainly none that a Labour left with any influence would emerge from the ruins. Yet if it wins, Labour will be forced to implement an austerity agenda which, while not enough to satisfy Conservative voters, will turn its own remaining voters off in droves.
 
“Michael was a visionary, there’s no doubt about that and he fought battles with the right of his party like Michael Portillo against active government and I believe in active government, which is different from intervention. Active government is working in partnership with the private sector.”

Chukka the Tory?
 
Deeply unimpressed, albeit unsurprised, about Miliband's criticism of Cameron on foreign policy. His main issue with Cameron on Libya was "post-conflict planning" as if somehow the main issue with the imperialist bombing of Libya or for that matter Iraq, Serbia ad infinitum was throwing a few more resources at controlling the fallout. Vote Labour for a smarter, better imperialism where refugees don't inconvenience us after we are finished bombing them.
 
Deeply unimpressed, albeit unsurprised, about Miliband's criticism of Cameron on foreign policy. His main issue with Cameron on Libya was "post-conflict planning" as if somehow the main issue with the imperialist bombing of Libya or for that matter Iraq, Serbia ad infinitum was throwing a few more resources at controlling the fallout. Vote Labour for a smarter, better imperialism where refugees don't inconvenience us after we are finished bombing them.
Wasn't this Farage's line?
 
Wasn't this Farage's line?

Nah, Farage opposed and still opposes the actual bombing and has made a commitment that he believes that we should give asylum to refugees (albeit only Christian ones) which is more than you can say for Miliband. Depressing that the nearest one to a vaguely humanitarian policy on Libya is the leader of UKIP but that is where we are apparently.
 
...you Jane.:facepalm:

Lord Heseltine, the former Tory deputy prime minister who championed the regeneration of Britain’s inner cities in the 1980s, is being lined up by the shadow business secretary to advise Labour in government.

In a sign of how some Labour figures will try to revive the “big tent” approach of Tony Blair, Chuka Umunna described Heseltine as a visionary who could advise him on plans for the further devolution of power to the English cities and regions.

“There is no denying it, a lot of people in the Labour movement are quite inspired by what he’s done in rejuvenating cities and regions,” he told the Guardian. “Just because he is a Tory should not stand in the way of us working with him in the future and I very much hope to do that.”

'kinnel.:facepalm:

e2a : Sorry...Bishop's Finger post...again.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom