Why Labour are Scum

[butchersapron]

A nice man who helped to undermine comprehensive schooling in order to ensure that his own kids got a better start in life.

Fuck him and his Polly Toynbee piss weak Blair-lite politics.

Spot this? She charges 3 grand a talk. That and the guardian wage (and the inheritance) is how she sends her two kids to westminister school - 30 grand a year? Or is that a term?

(Now you might say fair play to her, fleecing the rich - but how are the rest of supposed to fleece them if all the places are already filled with the rich fleecing each other?)

 

[editor]

 

[brogdale]

Went to Bogdonor's Gresham's (I know ) lecture on Nye; very good. It was in his series about influential British politicians who never quite made it to the top...you know the sort of thing...the prime Ministers that never were etc. Howsomedever, during the talk that quote featured and Bogdonor went on to talk about the response from the tories. Typically, they revelled in the abuse and set up a whole 'grassroots' organisation called the Vermin club. Fatch was a member.

 

[ska invita]

DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling

Lawyer for Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, who won court battle over unpaid work, condemns 'repugnant' emergency law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland

...

The ruling meant that hundreds of thousands of jobseekers who had been financially penalised for falling foul of half a dozen employment schemes, including the government's flagship Work Programme, would have been entitled to a full rebate if a final government appeal was rejected by the supreme court.

However, the government has instead published a seven-page jobseekers (back to work schemes) bill to head off a potential multimillion-pound payout and "protect the national economy".

The Guardian understands that Labour will support the fast-tracked bill

 

[Fez909]

DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling

Lawyer for Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, who won court battle over unpaid work, condemns 'repugnant' emergency law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland

...

The ruling meant that hundreds of thousands of jobseekers who had been financially penalised for falling foul of half a dozen employment schemes, including the government's flagship Work Programme, would have been entitled to a full rebate if a final government appeal was rejected by the supreme court.

However, the government has instead published a seven-page jobseekers (back to work schemes) bill to head off a potential multimillion-pound payout and "protect the national economy".

The Guardian understands that Labour will support the fast-tracked bill

WTF? They have nothing to gain by supporting this. I don't understand.

 

[ymu]

Scum. Truly, they are scum.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

WTF? They have nothing to gain by supporting this. I don't understand.

Labout set the thing up; if it collapses, everyone will look bad.

 

[ska invita]

WTF? They have nothing to gain by supporting this. I don't understand.

Arent you impressed by their firm stand, fiscal responsibility, and ability to kick dole scum where it hurts? No? Then you're not their target voter

 

[Fez909]

Labout set the thing up; if it collapses, everyone will look bad.

I think the Tories set it up. The Work Programme began in 2011. Was this scheme in existence before that?

Arent you impressed by their firm stand, fiscal responsibility, and ability to kick dole scum where it hurts? No? Then you're not their target voter

I'm just trying to get my head around their reasoning. They have a chance to 'stand up' to the government here in a risk free environment: they won't have enough votes to strike down the law so the legislation gets passed anyway (their preferred outcome), but they also get to look like they're trying to do right by the poor, whilst not really alienating their target voters.

By siding with the Tories they get...what? Nothing (Unless Silas is right, and Labour brought this in).

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I think the Tories set it up. The Work Programme began in 2011. Was this scheme in existence before that?
By siding with the Tories they get...what? Nothing (Unless Silas is right, and Labour brought this in).

Freud Review, Flexible New Deal etc were all conceived under Labour and the Work Programme is a logical development, if perhaps one with coalition hallmarks of incompetent roll-out.

 

[Fez909]

Freud Review, Flexible New Deal etc were all conceived under Labour and the Work Programme is a logical development, if perhaps one with coalition hallmarks of incompetent roll-out.

Yeah, fair enough. It's all there from 2007.

 

[SikhWarrioR]

The nu-labour of the grinning spinning blair and gordon prudence brooon why should anyone loath them and NOT vote for them where do you start the questionably moral and even more questionably legal wars, the PPP/PFI scams, the bankster bailouts, being little more than the left wing of the tories, the trashing of the eviroment, getting in to bed with murdoch and the rest of the corporate scum, selling out trade union and employment rights, ID cards and the national DNA database behing ID cards etc etc etc why labour are scum the list is endless as to why labour are scu.......And the Torlibdem axis of evil under callmedave and his useful idiot cleggnocchio are no better time to take to the streets en-mass in our millions or we are gonna be well and truely screwed

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Freud Review, Flexible New Deal etc were all conceived under Labour and the Work Programme is a logical development, if perhaps one with coalition hallmarks of incompetent roll-out.

Spot on but you forgot employment zones and pathways to work. Other new labour schemes delivered by the private sector providers currently providing the work programme and workfare. Schemes imported from the US after being pioneered by new labour icon Bill Clinton.

As Silas suggests the only criticism possible for Labour is in respect of incompetence in delivery.

 

[ViolentPanda]

WTF? They have nothing to gain by supporting this. I don't understand.

That's because you're obviously too kind-hearted to see Labour as the bunch of neoliberal fucks that they are. What they have to gain is existential satisfaction, knowing that a) they've postured in the correct direction to assure some of the "Daily Mail vote" come the election, and b) haven't deviated from the "neoliberal shit sandwich with a garnishing of finely-chopped cilantro" that they served up to us from 1997-2010. They may (and it's open to argument) have been "the party of the working class" once upon a time, but not in the last 20 years. They started a lot of the "welfare reform" programmes that the Coalition have dived into with so much relish. The question you should ask is "why wouldn't those fucks support this?".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Labout set the thing up; if it collapses, everyone will look bad.

And that would affect those post-parliamentary sinecures with "private sector providers" that so many of the denizens of the lower house fervently hope for.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Scum. Truly, they are scum.

They are the scum that decent scum send to Coventry.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, fair enough. It's all there from 2007.

It was "there" from the moment Blair made Frank Field a minister of state for social security and told that self-satisfied fuckpiece to "think the unthinkable", way back at the end of the last century. Field's proposals may not have been adopted, but mutations of them started to appear in policy research by Labour-connected thinktanks from about 2001-onward, and were pushed/promoted by many ultra-Blairites.

 

[ska invita]

In a further move to reward work rather than welfare, Byrne says Labour will allow councils to give priority when allocating housing "to those who work and contribute to their community".http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/labour-plans-shift-welfare-payouts?commentpage=2

 

[Greebo]

In a further move to reward work rather than welfare, Byrne says Labour will allow councils to give priority when allocating housing "to those who work and contribute to their community".http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/labour-plans-shift-welfare-payouts?commentpage=2

No surprise there. He's the same scumbag who did nothing beyond uttering a few fine-sounding generalities when he was minister for disability (and carers).

 

[treelover]

Wasn't he going to fuck off if he had become Mayor of Birmingham, there's loyalty for you...

 

[treelover]

Scanning the liberal papers, It's amazing how many articles there are in the Press by Demos and IPPR apparatchiks, they are often described as 'centre left', oh yeah...

 

[ymu]

Is there no concept of people's circumstances changing through their lives, and of it maybe being a bit more likely that they can contribute when they're older if we give them a chance when they're younger?

Mustn't house that care-leaver or that teenager escaping an abusive family. They haven't contributed! They must sleep on the streets until they have.

I'm seeing tweets about Cruddas backing private social insurance too.

 

[Wilson]

Labour Partys dead to me,
Hang them from a fuckin' tree.

 

[Pickman's model]

Labour Partys dead to me,
Hang them from a fuckin' tree.

I favour the guillotine.

 

[Wilson]

Pickman's likes the guillotine,
But really he just has not seen,
The pickaxe will realise his dream.

 

[Pickman's model]

Pickman's likes the guillotine,
But really he just has not seen,
The pickaxe will realise his dream.

I know the pickaxe works but it takes a lot more work to kill someone with one than it does to use a guillotine. It's also a lot less messy to use a guillotine, and more socially acceptable.

 

[Greebo]

I favour the guillotine.

More efficient, but too kind. Make them live in the same conditions they've had a hand in creating.

 

[brogdale]

The shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, writing in the Observer, commits Labour to a return to the "old principle of contribution" championed by William Beveridge after the second world war. "There are lots of people right now who feel they pay an awful lot more in than they ever get back," Byrne writes. "That should change."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/labour-plans-shift-welfare-payouts

That has all the logic of burning your own house down to get value for money from your insurance payments.

 

[Plumdaff]

Liam Byrne doesn't understand the concept of aging.

 

[Belushi]

Liam Byrne doesn't understand the concept of aging.

Or of society.