Why Labour are Scum

[butchersapron]

So it's worse than pointless then, since they have no control over what a government appointed team will do which presumably means the new team will cut services more than they would have done.

The Greens in Brighton came in for a lot of stick - was that true for them too?

So you joined to help them administer cuts rather than build a coalition not led by councilors but by a wider coalition that makes the imposition of cuts an impossibility - you know, like the poll tax? That's the only point of corbyn. Otherwise, just why fucking...bother?

 

[killer b]

So it's worse than pointless then, since they have no control over what a government appointed team will do which presumably means the new team will cut services more than they would have done.

The Greens in Brighton came in for a lot of stick - was that true for them too?

It isn't worse than pointless at all. If your only power is deciding what to cut first, then why not go all out? Call their bluff and set an illegal budget, have members ready to occupy council buildings and the like, take thousands of people with you to court, etc etc. Obviously this all takes mass, angry support to pull it off, but it works.

Or just close another library with a sad look on your face.

 

[killer b]

imagine all these people were doing something.

 

[Pickman's model]

imagine all these people were doing something.

jezza corbyn's zombie army

 

[Mr.Bishie]

imagine all these people were doing something.

Armed with pencils?

 

[Pickman's model]

Armed with pencils?

Jc doing the bingo calling

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Jc doing the bingo calling

Then they'd be armed with blotters. You never been to the bingo?

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Apparently the middle class who attend the bingo, call them 'daubers' - fuckin daubers

 

[RedSkin]

Most left wing Labour government, 1945, sent troops in against striking dockworkers, so depite massive positive top-down implimentations, still opppsed to class srtuggle when waged by the working-class themseves

 

[rioted]

imagine all these people were doing something.

I hope you are propagandising by the deed. Leading by example.

 

[redsquirrel]

FWIW, Lancashire County Council is NOC - slim Labour lead but not a majority. In GE terms, Lancashire is mostly Tory.

The Exec is Labour, David Borrow the one justifying these cuts is Labour. Sorry that's a pathetic excuse - and highlights all the weakness of making Labour your vehicle for any politics.

 

[redsquirrel]

In fairness there's bog-all Labour councils can do about central funding cuts, their ability to set up alternative funding streams was stripped away years ago and they can't refuse to set a "balanced budget" because the regulator just gets sent in to do it for them. It makes council elections something of a sham but no-one's made a fuss about that for a very long time.

What BA, VP and KB said, if they were really serious about fighting cuts Labour councillors could organise on/around the issue. I don't accept that that they can't do anything about, but pretending for the moment that it is true then what's the point of joining Labour? General question to Corbyn supporters not to you specifically.

 

[mauvais]

The Exec is Labour, David Borrow the one justifying these cuts is Labour. Sorry that's a pathetic excuse - and highlights all the weakness of making Labour your vehicle for any politics.

Who's making who the what now?

Not an excuse as such, just another barrier to - someone else - achieving anything or even bothering in the first place.

 

[inva]

Most left wing Labour government, 1945, sent troops in against striking dockworkers, so depite massive positive top-down implimentations, still opppsed to class srtuggle when waged by the working-class themseves

I'd never heard of that before, found this interesting link about it on google.

The Labour Government took office on July 27, 1945. Within a week it was to send conscript troops into the Surrey Docks, London, to help break a dockers' 'go-slow' which had been going on for ten weeks. An ominous beginning.

Old Labour eh?

Also this bit reminded me of McDonnell's talk of innovation and productivity:

When Mr. Wilson speaks of 'overmanning of jobs', he means that he would like to see fewer men producing the same amount, His aim is an intensification of the labour process. Under capitalism, where the worker is robbed of a substantial proportion of the wealth he produces, an intensification of the labour process can only mean an increased rate of exploitation.

 

[butchersapron]

Who's making who the what now?

Not an excuse as such, just another barrier to - someone else - achieving anything or even bothering in the first place.

What? The exec is labour lead. What' the the confusion?

 

[Rob Ray]

What BA, VP and KB said, if they were really serious about fighting cuts Labour councillors could organise on/around the issue. I don't accept that that they can't do anything about, but pretending for the moment that it is true then what's the point of joining Labour? General question to Corbyn supporters not to you specifically.

They can't fight cuts though, not while retaining control. All they can do is set an "unbalanced" budget which then gets shredded and redone by a Westminster wonk. At best, it's a political statement involving abdicating responsibility for the very role you campaigned to be in. Yes you can possibly do that as part of a mass campaign of disruption, but if that mass movement exists anyway it's mostly just a minor symbolic addition to the real threat, hardly worth the enormous resources required to win the seat in the first place. And tbh, it completely misreads the mindset of the vast majority of the people who sign up to be council members - they believe in setting responsible budgets, that's why they're there.

As for what's the point in joining Labour, my answer is of course that beyond relatively minor tweaks to aspects of national policy (which I'll allow is not insignificant as a factor, but it's not what they sell themselves on) there's no point joining Labour, it'll always be unable to reconcile the desires of its membership to reform capitalism with the requirements of managing capital in a neoliberal hegemony.

 

[killer b]

I hope you are propagandising by the deed. Leading by example.

Certainly not - I just moan about it on the internet.

 

[butchersapron]

They can't fight cuts though, not while retaining control. All they can do is set an "unbalanced" budget which then gets shredded and redone by a Westminster wonk. At best, it's a political statement involving abdicating responsibility for the very role you campaigned to be in. Yes you can possibly do that as part of a mass campaign of disruption, but if that mass movement exists anyway it's mostly just a minor symbolic addition, hardly worth the enormous resources required to win the seat in the first place. And tbh, it completely misreads the mindset of the vast majority of the people who sign up to be council members - they believe in setting responsible budgets, that's why they're there.

Fuck me, what happened to you?

Fulfilling roles is now good? Forcing a crisis by refusing to? It doesn't exist, it may be sparked by a pointless sacrifice.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't do nothing ever because of everything ever.

 

[Rob Ray]

Fuck me, what happened to you?

Fulfilling roles is now good? Forcing a crisis by refusing to? It doesn't exist, it may be sparked by a pointless sacrifice.

As always, depends on the role - I'm not tremendously fussed whether councillors do or don't. Was I previously more enthusiastic about the prospect of pointless sacrifices from councillors catalysing mass revolt?

Edit: Perhaps I was, dunno. Right now though I think councillors' rebellions can only really follow mass activity, and would be icing on the cake rather than the buttery biscuit base. And obviously I'm not in favour of "do nothing ever," I'm currently working quite hard on doing a magazine, new book and suchlike in time for the Bookfair, which I'm also helping out at. Not being enthused by one tactic doesn't mean I've given up.

 

[redsquirrel]

Who's making who the what now?

Not an excuse as such, just another barrier to - someone else - achieving anything or even bothering in the first place.

People, including an non-negligele number of U75 members, have hitched their politics to Labour over the last year, either joining the Labour party or at least paying $25, on the basis that this is the best path for socialist/pro-working class/social democratic politics. Then how do they justify these cuts? How do they intend that Labour fights at a local level? Making an excuse (and it is precisely that) that 'Labour can't do anything' while being the executive simply isn't good enough, it's the same type answer that the parties have been using since year 1.

They can't fight cuts though, not while retaining control. All they can do is set an "unbalanced" budget which then gets shredded and redone by a Westminster wonk. At best, it's a political statement involving abdicating responsibility for the very role you campaigned to be in. Yes you can possibly do that as part of a mass campaign of disruption, but if that mass movement exists anyway it's mostly just a minor symbolic addition to the real threat, hardly worth the enormous resources required to win the seat in the first place. And tbh, it completely misreads the mindset of the vast majority of the people who sign up to be council members - they believe in setting responsible budgets, that's why they're there.

Well that's the point isn't it, for all this talk about a brand new dawn the Labour party is still attacking the working class. How do the new members intend to change that? If they do intend to change it. For me 'oh we can't do anything but manage capitalism' simply isn't a good enough answer, it's the same fucking answer that we'e had forever.

 

[mauvais]

I'm asking (as a general point rather than you as an individual) what's
People, including an non-negligele number of U75 members, have hitched their politics to Labour over the last year, either joining the Labour party or at least paying $25, on the basis that this is the best path for socialist/pro-working class/social democratic politics. Then how do they justify these cuts? How do they intend that Labour fights at a local level? Making an excuse (and it is precisely that) that 'Labour can't do anything' while being the executive simply isn't good enough, it's the same type answer that the parties have been using since year 1.

Well that's the point isn't it, for all this talk about a brand new dawn the Labour party is still attacking the working class. Hoe do the new members intend to change that? If they do intend to change it.

It's not a wholly conflicting point underneath. What's the point of trying to do anything with LCC as a focus in a context where both they and all the structures above can point at the constituents and say that, well, they democratically chose austerity as part of the national plan?

At least if you take that as a given, and decide to persist at council level, at the most simplistic level there's two options. Do something unilaterally, win and be able to demonstrate popular support through that. Or change the fundamental support first and persuade the constituents to express a new message at the ballot, then act on it. And both times we're into the nature of what the Lancashire demographic is.

Or you forget the council, treat it as an outcome rather than a factor, and go after the national imbalance, as many are - why London & the SE on the whole don't face such austerity.

Can any of that be done via Labour, I've no idea - and don't enormously care either way, tbh. Some of the above lends itself to Labour more than others, some is probably impossible with it as it stands. If it were a functioning, unified movement it might help.

 

[redsquirrel]

It's not a wholly conflicting point underneath. What's the point of trying to do anything with LCC as a focus in a context where both they and all the structures above can point at the constituents and say that, well, they democratically chose austerity as part of the national plan?

At least if you take that as a given, and decide to persist at council level, at the most simplistic level there's two options. Do something unilaterally, win and be able to demonstrate popular support through that. Or change the fundamental support first and persuade the constituents to express a new message at the ballot, then act on it. And both times we're into the nature of what the Lancashire demographic is.

Or you forget the council, treat it as an outcome rather than a factor, and go after the national imbalance, as many are - why London & the SE on the whole don't face such austerity.

Can any of that be done via Labour, I've no idea - and don't enormously care either way, tbh. Some of the above lends itself to Labour more than others, some is probably impossible with it as it stands. If it were a functioning, unified movement it might help.

.

 

[mauvais]

Not sure what I'm meant to be looking at, sorry.

 

[killer b]

I'm not sure how accurate this article is, but it seems pretty relevant to recent discussions on the thread A Place Called Lambeth | Jacobin

 

[RedSkin]

They can't fight cuts though, not while retaining control. All they can do is set an "unbalanced" budget which then gets shredded and redone by a Westminster wonk. At best, it's a political statement involving abdicating responsibility for the very role you campaigned to be in. Yes you can possibly do that .

What like Militant Labour in Liverpool in the
80s? (Not that i support them)

 

[RedSkin]

Intetesting to find put Corbyn's response to striking rail workers and anti-gentification campaigners IF HE GETS IN POWER.

P.S. Cheers Inva for the link.

 

[DownwardDog]

Intetesting to find put Corbyn's response to striking rail workers and anti-gentification campaigners IF HE GETS IN POWER.

Capitulation and ambivalence respectively.

 

[RedSkin]

The reason there were such massive concessions to the working class after the second world war was we had seen the 'officer class' up close & personal and realised what ineffectual idiots they were. Surely we could make a better job of running things, plus we've all been trained how to fight now!
This was related to me by many of the older, deceased generations of my family and that was just the grandmothers/great aunts working the munitions factories!

 

[two sheds]

So you joined to help them administer cuts rather than build a coalition not led by councilors but by a wider coalition that makes the imposition of cuts an impossibility - you know, like the poll tax? That's the only point of corbyn. Otherwise, just why fucking...bother?

Well I actually joined to help vote Corbyn in to form a government that would actually be able to increase the budgets of local councils so that they aren't forced into administer cuts. One that makes the imposition of cuts irrelevant - you know, because the budgets are increased?

Funny, I thought *that* was the whole point of electing Corbyn rather than doing something that means you have no actual authority to change things any more.

I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war.