Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why Labour are Scum

killer b said:
Are all woman shortlists imposed by the party? ... I know this 'cause my dad just had a massive fight on his hands trying to push an all woman shortlist through in the ward next to mine - he had very little support from the regional office.
Click to expand...

Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.
 
Quartz said:
Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.
Click to expand...
No they don't.
 
Quartz said:
Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.
Click to expand...

It's not very often I come down on the same side as 'men's rights activists' (and I'm not suggesting you are one of these btw) but yeah, it's wrong. Not because it discriminates against men but because It's top-down and arbitrary and completely disregards the causes of existing inequalities. It's a policy designed to look good at a passing glance, not to actually work.

It's not even fair on women that they're not able to succeed purely on their own merits. And there's evidence on this thread that all women shortlists are being used by the people at the top to control the grassroots level of the party.
 
And yesterday Labour were trying to make something of a Tory's absence at PMQs. Only for it to backfire when it became known that his wife was in hospital and he was at her bedside. Oops.
 
Last edited:
Quartz said:
Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.
Click to expand...

Won't somebody think of the menz???

:facepalm:
 
SpookyFrank said:
It's not very often I come down on the same side as 'men's rights activists' (and I'm not suggesting you are one of these btw) but yeah, it's wrong. Not because it discriminates against men but because It's top-down and arbitrary and completely disregards the causes of existing inequalities. It's a policy designed to look good at a passing glance, not to actually work.

It's not even fair on women that they're not able to succeed purely on their own merits. And there's evidence on this thread that all women shortlists are being used by the people at the top to control the grassroots level of the party.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point, Frankie-boy.
The point being that "all-women shortlists" do the central party several favours and aren't at all arbitrary:
1) They disempower constituencies from one of the few remaining things they're permitted - selection.
2) They allow the party as a whole to look as if they're "challenging sexism" (although all they're actually doing is window-dressing).
3) They permit the insertion of "on-message" candidates into safe seats, "locking in" the loyalty of those candidates to the party heirarchy, and not the constituency party.
Of course it's not designed to work. Not for the constituencies, anyway. But what do you expect? Labour has been gutting constituency parties of power for 20 years now!
 
killer b said:
I'm fine with them tbh. Certainly while there's (iirc) 3 women on the labour group in Preston.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with the idea, but not with how and why Labour put it into practice. As with most other things, they're using it to top-load the parliamentary party with slavishly-loyal machine politicians who've previously been wonks. Not good for democracy, such as it is.
 
that certainly isn't the case with the local parties (or at least this local party). Maybe in that London, but career politicians aren't interested in running for council in provincial cities.
 
ViolentPanda said:
You're missing the point, Frankie-boy.
The point being that "all-women shortlists" do the central party several favours and aren't at all arbitrary:
1) They disempower constituencies from one of the few remaining things they're permitted - selection.
2) They allow the party as a whole to look as if they're "challenging sexism" (although all they're actually doing is window-dressing).
3) They permit the insertion of "on-message" candidates into safe seats, "locking in" the loyalty of those candidates to the party heirarchy, and not the constituency party.
Of course it's not designed to work. Not for the constituencies, anyway. But what do you expect? Labour has been gutting constituency parties of power for 20 years now!
Click to expand...

You can't tell me I'm missing the point and then just agree with me, that's no fun :D
 
Sky news reporting John Cruddas as attacking Milliband and not implementing more of the IPPR report, the one that including stopping JSA for under 21's and plenty more right wing stuff, localised welfare, etc.
 
Diane Abbot speaking at last week's nonexistent protest. Stupid cow couldn't even be bothered to turn up and vote against her own party's motion to stop the Bedroom Tax.
 
Quartz said:
Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.
Click to expand...

completely idiotic.

 
Quartz said:
Shortlists restricted to women are wrong and discriminate against men. I don't know about you, but I want the best people representing me, regardless of sex. And it's stupid and demoralising to all the male aspirants. If Labour want more women as candidates, they need to encourage them in different ways.
Click to expand...

I think it would be an excellent idea to have positive discrimination in favor of candidates who weren't privately educated. At least to the point where the proportion of candidates who were privately educated is representative of society as a whole.
 
How on earth do you get that from the article? You've gone from freezing corporation tax at current levels to being "in favour of corporate tax dodging". They are utterly different things and you know it.

The stuff about 25% of contracts going to SMEs is fuckwitted though. The current lot haven't made it work, for all sorts of reasons, and nor will Labour.
 
Maurice Picarda said:
The stuff about 25% of contracts going to SMEs is fuckwitted though. The current lot haven't made it work, for all sorts of reasons, and nor will Labour.
Click to expand...

Of course it works, it's redistributed a lot of money from the majority of us to the already very rich. It has worked perfectly which is why Labour are so desperate to give it a veneer of legitimacy so they can continue it.
 
J Ed said:
Of course it works, it's redistributed a lot of money from the majority of us to the already very rich. It has worked perfectly which is why Labour are so desperate to give it a veneer of legitimacy so they can continue it.
Click to expand...

What on earth do you mean?

Look, it's a given that government spends money on goods and services, many of which come from the private sector. That's what redistribution looks like in a mixed economy.

The SMEs versus big business thing is a rather new political theme, mixing elements of protectionism and romantic right-wing anti-capitalism (pluck British SMEs versus faceless global monoliths). It doesn't work in practice because a) European procurement law and b) there is no real correlation between the size of a business and its probity or competence. Also, it's horrendously risky and expensive to bid for government contracts.
 
Maurice Picarda said:
That's what redistribution looks like in a mixed economy.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't! Redistribution is about people - rich people losing and poor people gaining. It doesn't matter if those rich people are in the private or public sector. What actually happens is, like the railways, the private sector creams off huge ammounts as profits and inflated "wages" to the already super rich. The only private sector which the government ought to give money to are sole traders where the operative, the worker makes the profit.
 
rioted said:
The only private sector which the government ought to give money to are sole traders where the operative, the worker makes the profit.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but it does mean that almost every industry sector will need to be nationalised immediately. I'm not entirely sure that will be a vote-winner.
 
rioted said:
No it doesn't! Redistribution is about people - rich people losing and poor people gaining. It doesn't matter if those rich people are in the private or public sector. What actually happens is, like the railways, the private sector creams off huge ammounts as profits and inflated "wages" to the already super rich. The only private sector which the government ought to give money to are sole traders where the operative, the worker makes the profit.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how he is refusing to see something so simple and obvious to I think the majority of people in this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hitmouse
Unions and Labour
Replies
20
Views
961
Fedayn
Fedayn
Humberto
Home Building Labour guff
Replies
1
Views
287
Humberto
Humberto
Kid_Eternity
New Labour government - legislative agenda
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
902
Views
31K
SpookyFrank
SpookyFrank
P
In Blackpool South, did people vote because they are head over heals with Labour
Replies
27
Views
1K
A380
A380
tim
Natalie Elphicke defecates to Labour
2 3 4 5
Replies
127
Views
5K
two sheds
two sheds
Back
Top Bottom