Can nu labour pretend anymore to be a party of the left

[glenquagmire]

I see the good that your 20 Mps (and socialist in what way?) are doing right now - attacks on single mothers, attack on the NHS, attacks on the iraqi w/c. attacks right left and centre, padding for the super-rich, inequality through the roof, social mobility dead. It''s set up so that these interests can dominate.

We must be talking about different people here. The ones I was referring to have consistently voted against all those things.

If you honestly believe that parliament is all that politics can be then i don;t know what else to say to you other than open your eyes.

Where did I say that? It's a pretty large part in a parliamentary democracy though, wouldn't you agree?

 

[butchersapron]

We must be talking about different people here. The ones I was referring to have consistently voted against all those things./QUOTE]

Whoop-de-do! Proved my point thanks.

Where did I say that? It's a pretty large part in a parliamentary democracy though, wouldn't you agree?

Of course it is, it doesn't mean that you must embrace it or the structural imperatives written into it.

 

[glenquagmire]

Erm, what point have I proved?

And what "structural imperatives" are you talking about?

You don't have to embrace it but you're missing out on having some small influence on it if you don't try.

 

[CyberRose]

I see the good that your 20 Mps (and socialist in what way?) are doing right now - attacks on single mothers, attack on the NHS, attacks on the iraqi w/c. attacks right left and centre, padding for the super-rich, inequality through the roof, social mobility dead. It''s set up so that these interests can dominate.

If you honestly believe that parliament is all that politics can be then i don;t know what else to say to you other than open your eyes.

What are you gonna do about it?

 

[butchersapron]

Erm, what point have I proved?

And what "structural imperatives" are you talking about?

You don't have to embrace it but you're missing out on having some small influence on it if you don't try.

That your little grouops of socialist (unspecified) MPs after 100 years of labour's existence can do nothing to stop anything. Not nationally, not locally, not internationally. Unless you count having 20 Socialist MPs as a victory in itself?

The structural imperatives of the parliamenta ry process and of represenatative democracy, the ones that turned previoulsy elected left-wingers into tame beasts due to party loyalty. It's all be different this time though i'm sure.

 

[glenquagmire]

There are elections every 5 years, in case you hadn't noticed. That 20 could go up or down (some of them were elected in the last two elections for the first time, which sort of scerws yoru theory that no lefties are allowed to be candidates).

The structural imperatives obviously don't affect those who continue to vote for socialist measures.

And you still haven't suggested why ignoring parliamentary democracy is better than trying to improve it.

 

[butchersapron]

There are elections every 5 years, in case you hadn't noticed. That 20 could go up or down (some of them were elected in the last two elections for the first time, which sort of scerws yoru theory that no lefties are allowed to be candidates).

The structural imperatives obviously don't affect those who continue to vote for socialist measures.

And you still haven't suggested why ignoring parliamentary democracy is better than trying to improve it.

It could, if your deselection process ever manages to build up a national network with enough activists in each CLP to win there, then deselects the sitting MP in favour of a socialist (unspecified) one in every seat then if the NEC doesn't over rule this or take note of what's going on years before. (I reckon what, 200 -250 years?) Sounds rather familiar to a shambles that took place in far better condtions for this sort of tactic. Meanwhile, the other overwhelming block of the party has supported the killing of half a million people in Iraq, the dismantling of the welfare sate, the introduction of segragagated education and so on. Brilliant.

It might not effect them, but it effects the others, that's whyy the former lot are irrelavent.

That's because i haven't actually said that "ignoring parliamentary democracy is better than trying to improve it."

 

[glenquagmire]

Who knows how long it'll take? Or if it'll ever succeed? But it's a better chance than not engaging at all with parliamentary democracy.

I wish you'd stop going on about what the other block of the party has done. I take no responsibility for that and neither should anyone else in the party who opposed it (the majority).

You haven't said anywhere what you would do within the parliamantary democracy system other than ignore it. A couple of ideas? If none are forthcoming I'll assume you're just planning to ignore it.

 

[butchersapron]

Who knows how long it'll take? Or if it'll ever succeed? But it's a better chance than not engaging at all with parliamentary democracy.

I wish you'd stop going on about what the other block of the party has done. I take no responsibility for that and neither should anyone else in the party who opposed it (the majority).

You haven't said anywhere what you would do within the parliamantary democracy system other than ignore it. A couple of ideas? If none are forthcoming I'll assume you're just planning to ignore it.

Oh yes you should. You damn well should take some responsiblity for it. Socialist (unspecified) pilates in the labour party are particularly sickening.

 

[glenquagmire]

Please explain why those of us who oppose those policies should take responsibility for them. Unless you're suggesting that political parties should only contain people who agree on everything.

And I take it from your silence that you have no better ideas for how to use parliament to our advantage. Well, thanks for all your ideas, which have increased the sum of human happiness by as much as a sack of fresh horse shit. But I bet you feel all righteous and warm. Well done.

 

[butchersapron]

Please explain why those of us who oppose those policies should take responsibility for them. Unless you're suggesting that political parties should only contain people who agree on everything.

And I take it from your silence that you have no better ideas for how to use parliament to our advantage. Well, thanks for all your ideas, which have increased the sum of human happiness by as much as a sack of fresh horse shit. But I bet you feel all righteous and warm. Well done.

Yep, the reclaim labour approach winning ever more supporters. It *can* happen*

Instead of a clown like you joining, the proper harcore socialists (unspecified) should have left the party en masse and took their money and their energies with them - they didn't, which suggest to me that there is no such hardcore, that they agree with the war or didn't given tht much of shit. To remain in or to join a party that carries out such acts is to be morally complicit in them. It's as shot as black people joing the KKK.

Better than you're using it now you mean? Better than 1997? Better than the thachter period? You remember them structural imperatives that i mentioned earlier?

 

[butchersapron]

Labour has, in fact, never put a foot wrong. Not in the miners stike, not in the seamans strike, not when it called the troops in on striking workers, not on the refuse strike, nothing, always them naughty leaders, so always the chance to change.

 

[glenquagmire]

Instead of a clown like you joining, the proper harcore socialists (unspecified) should have left the party en masse and took their money and their energies with them - they didn't, which suggest to me that there is no such hardcore, that they agree with the war or didn't given tht much of shit.

Doesn't say much for your powers of logic.

To remain in or to join a party that carries out such acts is to be morally complicit in them. It's as shot as black people joing the KKK.

You're really talking far-fetched nonsense now. It's quite embarrassing. Morally complicit my stinking red arse. Those who do nothing to counter it in the only scene which matters unfortunately, Parliament, are those who are really complicit. And that includes you.

Better than you're using it now you mean? Better than 1997? Better thne the thachter period? You reme,ber them structural imperatives that i mentioned earlier?

Remember them alternative suggestions I mentioned earlier? No? Still nothing?

Hope your glow of self-satisfaction keeps you warm down there in the dustbin of history. I'm off home.

 

[glenquagmire]

That's right, Labour has never done anything wrong. Ever. That's exactly what I said.

Can you even read?

 

[butchersapron]

Doesn't say much for your powers of logic.

You're really talking far-fetched nonsense now. It's quite embarrassing. Morally complicit my stinking red arse. Those who do nothing to counter it in the only scene which matters unfortunately, Parliament, are those who are really complicit. And that includes you.

Yes, like you argued earlier, i deserve all i get from this govt, and so do the Iraqis for my own failings to stop the war - despite your own post that said that the only scene which matters was parliament - maybe i could have got elected and voted to stop the war? What a great idea!

And follow your own logic through please - those complicit are the labour party, the party which you think can be reclaimed. The party full of loads of socialist (unspecified). You've not even begun to think this through have you?

The idea of pressure being put on the labour party fromn within is unfathomable when i suggest it yet it's centrepeice of your own approach. Do you actually fowllow your own arguments *at all*?

Remember them alternative suggestions I mentioned earlier? No? Still nothing?

Hope your glow of self-satisfaction keeps you warm down there in the dustbin of history. I'm off home.

Offered, ignored in a blaze of strawmen.

You've offered one. I pointed out it's idicocy and the NEC have been well aware of it for over 30 years now and hav etaken steps to neutralise it.

 

[Macullam]

No I have no idea really about economics, what is a social-enterprise bullshit?

And how do you think we should get unemployed into work?

35 hour week would be a good start

 

[audiotech]

Oh, I thought it was to save money. Maybe they should pick up the recycling bin every week and the black one once a month instead?

Either way, my point is, if you can walk out your front door and straight into a job (which you can today) then I can't see why people don't get a job (unless they are unable for whatever reasons). And I never said that they should replace existing workers (that was torres and biff "I like to say cunt a lot" curtains putting words into my mouth in place of an argument)

There are shit loads of community projects that people don't get paid to do that would benefit emensly from more volunteers, so why can't unemployed people help them out? Like I said, 10 hours per week = min wage, and if they are doing chairty work then they are hardly attacking anyone's wages are they?

And no, calling me a cunt is not a valid alternative to an argument...

So, do you think that nobody unemployed does community, or voluntary work?

 

[butchersapron]

So, in summary, in July 2007 - don't only vote labour. join labour. Un-be-lievable.

 

[audiotech]

35 hour week would be a good start

....and a fairer tax system and stop subsidising poverty pay.

 

[glenquagmire]

Almost as unbelievable as doing nothing, like torres. And then you have the nerve to complain.

 

[poster342002]

Well the main issue in the news right now is refuge collection (or lack of it). Why not get those on benefits who are able to work to help out collecting rubbish? Then we wouldn't have the problems we apparently have regarding refuge collection...

Alternatively, why not create a vast number of proper, fully-paid refuse-collection jobs for people to do this?

 

[poster342002]

Not a good example... 2 weekly bin collections is about encouraging/forcing people to recycle, not because there's a lack of binmen...

No, it's a cutback dressed-up as environmentalism. Expect much, much more of this green-painted rightwing bullshit in future.

 

[poster342002]

when the vote easily goes in favour of paying dole. And it would.

In today's rancid political climate, I wouldn't bank on it.

The only political direction this country seems able to go is right, right and right again.

 

[treelover]

I have to agree with this, the speed the new welfare reforms are being brought in is breathtaking.

 

[lewislewis]

This thread makes me thank God for devolution.

 

[CyberRose]

This thread makes me thank God for devolution.

Yea but there's no scientific proof that devolution exists...

 

[Jografer]

No, it's a cutback dressed-up as environmentalism. Expect much, much more of this green-painted rightwing bullshit in future.

Erm, no, round here there are still weekly collections, just that general landfill waste only gets collected every 2 weeks...

 

[lewislewis]

Yea but there's no scientific proof that devolution exists...

(hoping that's a joke post? I meant devolution as in Wales/Scotland getting their own governments right?)

 

[laptop]

Yea but there's no scientific proof that devolution exists...

Eh? You've got semi-devolved transitional forms (fformiau trancitional cemi-ddefolfed), you've got selection pressure...

What more evidence do you want?