Anyone not yet taking that on board need look no further than Duncan Robinson’s article for The Economist, “Why Britain’s Labour Government Enjoys Hippy Punching”, and yes, the “grownups in the room”, having declared that anyone able to show empathy is a “Trot”, have also decreed that those individuals are also “hippies”, a word they couldn’t define.
Other than to point at said lefties, that is. Here’s a flavour of the article: “Hippy-punching is in vogue for two reasons. Partly, Labour’s leadership think it is good politics. More voters lurk to Labour’s right than to its left. It can afford to lose ‘vegan’ constituencies such as Bristol Central to the Green Party. A single voter in marginal Leigh [yes, Leigh is now ‘marginal’] is worth more than a pile of them in the Labour heartland of Liverpool”. Do go on.
“A positive piece in the Sun, a reactionary tabloid, is worth 99 simpering editorials in the Guardian, the hippy bugle … Partly, Labour’s leaders simply enjoy it. The party has a near-psychotic approach to its internal politics, and people now at the top have long dreamed of kicking lefties out of the party”.
There was more. “‘Country first, party second’ is a well-worn slogan of Sir Keir’s Labour. Factionalism still comes before both. Work combines with pleasure”. But not all remaining Labour MPs are enamoured of the puerile game playing, as Adam Bienkov of Byline Times noted.
Pro-nationalist Scots outlet The National splashed a photo of Labour apparatchiks celebrating, telling “LABOUR’S MESSAGE AFTER VOTING FOR TWO-CHILD CAP … ‘Celebration’ picture posted in aftermath of vote sparks condemnation”, to which Dan Hancox added “Good to see this made a front page. If you're going to spend 4 years lecturing the left that they don't know how to work with the media, are too unserious to effectively 'play the game' etc - then you deserve this”. It also revealed another NEC player.
Right in the middle of that group, rictus grin on display (as so often), the bloke holding a plastic glass half full of (apparently) beer, is one Abdi Duale. Who he? One of those on the NEC who has worked behind the scenes against the left, pal of Luke Akehurst, now celebrating the maintenance of poverty.
I have a question for Duale, Akehurst and indeed Morgan McSweeney: after all the self-congratulation, answer me this. How many members and supporters has this less than “grown up” behaviour alienated? How many people will be there to turn out and canvass for Labour next time round?
The Lib Dems held by-election trophy South Shropshire, and both constituencies that came out of the Tiverton and Honiton split. Labour failed to hold on to Mid Bedfordshire, in addition to all the independents taking seats from them, or running them close. What advantage will accrue from having your pure strain of authoritarianism lording it over everyone else?
It’s almost as if no-one in the Labour machine thought of that. Sad, really.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
38 comments:
Surely that photo is not genuine as a celebration of child starvation? Because if it is the Labour Party has now finally separated itself from human decency and any sense of moral democracy. Such an attitude has doomed itself to future demise, however long it takes.
That is a well-nigh incredible image which will never be forgotten or forgiven.
We were told that under the previous leadership, Labour were merely a protest party and they needed to get into government so they could help people. Now they are in government who exactly are they trying to help?
Not 300,000 kids living in poverty it would seem.
This essay was written in 2012. Since then Labour has moved much further to the Right, Corbyn blip excluded. But the move really began in 1997 with Blair and Brown. Blair of course bailed out before the inevitable consequences of the shift. Brown took the hit. Starmer and Reeves will now make matters yet worse.
https://theconversation.com/oh-the-morality-why-ethics-matters-in-economics-5963
Indefensible bastardy, yes. Vengeful victimisation, yes. Smug triumphalism, yes. Betrayal of principles, undoubtedly. Short-sighted stupidity, certainly.
But that makes them 'no different from the Tories'? Simplistic cobblers. Precedency between a louse and a flea? Maybe; but it's fine margins, Brian, innit.
Anyway, for a change of continent let's hear how Kamala Harris is indistinguishable from Trump and how, if you were a US voter, you wouldn't lift a voting finger to help prevent the success of the Donald.
It only took three weeks, but here we are - Labours right once again shows they're as thick as pig shit. Despite the evidence coming thick and fast that attempting to win over Tory voters, boomers and the Tory press utterly failed, here they are, at it again. Sod getting children out of poverty with all the national benefits that brings. Sod taxing wealth and investing in public services that would make the uk's workforce more competitive, through improved education, good health and an infrastructure that gets people what they need, and to where they need to go, as swiftly as possible. Sod getting rid of wasteful, time consuming, and demoralising privatisation and tendering out. And of course, to hell with helping the disabled and the poorest off out of poverty. God no, that all makes economic, social and political sense! Something which new Labour know sod all about. As for the despicable party apparchiks, the useless, petty bunch of non entities that now call the shots - thanks. For nothing.
Indefensible bastardy, yes. Vengeful victimisation, yes. Betrayal of principles, undoubtedly. Smug triumphalism, certainly.
This makes them 'the same as' the Tories? Simplistic cobblers.
A matter of 'the point of precedency between a louse and a flea'? Perhaps, but it's fine margins, Brian, innit.
Anyway, let's have a change of continent and hear why Kamala Harris is 'the same as' Donald Trump and how, if you were a US citizen, you wouldn't lift a voting finger to help prevent the re-election of God's Chosen One.
18:03, it's the same policy as the Tories. So it's you talking cobblers.
Discipline is important. It's only been a couple of weeks. Give this Labour government a break!
Please explain where the differences lay? Education policy - identical. Health policy - identical, indeed possibly even worse. Welfare policy - identical. Economic policy, as Private Eye put it, 'Reeves, Hunt, what's the difference'? No investment plans, same as the Torys, and even the FT is gobsmacked at the return to the 'light touch' bollocks that helped crash the economy on Labours last watch. The Torys Daily Express pleasing Bibby Stockholm and Rwanda plan have been scrapped, but it's been made clear that's on cost, not humanitarian grounds. Kendall and Streeting have re-started the 'lazy disabled' rhetoric, and Labour staffers are, not for the first time, celebrating putting themselves first, the country second - exactly the same as the Tories. Someone said to.me the other day, 'do you really think Labour under Starmer would have done Covid differently?' To which I could only answer - no. It's your right to defend Labour as you see fit. But sneering at those who, quite rightly, don't, merely demeans you, not them.
Ah, yes, Liverpool. How the establishment and its apologists hate that glorious city. Hence all the poisonous political, economic and propaganda attacks.
And it's beyond belief that the picture posted by Netanyahu-fanboy Joshua Garfield was actually what he claims it to be (his X posts are now 'protected') though I can see how it fits the (unavoidable in this recent action) narrative of Labour being bastards. It will delight those who enjoy promoting such a narrative in the Comments on here (some of whom would have been really pissed off if
Starmer had scrapped the cap.
For the damage he's done (and for much else) Garfield should join the 'rebel' MPs in being suspended. But in his case by the scrotum.
Entirely predictable Reeves fanboys try to encourage 'Look over there at the USA'. Anything to divert attention from the latest Labour betrayal. But it won't work because the treachery is so palpable. It just draws nearer to the inevitable political consequences. This Labour policy tells you all you need to know about their future intentions. The sad thing is nobody is surprised at the latest act. Labour is every bit as despicable and reactionary as the repulsive Conservatives. This is just the start.
Oh for Gods sake. You moan about how 'puerile' other posters are then go on about a 'narrative' when Labours cabinet have already hoisted themselves by there own petards. Do I have to link to every speech by Streeting, Kendall, Reeves and co where they say nothing different, in any way to the Tories? Shall I link to where Barclays CEO says there is only 'minuscule' difference between Tory and Labour economist policy? Doubtless though you'd write him off as a screaming trot too. Various reports have shown the party is riddled with racism in it's current form. It persecutes anyone who suggest mildly progress policies. Then we have the silliest bit of petulance of all; 'some here would be really pissed off if Starmer had scrapped the cap'. No, I'd be bloody made up, taking my hat off to him, and had a little faith restored. But no. Starmer couldn't the bigger man.
So is democracy. Even more so is removing children from poverty. Anyone in the current govt who thinks party discipline is more important than that is no better than their predecessors.
By 'what he claims it to be' I mean his initial claim, that it was a celebration of the defeat of the amendment. The man is an idiot and he has form.
It only took Starmer and co a matter of days to show their true colours. As evil right wing as the loathed predecessors.
10:02, another day, another sniveling excuse of 'what I really meant to say'. Same old right wing apologist bs. With that attitude no wonder this country sinks further into decay.
@23.24
Calm down.
I assume you’re the same Anonymous who claimed earlier that Labour and Tory policies were ‘identical’ (which the last time I looked meant ‘exactly the same, indistinguishable’). Patent nonsense, so please don’t trouble me with your links.
2 things:
1. If you naively imagined that Starmer was going to give you Socialism then you were deluding yourself.
2. Has it not struck you that Labour’s vote share is precarious? That all that stuff about not raising taxes was simply electioneering lies to avoid giving the rags anything to frighten the horses with? That all the doom-laden ‘discoveries’ that have been made post-election about the state of the NHS, education, the finances generally are actually a calculated ploy to prepare for the inevitable raising of taxes to enable increased public spending on health, education etc etc? That all the flag waving posturing and the hardline culture war stuff is to keep onside as far as possible an electorate who read the Mail and the Express, love the ‘Royals’, believe in something called ‘common sense’ and voted fairly recently for Brexit and for Boris Johnson? And that if those people are not kept on board then you will revert to government by the party which has ruled us for most of the last century?
Because that’s the deal in the 2024 UK: Starmer OR Braverman/Jenrick/Patel/Badenoch. And it’s unlikely to change anytime soon.
And if you really can’t tell the difference (and a notification has just popped up on my phone that ‘Britain has dropped its challenge to the ICC arrest warrant for Israeli leaders’ ) then please admit that you’ll view the return of Braverman/Jenrick/Patel/Badenoch (and even Johnson) with complete equanimity.
Why so coy, Anon?
Come on, Harris or Trump? Surprise us for once.
Minor typos: north Shropshire, not south. But the point stands.
I hate to say it, but yes. The ever loathsome Alan Milburn has, in tandem with equally loathsome liz Kendall, just launched a 'new report' into 'economic inactivity' which, you guessed it, says exactly the same things as the Torys last effort on the same topic. Indeed Kendall added insult to injury by reworking Strides comment about Depression. The same dreary emphasis on forcing people who can't work, into work - whether they can or not is deemed irrelevant -because 'allowances will be made'. Ie, here's a pencil, you can tap the keyboard using your teeth. The recommendation is that the disabled will, as the unemployed have to, 'engage' with a battery of work coaches etc. Or else risk losing benefits. No mention in the report of the vile behaviour of far too many DWP staff, the thousands of deaths directly linked to the DWP, or the condemnation of them.by the UN. So, business as usual then for the UKs answer to T4. The party symbol over the gates may have changed but the ideology is the same.
12:34.
Same old Murdoch/Rothermere ranting rightie "look over there" attempted diversion bs. Which fails because of Starmer/Reeves actual political actions HERE. One of their first actions is to continue cowardly tory starvation of children. This speaks volumes for their intentions to follow far right policies. And you support such policies by facile malevolent nonsense that it is "politically necessary"...... the kind of mentality which has always obstructed progressive decency. In the last century it lead directly to totalitarian dictatorships.
Hence your absurd empty headed far right comic pomposity. A soap opera of corner shop/ale house chatter read directly from the Rothermere Heil and the Murdoch Slimes.
Not worth the proverbial carrot. Except to the Kid Starving righties, of which you are one.
Anonymous Ad Nauseous @12.34
Ok, swerve the question I asked (knowing full well what the answer would be ) but do attempt a little self-awareness before, in order to change the subject , you accuse someone of, er, changing the subject with a 'ranting rightie look over there'.
Was it my 'anyway let's have a change of continent' that brought that on? If so, nothing gets past you does it? But, unhelpfully, attempts to make people 'look over there' are rarely prefaced with the words 'look over there'.
And given the flob-flecked nature of your impotent daily diatribes, to unblushingly talk about others' 'ranting' does seem a little, well, impercipient, if that's not a word too 'absurd-empty-headed-far-right-comicpompous-soap-opera- corner shop/ale house-chatter-read-directly-from-the -Rothermere Heil-and-the-Murdoch-Slimes' for you.
I think the problem with the Bertie exchanges on these boards - and I'll talk both sides - is Bertie tends to talk tactics whilst others are concerned with strategy.
Bertie talks to us about tactics like we don't understand it, we talk to him about strategy like he doesn't understand strategy.
It could do with being a lot more civil I think. I'm not sure how many degrees we have but nobody here is less than clever.
We probably are closer than we think.
12:30, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It isn't necessary to vote for either. Your type of peculiar one dimensional mentality ensures perpetual evil. The longer your posts get the more reactionary grotesque they are.
15:41.
What's nauseous is your support of Kid Starver Quislings who are also accessories to mass murder and genocide of innocent Palestinians. You and your type will never wash off that murderous cowardice. You are stuck with it forever. No matter how much you try to Look Over There and line up behind Murdoch and Rothermere propaganda.
All you have to "offer" is more of the same far right muck couched in standard sophist bullshit.
I hate to appear conciliatory, Ed, but I have to agree with your tactics/strategy point. In my defence, though, I would say that in a 5-year cycle, beauty contest electoral system with a completely one-sided media intent on nurturing an ever more benighted and alienated electorate, tactics provide results while strategy can be no more than a circle-jerk *unless* it provides a means of access to power.
As far as civility goes, I think the tone is set most days by the ridiculously fevered nature of the first post. The views don't concern me as much as the impression anyone Zelo-curious might get that they've accidentally come upon the script of an episode of Citizen Smith rejected because it lacked verisimilitude.
Agreed. That being said the main reason for avoiding reading the comments / commenting is the ad nauseam screeds from Mr Anonymous. Just change the record in his case, evidently nothing better to do
@bertie, in fact, I said, many times, Starmer is as far from socialism as you can get. Nor did i expect anything less than Tory policies. Why do you not want links to Labour speeches, including ones made since the election? The fact these reveal that yes, the Torys and Labour are a fag paper apart too much for the old stomach? As for the rest, what is the point in Labour putting in place policies that people don't actually want? Bar doing exactly what you claim to fear - letting the Tories back in. Labour won with wafer thin majorities 'because' they shadowed Tory policies, not because people thought they 'might' go nuts once in. In five years time, where do you think the growing percentage of young voters sick of the Torys and blue Labour will go? What will happen to those who reluctantly voted for exactly what they're going to get? Not the Tories, but Reform. Blairs version of Labour pushed the Torys further right. Starmers leaves them no place left to go, leaving Farage to pick up the pieces. As for picking on piecemeal policy sops to Labour voters, Blairs been there, done that, and bought the t shirt. Meanwhile he carried on with a centre right overall strategy. Starmer by contrast, is right of centre. Please spare us the indignation over what is a matter of record. I would also suggest going to the websites for disabled people, already dismayed at zero change in policy or tone, and tell them how wrong they are. I mean what's more important? Your endless, fact free, claims Labour are better than the Tories, or the fact that Kendall has endorsed Milburns report that is word for word the same as Strides, and means their lives will be just as stressful, just as miserable as before. Sunak or Starmer, two cheeks of the same arse. You are entitled to your view, but when, as I and millions like me, are facing no change whatsoever, please understand just how annoying it is being told, despite what the minister is saying, we are wrong.
An example of the Starmer Quislings and how they are even worse than the others. This is the Milburn spiv and how he made millions from profiteering 'healthcare' companies 'patronage'.
https://democracyforsale.substack.com/p/private-healthcare-millions-starmer-alan-milburn
Nothing better to do?
I find anonymous refreshing. It is Bertie who clouds every post, spewing 12 words where 1 will do.
I'm starting to think you might not know the difference between strategy and tactics there Bertie, because what you just wrote would imply you don't.
Maybe we can just keep it cool then, because I was trying to bring some civility and you failed at the first hurdle.
As there is a tendency for certain posters to lump all 'anon' posts together, which is both confusing, and, when trying to frame a reply, frustrating, maybe Tim could insist, as other sites do, on some form of user name? Yes, I know, I still use anon, but that's just due to tech ignorance. As for young Berties point about putting posts people off, honestly, I wouldn't worry about it mr Burlington. Compared to other blogs/substacks/facebook/forums your old mates Spartist rants are absolutely tame. Anyone who's braved the internet for long enough is not going to be put off by that. Besides which, if Tim thinks they 'are' affecting hits, he can simply not publish them.
And I'm starting to think you might not know the difference between civility and waspish passive aggression, Ed.
I agree.
I imagine that some of the Anonymice's posts are disregarded because readers think they're from THE Anonymous (who, btw, used to post with his real name) and don't want to read what they've read many many times before.
Taking it further, why don't *all* posters simply use their own names, as I do.
Back on topic, heaven forfend, its interesting to note the 'consensus' among the media and talking heads on this issue. That being, that Starmer was absolutely correct, and mps should know better than to rebel. Ignoring the fact that fundamentally undermining democracy by suspending mps for voting with their conscience, IS a Tory tactic, and in fairness to them not one used that often (ie not on the first test of the govts stance), if anything demonstrates how Labour are seen as 'comfortable' to the right, this was it.
So, back on topic, Starmer/Reeves Quislings will continue to starve children in poverty. A far right tory policy.
Give me some credit Bertie. It is like when you give detailed directions to someone and, after they thank you, they immediately walk the wrong way.
Give me some leniency for that at least.
Post a Comment