Tag Archives: Labour

Fuck the Labour Rebels

True Labour Jeremy Corbyn favours a kinder way of doing politics. He probably wouldn’t approve of the title of this post, nor some of the content.

That’s OK. I admire and respect his straightforward, but polite, approach, but I’m not Corbyn.

I’m pretty sure that Jeremy Corbyn, like all of us, has character flaws. I don’t think he’s a Messiah, however much his opponents try to smear him and his opponents by insisting support for him is a cult.

He is, however, conspicuously honest.

The coup attempt that’s going on now has been planned for months, but the plotters have used his supposed “lacklustre” campaigning in the EU referendum as an excuse, claiming he lost for the Remain side.

In fact, his guarded support for Remain seems to have struck a chord with many Labour supporters, and maybe others too. It was a refreshing change for around ⅔ of Labour voters, and probably a good few people who don’t normally vote because “they’re all the same, aren’t they?” His campaign was not lacklustre, just lacking in lies and hyperbole.


So now 172 Labour MPs have voted against Corbyn, with 40 supporting him. The message from the rebels seems to be that “he’s a decent man, but no leader.” This phrase has been repeated verbatim, which makes it pretty damn unlikely that it’s a sincere sentiment, but rather a scripted conspiracy.

The rebels also seem to be complaining that Corbyn is “out of touch” because the majority of Labour MPs don’t support him, yet the can’t see how out of touch they look when a MASSIVE majority of Labour Party members do support Corbyn, and not them.

The plotters want Corbyn to resign, ostensibly to avert a crisis in the Labour Party.

There are two problems with this. Firstly, the crisis is of their making. part of their plot, albeit an inept one.

Secondly, Corbyn has declined the opportunity to cut his own political throat, and the rebels only other recourse is to put up a challenger in a leadership. Such a challenger has practically no chance of getting elected, which is why they wanted Corbyn to resign. If he did so, he’d have to be nominated by 50 MPs to get on the ballot, not very likely given the confidence vote. If he remains in place he, as the incumbent, is automatically added to the ballot.

By refusing to resign, he’s thrown the conspirators’ plans into disarray.

How will they manage to cover up the Chilcot report, due on July 6th, with Corbyn still there to throw a spanner in the works?

Fuck ’em.


Read more elsewhere:

MP Reed never consulted us on Corbyn, say Labour members

The truth behind the Labour coup, when it really began and who manufactured it (EXCLUSIVE)

A disgustingly self-serving betrayal of the entire labour movement

The ‘Labour Coup’ against Jeremy Corbyn – in an ugly little nutshell


Labour Supports Tory #WelfareBill


Keir Hardie must be spinning in his grave.

Politicians are forever telling us, the plebs, that if we don’t go out and vote, we have no place complaining about the result.

I did vote in the last election, as I do in every election. The MP I voted for was one of those who abstained rather than vote against a Welfare Bill that will push already struggling people further into poverty. When they lose votes, I expect they will forget not to complain, and will instead blame the voters. They might pick up a few votes from people who normally vote Conservative, but that will be a drop in the ocean compared to the disaffected Labour voters, who are getting sick and tired of giving Labour “one more chance”.

The support that has been shown for Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership contest (the only candidate to vote against the bill) ought to inform the party that there is a need for more left-leaning politics, but they just accuse his supporters of being “out of touch with the rest of the country”, as if they have a finger on the nation’s pulse. If they did, they would have noticed the clamour for them to provide a real opposition to the Tories.

Still, at least the MPs get their pay rise, so not everyone has to endure austerity.

The Name May Change, But Disdain for the Poor Remains the Same


Liam Duncan Smith….or is it Iain Byrne?

On Wednesday, Iain Duncan Smith brought in a bill designed to deny illegally sanctioned jobseekers redress, by retrospectively changing the law. Picking on people who are barely able to afford to eat is bad enough, but legislating to declare your illegal actions legal after all sets a dangerous precedent.

The Labour Party should have opposed the bill on both counts but instead, at the behest of Liam Byrne, all but around 40 Labour MPs abstained.

Whenever Liberal Democrat MPs allow Tories to win votes in the House of Commons by abstaining, Labour MPs are quick to point out that they are, effectively, voting with their coalition partners.

I agree, but the same applies when the boot is on the other foot.

The Labour MP who purports to represent me wasn’t one of those who voted against IDS’s bill, so I will now have a difficult decision at the next General Election, unless the Labour Party return to their roots, and start to actually defend the poorest and most vulnerable people in society.

The longer that Liam Byrne stays on the front bench, the more difficult it will be to persuade voters that they are any different from the Tories.


Roll On the General Election

LIke many people, I stayed up all night on 1 May 1997, in anticipation of a resounding Labour victory.

I shall probably vote Labour in the next General Election, and in any local elections that occur before then. I won’t be doing so as enthusiastically as I did in 1997 though. I won’t be voting for somebody as much as against somebody else.

In the constituency that I live in, the choices are usually limited. There are the usual three main parties; Labour (least bad); Conservative (currently leading the war on the poor); and Liberal Democrats (the Conservatives’ willing collaborators).

In addition there are usually an assortment of fringe candidates, mostly even more right-wing than the Tories, such as UKIP and the BNP.

My problem with Labour is that they use similar, demonising language to describe people on benefits as the Coalition do. Their “Job Guarantee” scheme is not much better than the workfare being promoted by the government. People will be paid, but at minimum wage, and the job might not be suitable for the person being forced to do it. While ATOS are declaring genuinely sick and disabled people fit for work, this is a real risk, and Labour have yet to say that they’ll stop the Work Capability Assessments, or even to reform them into something fair.

Ed Balls has said, more than once, that their regime for welfare will be “tough but fair”. Why “tough”, and on whom? Why not just “fair”? If it’s fair, then anyone who doesn’t really deserve help will find it tough, but what about everyone else, all the people who are now terrified that they’ll be left destitute by this uncaring government? Labour’s rhetoric isn’t much comfort, I’m afraid.

There were some hints of what I’d like to hear from Labour during the debate on the Benefits Uprating Bill yesterday, but mostly from backbenchers, and some of the most powerful contributions came from other opposition parties, such as the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas.

Labour’s front bench needs to stop running scared of the Tories bellicose attacks, and stand up for vulnerable people. There would then be a real choice, and potential voters wouldn’t be able to make the all too familiar claim that “they’re all the same!”