Labour Party facing bankruptcy
- This topic has 171 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As I was in Waterstones yesterday I had a look inside the book by Rachel Reeves, the would-be future Chancellor of the Exchequer, on “The Women who Made Modern Economics”. I see it has a chapter on Rosa Luxemburg. Which would mean that if she actually read anything by her (which is by no means certain since she has been exposed as a common plagiarist) she might have some acquaintance with Marxian economics.
She ends the chapter by saying that she is a Fabian rather than a Marxist. But even that’s not true as the Fabians stood for state capitalism (run by them) while she stands just for the predominantly private enterprise capitalism that we know today — and is under the illusion that it can be made to serve the interests of the majority class of wage and salary earners. She is in for a shock.
As I was in Waterstones yesterday I had a look inside the book by Rachel Reeves, the would-be future Chancellor of the Exchequer, on “The Women who Made Modern Economics”. I see it has a chapter on Rosa Luxemburg. Which would mean that if she actually read anything by her (which is by no means certain since she has been exposed as a common plagiarist) she might have some acquaintance with Marxian economics.
She ends the chapter by saying that she is a Fabian rather than a Marxist. But even that’s not true as the Fabians stood for state capitalism (run by them) while she stands just for the predominantly private enterprise capitalism that we know today — and is under the illusion that it can be made to serve the interests of the majority class of wage and salary earners. She is in for a shock.
isn’t it bizarre how these place(wo)men write(ish) books? i just can’t imagine anyone buying this one. weirdly enough, people did seem to buy blowjob’s book about churchill. naturally, i didn’t read it but i glanced at it. the most godawful trash.
Does anybody know anything about this? I realise the so-called Labour Party will stoop to anything but even this seems a step too far ….
It’s a bit dated mind you – Dec 2022 – but I came across it on Twitter
“BREAKING: Free school meal eligibility should be performance-based according to a leaked Labour policy document. “We need to incentivise children from disadvantaged backgrounds to perform in school rather than reward poor results.” https://t.co/LWpMte0Paf”
That reminds me: it seems Fran Perrin, the daughter of David Sainsbury, ennobled by Tony Blair, has given the Labour Party£1million (His Lordship has already given £2 million) it looks like bankruptcy is staved off thanks to the disinterested largess of this millionaire family.
An article in today’s Times by Will Lloyd of the New Statesman talks about “Dark Labour” and writes of it being the new Nasty Party.
Recalling that at the time of the 2011 riots Starmer was Prosecutor General (a key post on the repressive side of the capitalist state) and authorised the harsh prosecution of rioters:
“Comically cruel punishments were the consequence. A student was jailed for three months for stealing some water bottles; two men were send down for four years after inciting riots on Facebook, although no disorder occurred.”
Clearly the man is what the present Home
Secretary might call a “shit”.Lloyd goes on:
“Dark Labour is defined by its willingness to be harsh. . . On everything from migration and criminal justice to the war in Gaza, Dark Labour is the opposite of gentle and kind . . . The shadow cabinet is mirroring its leader, which is why members sound like prosecutors, not politicians.”
We have been warned. If a Labour government takes over next year we are in for a stretch of hard labour.
Times have a paywall
Link to the article above
Keir Starmer – a hypocrite to the core
Compare Keir Starmer's statements on the siege of Gaza with his arguments at the International Court of Justice in 2014, where he argued that the Serb siege of Vukovar was a case of genocide.
A thread on Starmer, international law and Gaza. pic.twitter.com/lu0X6sgXfB— Nicholas McGeehan (@NcGeehan) November 28, 2023
ALB
I’ve just read the piece. Workers need to take note! This is odd though
left wing attack on Labour in a right wing paper?I tweeted that a Labour government when it introduced its incomes policy, pay norms? Pay cut by any other means. Employers said that they wanted to pay staff more, to which Labour brought in a law any Employer that broke the law break their incomes policy faced prison.
I remember Dennis Healey, I think, when he bought in his incomes policy, wage cuts, saying; “it would hurt him more”
Who needs enemies with friends like Labour.There is also this that Lloyd draws attention to in his article;
“Starmer’s pronouncements, like those of Rachel Reeves, address this Britain. The pair talk of a volatile, insecure, dangerous world. They describe national rot and decline with furious dismay.”
And make the Trump-like promise that a future Labour government will Make Britain Great Again.
Meanwhile Labour are still making empty promises to make workers better off. Here’s a “Labour spokesman” quoted in today’s Times:
“We will invest in British industry to boost growth, cut bills and make working people better off.”
Oh yes? Only a mug would believe that. Where are they going to get the money from to invest? As if, anyway, any government can control the way capitalism works and make it “grow” just like that through an act of political will.
And stopping bills from rising (if they do that, which is open to question) is not the same as making workers better off; it would only be stopping them getting worse off.
Starmer is a man without any principles but Reeves sounds as if she really believes that a government can make capitalism grow. Just like Liz Truss . . .
One day Starmer praises Thatcher “plan for entrepreneurialism”
The next he says that “anyone who expects an incoming Labour government to quickly turn on the spending taps is going to be disappointed”.
Since “entreoreneurialism” is a fancy word for capitalism, it is clear that Starmer openly stands for capitalism and is prepared to run it on its terms by giving priority to business investment for profit over meeting people’s needs. He doesn’t even attempt to deny it.
We don’t need to wait to see that a Labour government will be no different from a Tory one. They are openly telling us that it won’t be — not that it could be anyway, as all government, whatever their political colour, are forced to give priority to profits over people’s needs. The problem is not the Labour or the Tories. It’s capitalism.
Forgot to add that Starmer is someone who thinks that capitalism is the only game in town but also understands that it has to be played according to its rules of profits first.
Thought I’d look up the meaning of that horrible word “entrepreneurialism” that he employed. It’s an economic system “characterized by the taking of financial risks in the hope of profit”.
If Starmer goes into the next General Election with the same poncified haircut he is sporting in that second film clip either he wont stand a chance or he will walk it.
No accounting for the taste of the working-class electorate.For once, the Tory toff, Rees-Mogg, is spot on
Now Labour is asking capitalist firms to help draw up its election manifesto. Apparently, they want to show that they are “the party of business”. They don’t need to convince us of that as we have always seen Labour as a capitalist party.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/inews-weekend/20231209/281715504394462
Labour steals yet more Tory clothes:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.