A Barnsley Labour councillor really 'gets it' about Labour policy-making. He really does.
Student fees. Indefensible. I spoke against it at conference in 2003 before it came in. We were denied a vote on it. Denied by the party managers. Denied because once again the party was against it and they didn't want to have to listen. There is a real theme emerging here.
Damn right there is, Tim, you stick it to 'em, mate.
The lengths the party hierarchy went to, in order to prevent a debate on this issue as a separate topic were appalling. And pointless, as at the same conference there was a vote on the foundation hospital programme calling on the government to stop it. Despite it being passed by conference it lead to not one amendment, not one days delay and no policy change whatsoever. If the party can be ignored so blatantly and so often, we may as well have had the debate anyway.
He is totally correct, of course. New Labour's modus operandi is, and always has been, to pointedly refuse to even consider dissenting opinion on any initiative upon which they have arrogantly pronounced. As the bug-eyed burgher rightly highlights, democratic process is certainly no obstacle to them.
If Labour believe the end justifies the means, any tactics are acceptable. And those who disagree are generally dismissed as deluded, reactionary, childish, irrelevant, or any combination of the aforementioned. They will simply ignore electoral process entirely if necessary, just as they did in denying that referendum on the
He really gets it, that Councillor Tim.
Err ... except that he doesn't.
The article in question was in relation to what Tim (who represents an electorate who would vote for Wayne Slob if he wore a red tie) believes to be the five issues which have most harmed Labour. No mention of the Lisbon Treaty for some strange reason, even in the face of unprecedented electoral gains by UKIP since 2005, but he does make some valid observations on civil liberties and the Iraq war.
By inviting alternative suggestions, though, he then has a problem. You see, some people raise the smoking ban, and Tim really likes it. Despite the fact that a blanket ban wasn't in the Labour 2005 manifesto, and that Labour have spun, manipulated statistics, ignored dissenting voices, subverted public consultations, and whored themselves to big pharma in their puritan crusade to persuade us that the smokefree world is sweet-smelling and rosy. Timmy's confirmation bias swallowed it all without question so, following in the footsteps of the cabinet he rightly criticises, he does exactly as they would do. On his Twitter feed, he sticks his fingers in his ears, ridicules, condescends, and arrogantly dismisses.
I've had 3 blog responses claiming 'smoking ban' as biggest Labour blunder!?!? One named, 2 anonymous (thinking same bloke) but still WTF?
It's an opinion, Tim. You asked for them, your request was granted. It's how politics is supposed to be conducted and you are a politician. Got that?
But the advocate of the party which rails constantly against the unnecessary marginalisation of minorities based on stereotypes, is not averse to slinging a bit of unsubstantiated hatred around in the righteous cause himself when it suits him. Smoker opinions are to be ignored and ridiculed as, typically Labour, he doesn't agree with them.
No debate allowed. Merely insulting dismissal.
Ah! This would explain the vitriol, nonsensical argument and preschool spelling.
I liked the anti-netiquette dig at literacy. This from a guy whose desecration of question and exclamation marks earlier is the stuff of vacuous teens ejaculated from a Labour education system.
It's worth pointing out that while tweeting this to his lefty chums, Tim had still not replied to the commenters with an articulate response in disagreement. In fact, he hadn't even published them.
15 hours later, he considered the idea. Labour are rather addicted to moderation power trips, are they not?
Latest blog was a popular read 'under the bridge'. Guess I could publish all the smoke fuelled Troll rants. As unrepresentative as they are.
Apparently, personal opinions, which Tim invited, are unrepresentative. Of what he doesn't explain. The people who post them seem to think that it is representative of their opinion, so he must be talking about their views being unrepresentative of the people at large. Therefore they must be 'trolls' for expressing an opinion which is at odds with his own. After all, Tim is right and everone who doesn't think that Tim is right ... is wrong.
Tim. Do you not think that the reason you view these comments as unrepresentative could be that you are wedded to a party which is fucking hell-bent on suppressing dissent and differing opinion on a motherfucking daily basis. You talk in your own circles, crawl up the 'arris of every lefty MP who believes as you do, and when an alternative point of view is expressed, you disregard to the extent that you don't even bother posting it until you have ingratiated yourself with your own kind.
If you ever do comment, your reply will be to dismiss differing voices as deluded, reactionary, childish, irrelevant, or any combination of the aforementioned. You may even throw in a few fake charity stats into the bargain. You've already started the process.
Now, this might be an eye-opener for you, sunshine, but that's exactly what your top table did to you in 2003.
It's how Labour work. They frown on debate, thrive on arrogance and self-regard, while continually extolling mendacious, dogmatic, and insular thinking.
For a party which was reborn under the Campbell-inspired 'Third Way', it would be interesting to ascertain when that lateral idea was discarded, by the Labour front bench right down to provincial pricks like Tim, in favour of just two choices. Their way, or fuck you.
Small point, but I wonder if Tim really thought seat belt laws were a product of a Wilson government, or if he was praising Thatcher for bringing them in.