7 ms·

> Despite the uproar, the government's opposition failed to scrutinize any significant amendments and abstained from the final vote. Killock said recently that

by s_kilk 10y ago

> Despite the uproar, the government's opposition failed to scrutinize any significant amendments and abstained from the final vote. Killock said recently that the opposition Labour party spent its time "simply failing to hold the government to account". What the hell is the point of the Labour party these days? They are absolutely not an effective opposition. Worthless bastards, one and all.

tremon 10y ago
Yes, that's the correct response, blame Labour for all of this.
- GordonS 10y ago
  I didn't read it as blaming Labour, but rather stating a fact - they have done nothing to challenge this bill.
krona 10y ago
The value of the £ has been the official opposition since Brexit.
- rsync 10y ago
  "The value of the £ has been the official opposition since Brexit." I wonder if you realize that a declining value of the pound is likely to be positive for the British economy ? It's not certain, but very likely ... In fact, it might even be considered a feature of BREXIT.
  - slgeorge 10y ago
    The reduction of the exchange rate is unlikely to actually help the UK. Have a look at some of the academic research, while business leaders and politicians believe that a reduced exchange rate helps exporters there's not that much evidence for it. Also, even if it does help exporters from the perspective of average voters costs and inflation will go up - which they may not have thought through.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
The courage to abstain.
98Windows 10y ago
>Worthless bastards, one and all. Why write this crap? The labour party is the biggest left wing party in Europe, are you saying everyone inside it is worthless?
- pjc50 10y ago
  They are also staggeringly ineffective and can't seem to decide what they stand for. Miliband was OK despite the "controls on immigration" equivocation, but since then the party has turned into a circular firing squad. Going back into history, I'm fairly sure we saw attempts at invasive surveillance under Blair's Labour; Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and the failed ID cards scheme. It's not even clear whether they're able to oppose Brexit.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Are they willing to oppose? Looking at it from the continent, it seems to me that Corbyn is entirely happy with getting out of EU, and is only "opposed" because he's supposed to be "in opposition".
  - DonaldFisk 10y ago
    That's because Blair's Labour Party was as right wing and authoritarian as the Tories they replaced. Both Corbyn's supporters and opponents know well what they stand for. The problem is it isn't the same things. The only people who have any moral right to oppose Brexit are the Scottish nationalists and the Northern Irish republicans. England and Wales voted to leave.
    - petercooper 10y ago
      That's because Blair's Labour Party was as right wing [..] as the Tories they replaced. That's revisionist, and demonstrably false. The Blair government brought in gay adoption, a minimum wage, the Freedom of Information Act, the Human Rights Act, civil partnerships, banned fox hunting with dogs, increased NHS investment by >25% in real terms, achieved the lowest unemployment in 50 years, slashed child poverty, and more. Minimum wage alone was considered a bold left wing move at the time. Blair made modern Tories softer, if anything. It's sad that the Iraq debacle caused people to write off what was the most progressive and beneficial government this country had seen in decades - I can't see how anyone could equate it to the governments of Major or Thatcher.
afterburner 10y ago
CGP Grey: Why the UK Election Results are the Worst in History: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I
stevetrewick 10y ago
Why would they oppose it? It was their idea in the first place. Putting the entire population under constant electronic surveillance may be the one thing they agree with Tories about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_P...
anigbrowl 10y ago
A place to corral dissent, nothing more. Putting Jeremy Corbyn in charge and getting all the radicals to sign up as members to keep in there (in the wildly mistaken belief that he would stand up for the causes the radical left holds dear) was simply a way of getting an up-to-date list of radical thinkers in the UK, who ave now identified themselves as such, and indeed paid a few quid each for the privilege. Assume your primary political platform has already been compromised and start setting up new loosely connected networks now.
DonaldFisk 10y ago
What is Jeremy Corbyn supposed to do? He was elected twice by the overwhelming majority of party members on a socialist platform, but the majority of his MPs aren't socialist and support a "Blairite" (neoliberal) agenda. Since his election, those MPs have tried to force him to resign, staging various incidents (an MP calling Ken Livingstone a Nazi apologist for pointing out the existence of the Haavara Agreement, a heckler at a Gay Pride march who it transpired was an employee of a Blairite PR firm, a brick through an MPs window, except it wasn't her window and there was no brick, and several other incidents) and forced an unnecessary leadership election (and a court case challenging the incumbent's right to stand), when they could have been attacking the Government's policies. They refuse to join his shadow cabinet, so many of its members lack experience. That's the current situation. Those MPs who caused the trouble can't be deselected until the next election. If Jeremy Corbyn was replaced by neoliberal, Labour wouldn't oppose government policies to anything like the extent it now does, and would almost certainly lose any subsequent general election. Or we could dispense with democracy altogether.
- rwmj 10y ago
  The trouble with this is that Corbyn has done nothing whatsoever to oppose the Snooper's Charter or Brexit or the Psychoactive Substances Act or the (now delayed) attempt to neuter the House Of Lords (in fact I suspect he fully supports all of those). What could he do? Step aside.
  - DonaldFisk 10y ago
    And be replaced by which Labour MP who opposes these, who has widespread support as potential leader?
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >Corbyn has done nothing whatsoever to oppose the Snooper's Charter or Brexit // Corbyn campaigned on the ground against Brexit all over Britain. It largely wasn't reported on in the national press though. Actually getting out amongst the people is seemingly his thing. Corbyn appears to be being a socialist, shock!, and not dictating the position people should take but suggesting a position and fronting the position of the members of his party. My take on Corbyn is if you want him to act then get the Party to support it.
petercooper 10y ago
What the hell is the point of the Labour party these days? They are absolutely not an effective opposition. Hear, hear. They've even done a 180 over Brexit, which they now support, against the majority of their supporters. Labour claims this is because they respect the referendum, which is ridiculous. It'd be like the Democrats becoming pro-life and anti-immigrant to "respect" the presidential election. You don't just give up your own ideals and platform for what won - well, not unless you're the modern Labour party.
confounded 10y ago
From the Labour wonks and spads I know, Corbyn was against it, but Burnham was adamant that he needed to support the bill to be seen as "tough on terrorism". Little comfort. Horrible, inevitable news.

by s_kilk 10y ago

tremon 10y ago

Yes, that's the correct response, blame Labour for all of this.

GordonS 10y ago
I didn't read it as blaming Labour, but rather stating a fact - they have done nothing to challenge this bill.

krona 10y ago

The value of the £ has been the official opposition since Brexit.

rsync 10y ago
"The value of the £ has been the official opposition since Brexit." I wonder if you realize that a declining value of the pound is likely to be positive for the British economy ? It's not certain, but very likely ... In fact, it might even be considered a feature of BREXIT.
- slgeorge 10y ago
  The reduction of the exchange rate is unlikely to actually help the UK. Have a look at some of the academic research, while business leaders and politicians believe that a reduced exchange rate helps exporters there's not that much evidence for it. Also, even if it does help exporters from the perspective of average voters costs and inflation will go up - which they may not have thought through.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

The courage to abstain.

98Windows 10y ago

>Worthless bastards, one and all. Why write this crap? The labour party is the biggest left wing party in Europe, are you saying everyone inside it is worthless?

pjc50 10y ago
They are also staggeringly ineffective and can't seem to decide what they stand for. Miliband was OK despite the "controls on immigration" equivocation, but since then the party has turned into a circular firing squad. Going back into history, I'm fairly sure we saw attempts at invasive surveillance under Blair's Labour; Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and the failed ID cards scheme. It's not even clear whether they're able to oppose Brexit.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Are they willing to oppose? Looking at it from the continent, it seems to me that Corbyn is entirely happy with getting out of EU, and is only "opposed" because he's supposed to be "in opposition".
- DonaldFisk 10y ago
  That's because Blair's Labour Party was as right wing and authoritarian as the Tories they replaced. Both Corbyn's supporters and opponents know well what they stand for. The problem is it isn't the same things. The only people who have any moral right to oppose Brexit are the Scottish nationalists and the Northern Irish republicans. England and Wales voted to leave.
  - petercooper 10y ago
    That's because Blair's Labour Party was as right wing [..] as the Tories they replaced. That's revisionist, and demonstrably false. The Blair government brought in gay adoption, a minimum wage, the Freedom of Information Act, the Human Rights Act, civil partnerships, banned fox hunting with dogs, increased NHS investment by >25% in real terms, achieved the lowest unemployment in 50 years, slashed child poverty, and more. Minimum wage alone was considered a bold left wing move at the time. Blair made modern Tories softer, if anything. It's sad that the Iraq debacle caused people to write off what was the most progressive and beneficial government this country had seen in decades - I can't see how anyone could equate it to the governments of Major or Thatcher.

afterburner 10y ago

CGP Grey: Why the UK Election Results are the Worst in History: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I

stevetrewick 10y ago

Why would they oppose it? It was their idea in the first place. Putting the entire population under constant electronic surveillance may be the one thing they agree with Tories about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_Programme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_P...

anigbrowl 10y ago

A place to corral dissent, nothing more. Putting Jeremy Corbyn in charge and getting all the radicals to sign up as members to keep in there (in the wildly mistaken belief that he would stand up for the causes the radical left holds dear) was simply a way of getting an up-to-date list of radical thinkers in the UK, who ave now identified themselves as such, and indeed paid a few quid each for the privilege. Assume your primary political platform has already been compromised and start setting up new loosely connected networks now.

DonaldFisk 10y ago

What is Jeremy Corbyn supposed to do? He was elected twice by the overwhelming majority of party members on a socialist platform, but the majority of his MPs aren't socialist and support a "Blairite" (neoliberal) agenda. Since his election, those MPs have tried to force him to resign, staging various incidents (an MP calling Ken Livingstone a Nazi apologist for pointing out the existence of the Haavara Agreement, a heckler at a Gay Pride march who it transpired was an employee of a Blairite PR firm, a brick through an MPs window, except it wasn't her window and there was no brick, and several other incidents) and forced an unnecessary leadership election (and a court case challenging the incumbent's right to stand), when they could have been attacking the Government's policies. They refuse to join his shadow cabinet, so many of its members lack experience. That's the current situation. Those MPs who caused the trouble can't be deselected until the next election. If Jeremy Corbyn was replaced by neoliberal, Labour wouldn't oppose government policies to anything like the extent it now does, and would almost certainly lose any subsequent general election. Or we could dispense with democracy altogether.

rwmj 10y ago
The trouble with this is that Corbyn has done nothing whatsoever to oppose the Snooper's Charter or Brexit or the Psychoactive Substances Act or the (now delayed) attempt to neuter the House Of Lords (in fact I suspect he fully supports all of those). What could he do? Step aside.
- DonaldFisk 10y ago
  And be replaced by which Labour MP who opposes these, who has widespread support as potential leader?
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >Corbyn has done nothing whatsoever to oppose the Snooper's Charter or Brexit // Corbyn campaigned on the ground against Brexit all over Britain. It largely wasn't reported on in the national press though. Actually getting out amongst the people is seemingly his thing. Corbyn appears to be being a socialist, shock!, and not dictating the position people should take but suggesting a position and fronting the position of the members of his party. My take on Corbyn is if you want him to act then get the Party to support it.

petercooper 10y ago

What the hell is the point of the Labour party these days? They are absolutely not an effective opposition. Hear, hear. They've even done a 180 over Brexit, which they now support, against the majority of their supporters. Labour claims this is because they respect the referendum, which is ridiculous. It'd be like the Democrats becoming pro-life and anti-immigrant to "respect" the presidential election. You don't just give up your own ideals and platform for what won - well, not unless you're the modern Labour party.

confounded 10y ago

From the Labour wonks and spads I know, Corbyn was against it, but Burnham was adamant that he needed to support the bill to be seen as "tough on terrorism". Little comfort. Horrible, inevitable news.