Whatever next?

[ALB]

From yesterday's Daily Torygraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/former-minister-says-tories-death-row-should-rebrand-workers/

Unfortunately that name is already taken  by the political wing of the old "Official" IRA which stood a couple of candidates in Belfast in the election. See:

https://workerspartyelection.wordpress.com/

Not a name, then, that the Tories' new-found allies the D.U.P. are going to like.

But if an election is to be held with one of the two main parties calling itself "Labour Party" and the other "Workers Party" the workers might come to realise that the capitalist class depends on their votes to retain power and maintain their system.

[jondwhite]

On the 1867 reform act

Quote:

One MP warned of the dangers of handling the vote to "great masses of half-educated men". He argued that once trade unionists had the vote they would demand the reduction of the working day to "eight hours".Benjamin Disraeli, the Conservative Party MP, was strongly against this measure because it enfranchised 203,000 people in the boroughs and these would cast their votes "all of one class, bound together by the same entitlements and habits – we must recollect that half the boroughs are already under the influence of the new class… we are conferring power on a class".Lord Palmerston, the prime minister, was also opposed to parliamentary reform. He told Lord Russell that his proposal was causing "excitement in the working class" and would give "great power to the agitating but secret leaders' of the unions". He went on to say: "The direct consequence would be an increased and plausible cry for the ballot and the introduction of men into the House of Commons who would be following impulses not congenial to our institutions… Your intended course is openly disapproved of by all the intelligent and respectable classes."

Where it doesn't depend on workers votes, aspiring conservative rulers don't give a fig for workers. 

[Author]

Posts