Thoughts of the rebel MP's

We know you want Jeremy Corbyn

but we don’t give a shit,

you must have one of us instead

so we’ve chosen Owen Smith.


We acted unconstitutionally

but that don’t really matter

as we care not for democracy

and we’re learning all the patter,

using double-speak in the press

because they’re all on our side.

The Tories don’t want Corbyn,

in fact, they’re terrified.

He’s a threat to inequality,

a threat to them big banks,

a threat to our tax havens

coming up through the ranks.


We don’t like this new membership

that grew and grew and grew,

you plebs are having too much say

and that will never do.

Forced to have him on the ballot

so we’ve had to rig the vote,

we’re excluding you new members,

excuse us while we gloat.

We’ve also tried to price you out,

we hope it’s not in vain. 

You really must support us now

on this great gravy train.

Jeremy is unelectable,

we know that’s just a myth

but if we say it oft enough,

you might vote our man, Smith.


How many you say have signed up?

How many have paid the price?

What do you mean, we could still lose?

I think we need new dice!!

◄ SCATTERBRAINED (acrostic sonnet?)



Profile image

Tommy Carroll

Tue 30th Aug 2016 20:13

"More more ( and yet) more" LCPTB

Profile image

Laura Taylor

Thu 28th Jul 2016 10:47

Couldn't have said it better myself Lynn, I applaud you. It's been staggering watching how far the PLP will descend in order to get their own way.

For anyone wanting to know more about inequality in order to form a fuller opinion, rather than focussing down on a small meaning, I suggest reading Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone. We should never stop asking for equality, nor should we stop expecting it.

Bang on Lynn! This needs performing, and pronto!

Profile image

Harry O'Neill

Wed 27th Jul 2016 23:09

Nice meaty one this.

I write as a long time Socialist party and Trade union executive member, and continuing upholder of the ideals of both.

Concerning equality of opportunity:
During the period of the Thatcher government I was able to retire, take my O and A levels, go on to university, and take two degrees. When they saw this, three of my daughters (two married) and one son, who was also married, (via the Access route or A levels) did the same thing. The girls are now teachers (one a head) and the lad is a Probation officer. Before, they had worked in shops, offices, and as a building laborer. These things were available (freely) to anyone who wanted to use the time available to them to get the qualifications. helped by readily available educational facilities (we used them) The thing we sacrificed was our time.

Concerning Social support and taxation:
During the time of full employment we all payed tax. When Thatcher went for the financial-based economy (allowing the manufacturing side to diminish, via the exchange rate route) she hid the full effect of the resulting unemployment by turning a blind eye to the ease with which the work-less were allowed to
go on to the Invalidity list. (this is now admitted) in this way reducing the electorally unpopular unemployment figures. This initiated the social benefit dependence of the
newly unemployed workers who had formerly payed tax.
(this `bribe for political reasons` was not a cruel thing, but it was definitely the start of the socially dependent problem that we have today, which is causing so much rupture within the traditional working class) The one good thing is that the `in` word is now `equality` and not that stupid (these days) `Poverty`. What we need is equality of
independence so that we can all work - north and south - and pay more tax and less `social`.

To get back to the actual poem (sorry Lynne :))
I can well see the points about ultimate control of the Labour party which are involved, but control involves the duty to elect people who are able to achieve policy in the system that exists (ask Blair). (Anyone can be a Socialist `saint` who just mouths the liturgy, but it`s the actual struggle that counts in the long run - and that depends on - let`s admit it - eloquence and force - force Corbyn hasn`t got)

Profile image

Lynn Dye

Wed 27th Jul 2016 20:15

MC – yes, I agree with your comments on the Lib Dems. I was merely giving them credit where it was due on taxation, but I didn’t agree with them becoming Cameron’s puppets.

I think your comments on taxation being too high would have been a more appropriate comment in Harold Wilson’s time. I well remember the George Harrison line in the Beatles’ Taxman –‘there’s one for you, 19 for me’.

Now it’s 45% for over £150,000. It isn’t as though they cannot afford to pay it, is it? Oh, and corporation tax went down from 28% to 21% for profits over £300,000 under the coalition. Meanwhile, selected austerity just punishes the poor.

It has nothing to do with hate. I have friends who are wealthy and are happy to pay their fair share so that others do not have to suffer.

I suppose it depends if we want a fair society or whether we want to go back to pre welfare and pre NHS times. I know I don’t. And judging from some of your comments, I am not sure you do either?

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Tue 26th Jul 2016 18:42

Lynn - wasn't it the LibDems who reneged on promises
to students and their financial hardships once they found
a handhold on power?
As for taxing the wealthy...who wouldn't moan if the rate
of tax on their income was so high? That is the price
paid for/by capitalism that also helps support those less
lucky or fortunate lower down the income scale. It is not a sin, even these days, to be rich, despite the hate.
"Family" once controlled and regulated its members
and that produced ambition, independence and self-reliance, whereas now we see "the state" as being responsible for supporting us. Not always a very
comfortable or acceptable incentive to prospering in
this life.

Profile image

Lynn Dye

Tue 26th Jul 2016 11:19

LOL, Tommy. Nothing that a good night's sleep couldn't rectify. Might still try the advice on beer though... ;-))

Profile image

Tommy Carroll

Tue 26th Jul 2016 06:09

Lynn get down off your soapbox have some beer and sandwiches and get back up there. Tommy

Profile image

Lynn Dye

Mon 25th Jul 2016 20:40

John, there doesn't seem much wrong to me with Jeremy's leadership. He has been increasingly accommodating to a rabble that have been hanging on for 10 months looking for an excuse to oust him.

Do you remember the ABC? Anyone but Corbyn, they all advised, and then stood down because they would not work with anyone who valued socialism.

The media have never given him a fair run, because they found him a threat from the outset.

Surely a weak leader would have bowed out after the vote of no confidence, which was the day that they all lined up to shout in his face to go. He is still there.

Profile image

Lynn Dye

Mon 25th Jul 2016 20:31

MC – I don’t think any of us expect true equality, but there is no excuse for the Tories always making life in Britain more unequal whenever they are in power. Of course they tell us otherwise, but that is only because they changed the criteria on which it is worked out.

Regarding the lower tax threshold being raised, this was a Lib Dem policy and came into being under the coalition, in return for tax cuts for the wealthy. Yes, of course the Tories like to take all the credit for it, but it never came about because of them. Admittedly, they kept the policy on seeing how popular it was, but to be honest, with the rising costs and stagnating pay, most workers are earning less in real terms, and should not be paying tax on such measly pay anyway.

I don’t know how much attention you have paid to benefit sanctions, benefit caps and cuts, the bedroom tax and unfair work care assessments but my comment would be that the much maligned Tories have taken many vulnerable folk away from financial INCOME, and left them with nothing but destitution, homelessness and deaths.

Profile image

Lynn Dye

Mon 25th Jul 2016 20:30

Thank you Alison for your kind comments.

And thank you LCPTB for arguing my case for me in my absence! :-))

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Mon 25th Jul 2016 18:34

Humanity is constantly adjusting to accommodate its
evolution but when has equality ever been mooted as
a fact of life? Can anybody say?
The famous American Constitution only concedes that "all men are BORN (my upper case) equal"
and that itself can be challenged as it is demonstrably
false in real life, whether it be in terms of wealth, health or social advantage But it does allow for the opportunity
to progress and improve one's lot.
The Bible tells us that "the poor are always with us"...
so no rush to promote socialism there then!
Each age finds its way to assess and accommodate
what is perceived as "equality" for its time, but if
cynicism is the last resort of idealism, then idealism is the first refuge from cynicism.
It interests me that the much maligned Tories have
taken many vulnerable folk away from financial worry
by raising the bar before income tax becomes payable.
Ergo, it indicates that "socialism" doesn't exist solely
within the ranks of those who proclaim to be its
disciples and preach its prospects as gospel.

Profile image

John Coopey

Sun 24th Jul 2016 20:07

The man is truly a socialist saint; but he'll never make a leader while ever he's got a hole in his arse.

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Sun 24th Jul 2016 16:52

LCPTB - having been involved over many years in the
law business, I'd love to see what you would present
to Parliament to make "equality" in life a reality.
Where would you start and how would you phrase the
words used to make it possible? Simply, this is pie in the sky stuff and Ivory Tower invective doesn't
As for your second "bloody patronising" - ask The
Beatles or J.K. Rowling of "Harry Potter" fame if self -belief, skills and tenacity played their parts in their
success. They might have something to say about the tax they have to pay but I don't imagine that fits in with your own comment on the subject. They
didn't need the law to achieve whatever degree of
social fairness you seem to demand - but they, like
many others, just kept at it until they gained their
objectives..and that is a good maxim for anyone in
life: use what you have, go where you must and
keep trying, accepting social support as it was intended - as an emergency fund, and as a social
source of longer term help to those who really are
unable to help themselves for a variety of reasons
individually or collectively. But, of course, that
is no simple or easy matter to define or decide;
even less so when it open to shameless abuse, only
too well known now for the public at large to accept its distribution without close supervisory scrutiny.
It is perhaps, this situation that disfigures a well-
intentioned financial "safety net" funded, lest it be forgot, from compulsory taxation levied on others.
P.S. I still recall the scenes of wild exultation when a
grinning T. Blair worked the crowds on his arrival in Downing Street as the New Labour messiah.

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Sat 23rd Jul 2016 16:22

I'm never "at one" with the word "inequality" since it is
a fact of life in any century and any walk of life.
The most one might (and should) hope for is equality of
opportunity - and that can depend on one's own ability
or tenacity as much as anything.
The current state of the major socialist political party is
of historical interest, something which will be written
about at length in the years to come. But hurrah
for the English (British) working man and woman
whose common sense and understanding of what is or is
not important forms the bedrock of the nation's direction when politicians lose their proper perspective.

Profile image

Alison Jones

Fri 22nd Jul 2016 21:28

This is spot on, I like sense of indignation, which reveals fear.

If you wish to post a comment you must login.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Find out more Hide this message