Tuesday, 13 August 2013

Underpants man self-destructs

Underpants Man Chris Bryant, who it turns was not only an MP but some sort of opposition official, self-destructed on 'Today' yesterday when he denied everything he'd previously said on immigration. It turns out it was all his fault after all; he and his underpants party chums firstly made Welfare too attractive, then opened the floodgates to millions of foreigners to make up for it. Mr Underpants tried at first to blame W.H. Smiths for the crisis, then admitted it was all down to him and Gordon Brown after all.

Rowson in the Guardian captures it nicely ....

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's a beautifully drawn cartoon, even down to the nesting storks! Where's it from?

(Call me Rosemary)

Raedwald said...

Sorry Rosemary - source now added

DeeDee99 said...

I especially liked his line "Labour made mistakes on immigration."

Nothing Labour did on immigration was a mistake. It was all deliberate. They deliberately opened the floodgates to the 3rd world and they deliberately put no restrictions on Eastern Europeans migrating to the UK.

They just didn't realise that the consequences to their working class voter base would be so dire and that UKIP would be waiting in the wings to cream off 'their' core vote.

Just as Cameron didn't realise that disaffected Tory voters DID have an alternative and would be prepared to take it.

The 3 main parties are all bricking it.

Anonymous said...

DeeDee - I agree with almosrt every word.. except..

All the fuckwhit Milliband needs is 35% of the vote plusthe existing diostrorted boundaries and he's in..


Imagine Balls running the Treasury, or Bryant running immigration..


Dear God...


G. Tingey said...

DD999
Agree
I know a lot of "old labour" voters - allotment-holder all who really loathe the EU (Reasons of grasping corporate corruption that affect all of us plot-holders) who would vote UKIP in a flash, if they thought it stood a chance.

Ditto the UKIP=racist smear.
Come on, there are vile racists in all 3 main parties, but there's one slight problem:
The country is full - we have too many people, irrespective of skin colour, etc ....

There is a perfectly respectable "left-wing" ( even very left-wing) argument against open immigration, as I, a centre-right person, but with a strong sense of social justice & love of liberty have tried to express here

Immigration has proved a boon to the "The clique of capitalist explotationist bosses" (ahem) - ever since Empire Windrush docked.
If you allow, or encourage, your labour market to be flooded with immigrants, irrespective of skin-colour or ethnic origin, from "poorer areas/countries" ... then ... you can easily keep wage-rates down, if only because there is always a "reserve pool" of labour permanently available who will do the work for *less*.

[ This is another aspect of the vile "zero-hours contracts" scandal presently unfolding. ]

It's a lot more complicated that that, of course, but I hope you take my attempted point?

Anonymous said...

Zer0 hours contracts.
Back to queing at at the factory/shipyard (sorry, none remaining anymore) gates ?
I'm reminded about how, after ten years with no "contract of employment" I finally got my employer to give the employees one....by pointing-out, in the then new working times directive, the clause that says that holiday pay, when workers have no formal contract, is the average of the yearly hours worked. So with average hours of 60+/wk and four weeks holiday.......the "contract" was produced three days later. A similar fate awaits the zero-hours employer....although I suspect they may be missing the point as yet..

Bill Quango MP said...

zero hours workers get the average of the last 12 weeks worked as their holiday pay allowance.Its the same as full time workers pro rata.

Its sick pay they dodge. And probably bonuses. Cetainly card tips in the restaurant business, pool tips, is a problem.
I've said this elsewhere but - BQ old firm employed 660 people. NONE on zero hours.
But 600 on a part time 4 /8/12 hour basis.

That's the new reality. It meant the best of those workers actually worked 40 hours. The worst- just their contracted hours.

It was N.I employer payments, sickness pay, long term liabilities, tribunals, seasonal variations and some other factors that dictated the new normal.

Anonymous said...

The 'best' workers are not necessarily the ones who work hardest/better/longer..
'best' to management means something different to others.
In the zero-hours employment world..yes, the hours are allowed against holiday, but if the hours vary it becomes difficult to calculate....20 hours/wk translates into an accrued holiday pay of 2hrs 24min (gov.uk ready-reckoner for irregular hours holiday pay)...and employers tend to 'lose'workers for periods of time...after say 10 weeks they will 'lose' you for a month...then back...so holiday pay becomes theoretical at best (and I work for agencies, so am quite used to being 'lost' to avoid various targets).
Could I/others complain ?
Yes, but at the cost of no work....the agency employers tend to operate a very effective gossip network among themselves...get thrown out of one and they all become closed...
At the "bottom of the stack", there are no [working] employment rights, and it has been that way for many decades. That's why I am a union member....free legal assistance....