The Institute for Contentious Argument has issued a press release informing Labour Party members that they need to start backing Theresa May’s government’s austerity policies of creating rich, slum landlords and building a food bank based economy.
We sent a reporter along to find out why, even though he was deeply reluctant to go.
“It’s obvious, isn’t it?” Professor Tanit Lightsearch asked.
Not really. What’s your logic? Austerity is just a con to move money from poor people to rich people. Labour should be fighting it tooth an nail.
“But so is Brexit. A con to move money from poor people to rich, with the added bonus of opening up the possibility of stripping rights away too. It’s pretty fruity stuff.”
Go on.
“Anyway, the logic presented in our release to day is not our logic.”
Whose logic is it then, anyway?
“It’s the logic of any Labour supporter who stands behind their leadership’s Brexit means Brexit stance on Brexit.”
But that’s just respecting the will of the people as delivered via advisory referendum.
That doesn’t mean they can’t challenge austerity and the other appalling human hating crap of May’s bungling, greed is good administration.
“But they’re backing Labour leader’s support of Brexit because the Leave camp got more votes on the 23rd June 2016.”
And?
“May’s government got more votes than Labour on the 8th June 2017. This is really simplistic stuff. But remember, everyone is a populist now.”
Our reporter went to the WC and then came back, having wet their face.
“So by the logic of ‘respecting the will of the people’ to move forward with Brexit, no matter how disastrously it’s being managed, how rushed, or how much of a catastrophe it will be, that they should also be backing austerity.”
Because the Conservative Party got more votes in the general election? But that’s not how democracy works. You keep making the argument, no more so than if you believe the winning side is deeply flawed.
“That’s the logic of the Labour leadership currently backing Brexit, so yes, get behind austerity and help make a success of it, for the few, not the many, just like Brexit.”