It is difficult for any Labour Party campaigner when elected members of Parliament behave in a way so far removed from the grassroots, one wonders if they ever knew what it meant to be Labour in the first place.
The latest MP to speak in alienating terms to the Labour Party masses is an apparent cuckoo in the Labour nest, the MP for Rochdale, Simon Danczuk.
Danczuk has some "interesting" opinions which any member of society's working class - who expect Labour to uphold their interests - needs to know about. His agitation process began a few days ago with a risible Twitter post that suggested those about to lose their jobs and face a seven days' wait before benefits (instead of the previous three) should simply "save up." Classless - and I do not mean that in the context of Britain's class system.
Since Twitter seems to be the platform to engage in wide political dialogue there days, I sent a tweet to the Labour Party as a concerned member to find out if this is now the party's position on any worker in Britain facing unemployment - to just save up. A letter is also on its way.
I appreciate that as a country we are looking down the backs of all the sofas for some spare cash (except the bustling higher tax rate sofa of course). However, a policy inflicting further financial punishment on someone who has just lost their job is not the type of policy that any "Labour" party should be endorsing.
If a Labour Party is compelled to honour Tory cuts, at the very least they should refrain from appearing as though they are extracting pleasure from it. The "save up" comment was so distasteful, it could have been lifted from the Tory textbook of nasty party putdowns. It is no wonder some are viewing Danczuk as a Tory cuckoo in the Labour nest.
Labour was set up to defend the interests of workers. As Ed Miliband would say, "the clue's in the name." If workers entering a period of unemployment do not have the party looking after them, then we may as well throw in the towel now.
Events became far more absurd, when the Danczuk appeared on British state TV to discuss the issue with centre-left writer Owen Jones.
Rather than debating the issue at hand, Danczuk proceeded to ridicule Jones, by suggesting that his Oxford education means he is from a privileged background. If that is the case, perhaps Labour should review the entry requirements of its MPs, many of whom graduated from that privileged sphere.
Furthermore, post-war reformist Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, entered politics via Oxford. Danczuk needs to brush up on his Labour Party history. Someone also needs to tell him that non-privileged students who demonstrate ability are allowed to study at Oxford too if they pass the entry ritual.
If Danczuk thinks his attacks on Jones will blunt the writer's popularity, he needs to think again. At present, Jones is proving an effective opponent to the coalition government. Danczuk, on the other hand, will simply alienate voters and increase the risk of a second Tory term.
The latest MP to speak in alienating terms to the Labour Party masses is an apparent cuckoo in the Labour nest, the MP for Rochdale, Simon Danczuk.
Danczuk has some "interesting" opinions which any member of society's working class - who expect Labour to uphold their interests - needs to know about. His agitation process began a few days ago with a risible Twitter post that suggested those about to lose their jobs and face a seven days' wait before benefits (instead of the previous three) should simply "save up." Classless - and I do not mean that in the context of Britain's class system.
Since Twitter seems to be the platform to engage in wide political dialogue there days, I sent a tweet to the Labour Party as a concerned member to find out if this is now the party's position on any worker in Britain facing unemployment - to just save up. A letter is also on its way.
I appreciate that as a country we are looking down the backs of all the sofas for some spare cash (except the bustling higher tax rate sofa of course). However, a policy inflicting further financial punishment on someone who has just lost their job is not the type of policy that any "Labour" party should be endorsing.
If a Labour Party is compelled to honour Tory cuts, at the very least they should refrain from appearing as though they are extracting pleasure from it. The "save up" comment was so distasteful, it could have been lifted from the Tory textbook of nasty party putdowns. It is no wonder some are viewing Danczuk as a Tory cuckoo in the Labour nest.
Labour was set up to defend the interests of workers. As Ed Miliband would say, "the clue's in the name." If workers entering a period of unemployment do not have the party looking after them, then we may as well throw in the towel now.
Events became far more absurd, when the Danczuk appeared on British state TV to discuss the issue with centre-left writer Owen Jones.
Rather than debating the issue at hand, Danczuk proceeded to ridicule Jones, by suggesting that his Oxford education means he is from a privileged background. If that is the case, perhaps Labour should review the entry requirements of its MPs, many of whom graduated from that privileged sphere.
Furthermore, post-war reformist Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, entered politics via Oxford. Danczuk needs to brush up on his Labour Party history. Someone also needs to tell him that non-privileged students who demonstrate ability are allowed to study at Oxford too if they pass the entry ritual.
If Danczuk thinks his attacks on Jones will blunt the writer's popularity, he needs to think again. At present, Jones is proving an effective opponent to the coalition government. Danczuk, on the other hand, will simply alienate voters and increase the risk of a second Tory term.
