Labour Uncut: Where balance and reason go to die

I only discovered the Labour Uncut site a short while ago, but has it always been the place where supposedly rational people let out their weirdest thoughts?

Last week, we had Sion Simon declaring that he didn’t like The King’s Speech because Colin Firth voted Liberal Democrat, and he should be apologising to people for that.

Then today we have Tom Watson – admittedly, never normally a man who acts like he knows the meaning of the word ‘restraint’ – stating that JFK would have supported locking up shifty-looking people without charge because, um, er, it’s wrong that anyone should attempt to hold Tony Blair to account and anyway – Look! Over there! Terrorists!

But even that fades to nothing when put next to this, which makes an immediate appearance in a very high position on the list of the most overwrought and hyperbolic political analogies. Yes, according to Labour Uncut, David Cameron is ‘the British Pol Pot’ and states:

This is the most destructive administration since Pol Pot. It isn’t killing professionals and the middle classes, but it is so damaging their lives and the chances of their children that it’s the British equivalent to wholesale slaughter.

Can you imagine the outcry – likely led by Tom Watson, ironically – if Conservative Home, Liberal Democrat Voice or any other political website ran an article comparing Ed Miliband to a genocidal dictator? As well as Watson, I can see articles by three other Labour MPs – John Spellar, John Woodcock and Tom Harris – on their front page right now. Are they happy with that sort of hyperbole and to have their words published on a site that produces material that resembles a parody?

I understand they oppose the Government and the site seems to be reflecting more of Labour’s authoritarian wing, but do they seriously believe that comparing David Cameron to Pol Pot does anyone any good?

4 thoughts on “Labour Uncut: Where balance and reason go to die”

  1. Comparing fluffy-brained Cameron to Pol Pot, and the coalition to the Khmer Rouge, diminishes the crimes of Pol Pot against the people of Cambodia.

  2. No, it hasn’t always been like that. It’s one of the few Labour feeds I follow, precisely because the contributors frequently talk sense. But the quality does vary widely. The stench of first-world privilege from David Seymour’s article is particularly bad.

Comments are closed.