Thursday, 26 July 2007

Why The "Big" Parties Need The BNP

The only thing that can now save the practically memberless, practically bankrupt "major" political parties, now with skeleton staffs working in little more than broom cupboards, is State funding based on seats obtained at the preceding General Election.

But they now that that is unsaleable at present, not least because their hired help in the media would have to tell the electorate that the parties were practically memberless, were practically bankrupt, and now had skeleton staffs working in little more than broom cupboards. So they are actively hoping for a BNP breakthrough, probably at the 2009 European Elections, and have briefed the hired help to cover the BNP accordingly.

Then they will be able to say that the new funding system is the only way to save Britain from BNP MPs. In fact, it is just the only way to save those parties from organisational and financial collapse.


  1. What we need is something to save us from the 'big' parties.

    Bankruptcy seems like a very attractive proposition, and in the absence of other funds from such wheezes as dodgy 'loans,' much more likely....

  2. Well, you've come to the right place here. Read on!

  3. Unfortunately, the Labourites have reduced their debts to £1million, while the Tories have nearly five million quid in the bank. The Lib Dems are running a surplus too, but face some local difficulties over a dodgy donation from a bent businessman.

    However, I'm interested in your declaration that the media are now going to boost the BNP in order to save the necks of their mates in the old parties.

    I'm wondering if you can supply any evidence for this assertion or is this just one more example of your wishful thinking?

  4. A million pounds is a big debt to clear when no one either wants or dares to give Labour any money anymore.

    Five million won't get the Tories very far once they start running an 1990s-style General Election campaign good money after bad these days - nobody is listening, but the Tories haven't cottoned on to that). They went into the 1997 Election with a war chest of £100 million and still lost. And that is the sort of campiagn that they still intend to fight, for reasons best known to themselves.

    The story of the Lib Dems' favourite convict will be back...

    And as with Labour, why would anyone give money to the Tories or the Lib Dems these days? They might have given to the Tories in the early Cameron days, but they certainly aren't going to bother now.

    Busted flushes, the lot of them.

    As for the BNP, its breakthrough would be a real threat, but the main parties and their media lackies are delighted at that fact, since they needed such a threat in order to secure the only thing that can keep the old parties even nominally alive: State funding.

    The more contrarian columnists (the likes of Richard Littlejohn and Peter Hitchens) will be saying this a year from now, possibly sooner. But you read it here first.

  5. You assert it, but where is your evidence that the media have been instructed to talk up the BNP?

    Pray tell?

  6. Just watch them at it in the coming months and years.

  7. So no evidence then?

    Just wishful thinking, as usual!

  8. As I say elsewhere, Observer, you need to get out more! This post and David's comments suggest that he is frighteningly well-informed.

  9. Correct!

    He is pretty frightening!

    (In his assumptions.)

  10. And you're pretty frightened aren't you? I don't know why though. What do you actually disagree with him about? You've dropped broad enough hints in the past that it's little or nothing.

  11. It is a pretty elaborate platform, which I could pick holes in if I wished. But I don't.

    The point is no one will know what his platform is, since he will be describing himself as an Independent and be virtually unknown outside his front bedroom. At least, Herron was known for something!

    Look at the votes in 2004 of the other Independents who stood (other than Herron)? Derisory!