Thursday 8 May 2008

New Labour Is Dead

Gordon Brown has shattered its contractual basis by abolishing the 10p tax rate, says Frank Field.

He's right, of course. And you know how to start doing something about it.
Posted by at

23 comments:

  1. Anonymous8 May 2008 at 17:20

    How?

    ReplyDelete
  2. David Lindsay8 May 2008 at 17:39

    Follow the link.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8 May 2008 at 19:36

    And you know how to start doing something about it.

    Well, no we don't, because you won't answer any concrete questions about the British People's Alliance - really fundamental ones like "does it have more than one member?", "why has no-one else been spotted promoting it?", "where's your campaign money coming from?", "where's that website that was supposed to have launched by now?", and so on.

    For all I know, you might just be some lone nutter with delusions of grandeur, and I've seen no hard evidence to suggest otherwise.

    So how will you go about proving me wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Lindsay9 May 2008 at 00:48

    The candidates' list will appear when it is complete, not on dribs and drabs before then.

    As for membership and money, mind your own business. Unless you believe that the declared membership and funding of Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems is even vaguely accurate. If you do, then you are certifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous9 May 2008 at 11:21

    Okay. So can you answer at least this question: if I wanted to join the BPA, how would I apply, and how much would it cost?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9 May 2008 at 16:09

    Be fair Mr Numismatist - I remember from a post a couple of weeks ago that there was a chairty very interested in sponsoring the BPA - I can't remember the exact name - birth right? birth cares? something like that. Anyway, I assume they've now agreed to sponsor a seat David? Best of luck with finding more.

    San.

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Lindsay9 May 2008 at 17:12

    Negotiations are ongoing in several directions, Sanjay.

    Alistair Matheson, apply to info@britishpeoplesalliance.org.uk; how much is a matter of ongoing discussion, but should be resolved soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9 May 2008 at 17:17

    I'm glad somebody's finally said this. The parties claim to have far more members than there is the slightest evidence of, and keep secret their real sources of income. Labour had to avoid a leadership election last year because everyone would have seen how few people could vote in it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9 May 2008 at 17:31

    Birth Matters, wasn't it? You'd be better of with someone nearer the pro-life mainstream if you could get them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous9 May 2008 at 17:31

    Er, didn't they have a Deputy leadership election though?

    ReplyDelete
  11. David Lindsay9 May 2008 at 17:34

    Did they? Who'd notice any more?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous9 May 2008 at 17:43

    I noticed. The BBC's candidate got in, like the Tory leadership. Now there's a surprise.

    I hope you are very proud that they ignore you completely. Seriously, you should be very proud indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous9 May 2008 at 18:51

    Why has Kamm removed your devastating riposte to one of his little trolls?

    ReplyDelete
  14. David Lindsay9 May 2008 at 18:55

    You'd have to ask him, Jack. Although you appear to have answered your own question.

    Anonymous 4:53 PM, no, we don't stand much chance of being mistaken for the Beeb's old public school and Oxbridge mates, the only politicians whom it ever mentions.

    But it was still calling UKIP "others" when they had more votes than the Lib Dems, and it was left utterly baffled the time before that when the Pro-Euro Conservatives failed to win a single seat. So we're not worried.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous9 May 2008 at 20:46

    Which "devastating riposte" was this?

    I've been reading that enormously entertaining thread pretty regularly since its inception, and I don't recall anything going missing.

    Perhaps both David and Jack are simultaneously unaware that there's a second page of comments? I must admit that threw me too, but the penny dropped before I'd finished constructing my conspiracy theory.

    Oh, and by the way - I'm not asking for any kind of formal candidates list, merely clinching proof that the British People's Alliance currently consists of more than one person. Surely there's someone else prepared to put their head above the parapet by now?

    ReplyDelete
  16. David Lindsay10 May 2008 at 12:31

    Several. But there isn't any point in doing so at this stage except as a candidate in the election that will be our breakthrough. And we won't be publishing the candidates' list until it is complete.

    Oh, and I hadn't actually read the thread on Kamm's blog when I answered Jack, I must admit. In a hurry to get to a dinner on time.

    I have been giving media coverage a little more thought. No newspaper came out for UKIP last time. Unless I'm very much mistaken, no newspaper supports the SNP (the Sun in Scotland used to, but doesn't any more) or Plaid Cymru. I'd be very surprised if the Belfast Telegraph were too pro-DUP, and flabbergasted if the Irish News were at all pro-Sinn Fein.

    For that matter, no newspaper supports the Lib Dems, and even the one Lib Dem columnist (Jasper Gerrard in The Observer) has now gone. Half of all Sun readers alway did vote Labour. Most Times readers don't know that it's now supposed to be a Labour-supporting paper, and would switch to the Telegraph if they ever cottoned on. And so forth.

    But we will have the very strong support of certain specialist media reaching exactly the people whom we need to reach, and who will then turn out to vote for us while most people don't vote at all. And we won't even have to pay for it, in cash or in kind. They'll happily do it for free.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous10 May 2008 at 13:09

    Kamm has closed the comments. You've wiped the floor with them. They cannot cope, they do not know how to start to cope, with the fact that politics or anything else is not just them. You have confronted them with that fact.

    "Postmodern, hypercapitalist, meterosexual warmongers" who don't know anyone that isn't. Priceless. And spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous10 May 2008 at 13:57

    Um, Kamm hasn't closed the comments in fact. As of right now (1.55pm 10 May) the comments thread is still open and none of David Lindsay's contributions appear to have been deleted. The comments thread does go on to a second page, however - maybe that's what is throwing you? You can see it here - http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/points-from-the/comments/page/2/#comments

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous10 May 2008 at 14:43

    They seemed to be coping pretty well with David's "devastating riposte", and the comments thread was still very much open as of 14:42 on Saturday May 10th, which is when I'm writing this.

    Incidentally, Jack, various conspiracy theorists are wondering about how you knew about this "devastating riposte" prior to it appearing on Kamm's blog. Did David give you a sneak preview?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous11 May 2008 at 12:26

    "Postmodern, hypercapitalist, meterosexual warmongers"

    What does that mean? David? Jack? Anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  21. David Lindsay11 May 2008 at 22:13

    Anonymous 12:26 PM, you know them when you see them. On Kamm's blog, for example.

    Bless them, they really do not know that there are people who are not like them. They are sincerely convinced that no one openly unlike them could possibly be elected to anything, even by PR and on an extremely low turnout.

    Having said that, they'd match us and stand their own candidates, not under the stolen names of the old parties, if they were as certain as all that.

    Jack probably just didn't realise that there was a second page. He'll doubtless tell us tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous11 May 2008 at 22:49

    Having said that, they'd match us and stand their own candidates, not under the stolen names of the old parties, if they were as certain as all that.

    Or alternatively they could just point and laugh, which is much cheaper.

    In any case, given your thesis that the government is full of postmodern hypercapitalist metrosexual warmongers anyway (and on both benches), what would be achieved by independents splitting the vote?

    ReplyDelete
  23. David Lindsay11 May 2008 at 23:03

    But they'd win. Wouldn't they? After all, everyone agrees with them. Don't they?

    Deep down, even they know that they wouldn't win, because people don't agree with them. That's why they have to steal other people's parties instead.

    They are as terrified of the electorate as they hold it in utter contempt. Whereas we neither fear nor despise the general public.

    But then, we have ever met the general public, and can even claim to be from and of it.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)