Friday 2 May 2008

Where The Votes Were Lost, And Where The Votes Can Be Won

In the heartlands. Who'd have thought it?

They are crying out.

Crying out for the party of the Attlee Government's refusal to join the European Coal and Steel Community on the grounds that it was "the blueprint for a federal state". Of Gaitskell's rejection of European federalism as "the end of a thousand years of history" and liable to destroy the Commonwealth.

The party of the trade unionists and Labour activists who in the early twentieth century peremptorily dismissed an attempt to make the Labour Party anti-monarchist (as it now is), and resisted schemes to abort, contracept and sterilise the working class out of existence (as is now very well under way).

The party of Bevan's ridicule of the first parliamentary Welsh Day on the grounds that "Welsh coal is the same as English coal and Welsh sheep are the same as English sheep". Of those Labour MPs who in the 1970s successfully opposed Scottish and Welsh devolution not least because of the ruinous effects that it would have had (and is now having) on the North of England. And of those Labour activists in the Highlands, Islands and Borders, and in North, Mid and West Wales, who accurately predicted that their areas would be balefully neglected under devolution.

The party of the Attlee Government's first ever acceptance of the principle of consent in relation to Northern Ireland, of the Wilson Government's deployment of British troops in order to defend the grateful Catholics there precisely as British subjects, and of the Callaghan Government's administration of Northern Ireland exactly as if it were any other part of the United Kingdom.

The party of the Catholic and other Labour MPs who fought tooth and nail against abortion and easier divorce, of the Methodist and other Labour MPs who fought tooth and nail against deregulated drinking and gambling, and of those in the Labour Movement who defeated Thatcher's and Major's attempts to destroy the special character of Sunday and of Christmas Day.

The party of Attlee's dissuasion of Truman from dropping an atom bomb on Korea, of Wilson's refusal to send British forces to Vietnam, and of his use of military force in order to safeguard the right of the people of Anguilla to be British.

And so on.

That party gave the United Kingdom the universal and comprehensive Welfare State (including, for example, farm subsidies), and the strong statutory and other (including trade union) protection of workers, consumers, communities and the environment, the former paid for by progressive taxation, the whole underwritten by full employment, and all those good things delivered by the partnership between a strong Parliament and strong local government.

And it did so precisely because it believed in national self-government, the only basis for international co-operation, and including the United Kingdom as greater than the sum of its parts. In local variation, historical consciousness, and family life. In the whole Biblical and Classical patrimony of the West. In agriculture, manufacturing, and small business. In close-knit communities, law and order, and civil liberties. In academic standards, and in all forms of art. In mass political participation within a constitutional framework. And in the absolute sanctity of each individual human life from the point of fertilisation to the point of natural death.

All these are corroded to nought by the "free" market, both directly and because it drives its despairing victims by the million into the arms of Jacobinism, Marxism, anarchism and Fascism, all four of which feed into neoconservatism.

Turnout in the traditional strongholds of the above political movement was in some cases as low as one in three at the 2005 General Election. And now this. The votes are there to be had, if we can get onto the ballot paper and secure even a small amount of publicity.

You know how to start making it happen.

8 comments:

  1. I believe there's going to be a by-election in Henley soon. Surely this will be a perfect opportunity to gauge the BPA's electoral appeal?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The talk is of Stanley Johnson, if Boris doesn't carry on, since he has long done several jobs at a time.

    He might as well - Mayor of London is really not much of a job, with 10 times as many quango members in London as there are Borough Councillors, Assembly Members and the Mayor put together. Just look at the amount of time that Livingstone managed to find in which to pursue other interests, from Venezuela to newts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Venezuela was an entirely legitimate concern of Livingstone's, since it led to the London Transport oil deal. And newt-rearing is one of the least time-consuming hobbies imaginable.

    In any case, you didn't answer my question: when are you going to put the BPA to a proper electoral test? You've been talking about the party for several months now, in the process generating an enormous amount of froth, bluster and macho challenges to others, but there's no solid evidence that the party even exists outside your head and this free Blogspot website.

    And with two impending by-elections in radically different constituencies (Boris Johnson's Henley and Gwyneth Dunwoody's Crewe and Nantwich), this would appear to be the perfect opportunity to prove to your detractors that you're running a serious operation. Not to mention a much cheaper test of your electoral appeal than running a national campaign with absolutely no guarantee of even retaining your deposits.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Our intended breakthrough is the European Election in June of next year, giving us a good year's worth of campaigning and fund-raising, during which we will be presenting ourselves in such a way that certain interests could not possibly fail to give us at least a very favourable ride, with certain related specialist media guaranteed to get out, within the context of an extremely low turnout generally, more than enough votes, not merely to save our deposits (there is no serious possibility of losing them), but to return at least one MEP per region, and quite possibly two in two or three of them.

    When you see exactly how we are going to sell ourselves, then you will agree that we really cannot fail, putting us in a very good position to be the first past the post in several Westminster constituencies in 2010, again on a very low turnout favouring tactics such as ours.

    Watch this space.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (there is no serious possibility of losing them),

    Well, the far higher-profile UK Independence Party, which had been in existence for several years, attracting heavyweight backing and many celebrity endorsements, lost 451 deposits when it fought the last general election.

    What actual hard evidence (as opposed to vainglorious fantasy) makes you think that you'll do any better?

    When you see exactly how we are going to sell ourselves, then you will agree that we really cannot fail,

    I have a great deal of professional experience in marketing, so I shall await this announcement with bated breath. But plain common sense suggests that anyone who claims that "we really cannot fail" despite having no party, no funding, no infrastructure, no track record and no visible support is...

    ...well, let's just say a tad over-optimistic!

    (Do bear in mind that your potential backers will be asking you exactly the same questions, so you might as well get some practice in answering them now)

    ReplyDelete
  6. You haven't seen what we're offering them. You will when they do. And they really won't be able to say no.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You haven't seen what we're offering them. You will when they do. And they really won't be able to say no.

    Does it involve kidnapping close relatives?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh no, even we balked at that one. And we really, really want them on side. But you have to draw the line somewhere.

    ReplyDelete