Labour’s cash-strapped party machine is quietly abandoning up to 60 vulnerable seats to divert resources to defend constituencies in its heartlands, according to MPs.
It is the first sign that some senior Labour figures accept that defeat is inevitable and are switching resources to defend seats with larger majorities to prevent a rout next year.
Plans for targeted mailshots in marginal seats have been scaled back dramatically because of a lack of resources. Some MPs say Labour’s HQ is refusing to help seats with majorities of less than 3,000 — about 60 — as it retrenches in the face of the Tory advance.
A member of the National Executive Committee denied that it had set a bar but acknowledged that the party was being forced to make “difficult decisions” about which seats to defend.
Aaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha! Ah haha hah ha. Ha.
Although it has fended off bankruptcy Labour’s national party remains in a precarious financial position.
In the past year the party has “raised” £18 million compared with the Conservatives’ £25 million. However, £2 million was a loan converted to a donation and £15 million is in borrowing and credit facilities.
Oh dear, oh dear: what a pity, how sad.
On a less amusing note, Labour's financial problems are indicative of how they have run the country—as Charlotte Gore pointed out a few days ago.
A pet theory of mine, as yet untested, is that the way parties run themselves internally is probably one of the best indicators we have about what a Government run by that party will be like. I base this on the idea that parties can run their parties however they like so, in effect, it exposes how they view authority, organisation, hierarchy, democracy etc. In addition we can see how they manage their communications, how they manage their own internal processes in drawing up policies, making announcements and finally—and crucially—we can see how they run their finances.
Is it reasonable to believe that an undemocratic, highly centralised, tightly disciplined party with strict processes and chains of command and rules about what people can and can’t say to whom would somehow then produce a decentralised, open, democratic government that values civil liberties? The very idea seems absurd, and in practice—in reality—Labour’s approach to Government appears to mirror their approach to their own internal organisation.
More relevant and important—can you believe that a party with a well documented “spend now, worry later—nothing must get in the way of winning” reckless, scorched earth attitude to funding election campaigns, landing them in serious debt would run the public finances with prudence, care and diligence?
Time has told on this one—Labour have run the public finances with the same ‘whatever it takes to win’ attitude, and has left our public finances mirroring their own.
Quite. And, like the country, Labour are not quite bankrupt—not yet. But you can bet that it is getting more and more expensive to service their debts.
Why would you trust the morally-bankrupt leader of a near financially-bankrupt party to run your country—and your life?
To coin an old phrase, would you buy a used car off Gordon Brown? No? Then why, in the name of all that's unholy, would you vote for the cunt?
P.S. It's worth noting (last I heard, anyway) that all of the Big Three parties are in considerable amounts of debt. The Tories and the LibDims aren't in quite the same position as Labour, but I wouldn't expect either of them to run the public finances particularly responsibly...