Monday, November 16, 2009

At last, some good news!

Is it just me, or is this absolutely fucking hilarious?
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...


MatGB said...

Point of fact: Lib Dems not in considerable debt. It may be at this precise moment in time that they're in their overdraft, but they're saving for the GE so I doubt it.

The Electoral Commission, from whom the debt figures came, had a very creative way of declaring debt, involving counting a debt facility as an actual debt.

So if you've got a credit card with a limit of, say, £10K, and an overdraft facility, the Commission used to report you as actually being in debt to the sum of the facilities, even if you weren't using them. It's party policy, clearly stated, to stay out of the red as much as possible and build up reserves for a GE fight.

One of the reasons I'm happy, like Charlotte, to stay with them until such time as Parliament is reformed to allow us options closer to our respective positions.

But on the main thrust of your post, I agree completely, rather funny, and a clear indication of what we can expect from them, they're worse at managing their finances than I am. Which is impressively bad, but I don't try to claim I can run the country.

Anonymous said...

Well, they could drop Kirkaldy for a starters, and Mr Strawman Jacks also. Don't worry. The Liarbore Nightmare will soon be voer.

Possible date for the General Election is Thursday 5th May 2010, that is assuming Pa Broone and Mr Meddlesome allow us, the Peasants to have one. After all, Pa Broone has to visit lots of Tractor Factories, and make time to formulate all those Five Year Plans that Commie Gubbermunts so love!!!

Fred Tidylypop

Of the Township of Port St Wenn & Gaverne, in the County of Kernow.
(Oh Bugger, I've been found out)

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...