What always amazes me a few months before any election, since New Labour took office anyway, is their level of paranoia about the minority, extremist British National Party (BNP).
This time it's Harriet Harperson gobbing off and giving them priceless free publicity. In this report she claims that the BNP, with no MPs and barely 100 local councillors, is a threat to Labour at the European elections on June 4th.
The other strange thing is that Labour usually trundle one of their wimmin out to make these paranoid statements about the BNP. Why is that? Surely even Labour diehards find Hodge, Blears and company highly patronising and totally lacking any level of sincerity or gravitas.
In my opinion what they are trying to do is to scare the Labour voter, the one thinking of abstaining in protest at what the government has done since 1997 in the name of the Labour Party. Switch that old class warrior button on, the old war against fascists, and like Stepford Reds they'll all come out to support the Labour cause. It may also cause those voters thinking of kicking the big three by voting for a smaller party to think again, they don't want to allow extremists in unintentionally.
My view is that what these Labour scares actually do is give the BNP priceless publicity and make a sizeable chunk of thoroughly decent people think: "Well I may dislike them but it's obviously the way to kick the establishment where it hurts". After all, anybody with a brain knows that the elections on June 4th are of no real consequence, they certainly won't put the BNP into power.
For my part I will be abstaining on June 4th as I have every Euro election except 2004. Then I foolishly believed that UKIP would gain a high profile and the resources to make an impact in Westminster elections by getting MEPs.
How terribly wrong I was. Those who believe in withdrawal from the EU do not further the cause by voting in EU elections. All they do is put supposed opponents onto the EU gravy train who then proceed to achieve absolutely nothing.
4 comments:
Morning Gregg!
Or good evening, good afternoon and good morning as I said to a French pilot this morning in one transmission....a tad embarrassing!
Why aren't the Conservatives all over Labour like a rash over this? Labour are losing their core support to a far-right Nazi party. The Tories should be asking serious questions about WHY Labour are losing this support and use it as proof that Labour have forgotten their roots and abandoned their principles, not to mention Labours many, many, MANY failings whilst in Government. The Tories could further capitalise on this by moving away from their cosy little existance in the middle and start talking abour policies that the majority of the UK want looked at, such as the economy, immigration and integration with the EU. The mood of the UK has shifted to the right which should be perfect for the Tories...........
Exactly Mike. I think the Tories are too scared to go for the jugular in case they are labelled the 'nasty party' again, perhaps by their every own Teresa May.
They are also scared of hitting on the real issues for the same reasons. Keep it bland and you don't upset anybody, but we all know that means they piss off their natural supporters in reality.
Thought you may be interested in the following.
Why is Mr Cameron connected to a range of socialist organizations.
These include Common Purpose and the Young Foundation.
The connection between the two is ex Demos Geoff Mulgan, who operated Demos as a pro-labour think tank for the benefit of Tony Blair.
Mulgan also directs the Young Foundation and is an old Demos friend of the Chief Executive of Common Purpose, Julia Middleton. Just how is it that a right wing conservative like Cameron can mix with socialist think tanks?
Shadow Chancellor George Osborne
has been working with Demos over the past months on a series of seminars on the ‘post-bureaucratic age’.
How can the Tories be working with a pro-labour think tank established and supported by Blair? Collusion?
Anyway this article is too late now, the quiet revolution has started.
I'm unclear which article you believe to be 'too late now'. The one in the Independent (Harman) that I link to or my article/post. Could you clarify please?
That would also clarify your comment about 'the quiet revolution'. I am unclear whether or not you mean 'their' quiet revolution, meaning Common Purpose et al, or whether you mean 'they' have been rumbled and the populace are the quiet revolutionaries. But I suppose if the latter it would be a 'quiet counter-revolution' really.
Post a Comment