Saturday, 30 May 2009

Purnell wants your money for Labour

I seriously doubt that Labour now has more than 150,000 voting members - that is, members not more than six months in arrears with their subs. The big donors are running away, since the exposure of the cash-for-coronets scandal, and it's looking increasingly likely that Labour are set to become a minority fringe party funded by the Co-op and the Unite union.

So, what to do in a democracy when no-one likes you, people don't want to join your party, no-one will donate their money to you and your party is on the verge of bankruptcy? Apart from accept the will of the electorate and fade way, of course.

Why, dip your thieving hands even deeper into our taxes! If you're James Purnell, that is.

The answer Mr Purnell is over my dead body. I am a moderate chap, but any attempt to alter the current Bill to include State funding for your dying, corrupt little party will bring me out onto the streets in real fury. I am prepared to break the law on this issue.

3 comments:

lilith said...

Oh yes, Raedwald. This man has always lived off taxpayer's money.

Anonymous said...

This is nothing new. In one form or another, Labour has always wanted our money for Labour. The Labour Party's whole political and electoral strategy consists and has always consisted of stealing from the productive sector of the economy and giving it to the unproductive (whether through benefits for scroungers and immigrants or subsidies for unions or creating well-paid government jobs for left-wing vegetarian sociology graduates).

Labour has an army of clients at their disposal who are utterly reliant on the party for their livelihood. These people know that if the Conservatives win a general election, the party will be over, hence their loyalty to Labour.

Purnell's proposal really is nothing new. It's merely a variation on a very familiar theme: instead of the Labour Party stealing from us to bribe their supporters, they want to steal from us and put the money directly in their own party coffers.

DavidB said...

I couldn't agree more. State funding of political parties would entrench the status quo, whereas political parties should be allowed to fail in the same way that companies which no longer have a purpose go bankrupt.

Please don't use 'vegetarian' as a term of opprobium, though.