« The height premium | Main | Altruism in the public sector »

May 21, 2008



It seems that support for your cause comes in the guise of no other than alan Sugar, quoted as saying Gordon Brown's goverment is

'not Labour, it's old-fashioned Tory'


And this from a man who used to vote Tory!

However, they are in a dilemma. If New labour relies on mass support, as was evident in the 1970s Miners strikes. Human nature, as always kicks in, and people at the bottom end up being just as unreasonable as people at the top.

The fact that India has the highest conversion rate to self made Billionaires tends to lend weight to the view that for everyone who strives to achieve there is always someone who will achieve from them.


Off topic, I suddenly find that Tamsin Dunwoody has the same birthday as myself. Shudder.
Anyway, the problem for NuLabour is that they never had ANY principles to start with, beyond getting in to power.Nothing they have done has been for the long-term good of the country ( and much has been positively detrimental) and the moment they think they are electorally at risk, they borrow an extra near-£3b to bribe people - forgetting we are being bribed with our own money.
I'm not sure Labour needs to go back to its roots ( they would probably never get into power again) but they DO need to decide what their principles really are. Blair disposed of pretty much all of them and GB has done away with the rest.


How can a socialist/trade union party possibly be against bosses? All they've ever wanted to do is become the New Bosses.


Don't all major political parties rely on big money donors to an extent?


All true - apart from the first one; party membership and grass roots activism declined which then caused all the parties to have to look elsewhere for funds. It isn't just a British phenomena though - almost all modern day democracies experience declining membership. I assume that if the Labour party could raise the money though membership then it would.



First all the spivs were Tory - and the people voted Labour.

Then the spivs went Labour and the people will vote Tory.

And then the spivs will see which way the wind is blowing - and the Tories will once again be the policy arm of Foxtons.

This gives the impression that the British vote to escape spivs - but can't seem to ever escape them for good.

A very interesting thought indeed!


adam - think about Obama - his fundraising has been through th internet - and in America everyone can only give $2000 ( that might have been raised but its still not a lot) and there are ways round it, but Obama has about a million people signed up, and draws what he needs ( send us another $100 each)


"And herein lies the failure of New Labour."

You haven't dealt with Finkelstein's key point, which was that New Labour used to win elections but Brown has killed it off. I agree with a number of the criticisms you've made of Labour in its present form but there's still something very wrong with the spirit of what you're saying here. The other more general point Danny F was making is a simple one: hatred loses elections. He's right about this. Here we have the age old problem with folks on the left. They, you, think the solution for left-of-centre parties is to essentially become like you. This would be a terrible mistake because most people are not like you - they don't share your obsessions and they don't, by and large, share your hatreds.

Tom Paine

The whole "toffs" thing is a joke. What's wrong with judging people by "the content of their characters" and the contributions they make? This 19th Century garbage is just ridiculous. Labour should grow up.


"The whole "toffs" thing is a joke. What's wrong with judging people by "the content of their characters" and the contributions they make?"


Are you sure you've grasped the point of hereditary privilege?

If Cameron, for instance, wasn't a Tarquin he'd be touting Rovers from a forecourt somewhere beyond Hendon if he was lucky.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad