The Observer is full of talk of a new political party emerging in England with potential backing from financiers and philanthropists of at least £50 million. My heart sinks.
The new party will be ‘centrist' and pro-Remain. It will reject May and Corbyn. And it will replace the LibDems. It is, in other words, a marketing person's idea of what those most likely to vote in the UK want.
And that is its weakness from the outset. Politics rarely supplies what people want. If it did free holidays in Barbados would be available on the NHS. It has to, if it is to be useful, instead provide what people need.
It is entirely true that politics is failing miserably in this task at present. We do not need Brexit. And we do not need a prime minister who does not believe in Brexit but who is intent on delivering it atrociously, nonetheless. Alternatively, we do not need a party that is committed to an old-fashioned vision of materialist and deeply ungreen socialism to be delivered within the constraints of neoliberal economics, which appears to be what Labour is unsurprisingly failing to inspire people with.
So we do need new vision. But can a marketing person's amalgam of centre ground policies deliver that? I am old enough to remember the SDP. I fear that the answer is no, it is not.
That does not mean I am opposed to the idea of a new party. Anyone who is a democrat believes in multiple parties. If you believe in PR, as I do, then we need more choice. But right now we have first past the post. So the first thing that this new p[arty has to do is commit to electoral reform.
Then it has to recognise that it will have little appeal in Scotland: there is a different agenda there.
That is also true for Northern Ireland.
And probably for Wales.
All of which suggests that it will have to work pretty hard on working out what national identity it supports: blind Englishness no longer works.
Then it has to be aware that, as I argued yesterday, the old economics is dead. All that went with it has to go including the supposed independent role of the central bank, a belief in monetary policy, the government being hands off, and tax being simply something that is necessary to fund government expenditure. Unless it can understand all of these things (and I mean all) it has no hope of coming up with the economic answers that are needed.
And it will have to understand that young people are angry: more of what kept the baby-boomers happy is not for them. Even if it is true that they want homes, security, a chance of some real leisure between the demands of oppressive work practices and job insecurity, just as their parents might have done, they also want different types of respect, greater environmental awareness, less consumerism and an understanding that all identities can be fluid.
Does it feel like this is what the Observer is enthusing about? I may be wrong, but I doubt it. I think they're getting excited about money backing some re-heated pre-crash tribute act. And that would be deeply depressing. So I hope I am wrong.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Disappointed but not surprised to see you backing this idea, Richard. How you imagine that a new centrist party with the likes of Chris Leslie involved would have the sort of radical policies contained in your ‘Courageous State’ I do not know.
Am I backing it?
Are you sure you have read what I said Carol?
I am not backing what’s proposed, at all, and I am not sure how what I have written can be read as that
I am saying something much more radical is needed – and Labour is not it because it’s far too conservative in its thinking
“….Labour is not it because it’s far too conservative in its thinking.”
As an ex labour voter I believe that is their problem. Labour politicians are now seen as Conservatives with a red rosette (especially in Scotland).
I don’t know what LP thinking is but I have confidence that something good will emerge before a general election. It will be more radical than last year’s manifesto and you must admit that was the best manifesto ever since 1945.
Must I?
Really?
It may not have been ‘the best’, but it was the only manifesto from a major party that I’ve ever been enthused by. I think you are overly negative about the green bit, Richard. There was quite a lot of good stuff in their Environment and Energy Policy document. The prospect of a more radical manifesto for next time is exciting, but I’m not sure on what grounds one might suspect it will be so – maybe by the next election they will be playing it safe and trying not to upset the tabloids too much.
My ideal party and programme would be a fusion of The Green Party, Labour and MMT. Without MMT it will not truly break the neoliberal mould (Green Party – pay attention!). Sadly it is a bit much to hope that Labour – or any other mainstream party will espouse MMT any time soon. Yet there is so much that a Labour government could still achieve that would be progressive and worthwhile.
Jim Green says:
“Sadly it is a bit much to hope that Labour — or any other mainstream party will espouse MMT any time soon.”
Oh, but they already did !
Gordon Brown’s bank bailout and ensuing QE is entirely based on the premise of the MMT mechanism working to put ‘cash’ into the economy.
All the evidence shows how well this worked. It shored up property prices which should have plummeted, and has fuelled a surge in many other assets, particularly noticeable on the stock market which is riding at silly prices according to most commentators. And it certainly rescued the banks.
So we know it works. Well that side of the process works. To be properly functional government needed to make adjustments to the tax structure to prevent inflation.
The official narrative has consistently said that inflation is stubbornly low – this is nonsense. The traditional measure of inflation has stayed low because it measures inflation in the area of the economy this cash injection left untouched. Plenty of inflation in the asset markets goes unremarked.
Where this application of the MMT rationale has come horribly unstuck is that the Tory chancellors have abused the situation to subtly advance the shift of public sector assets into private ownership and continued to pretend to believe two lies. One, that having lots of cash in the top end of the economy will induce growth and economic activity by trickle down. And two, that ‘austerity’ is necessary to balance the books and this has to be paid for by cutting public services.
Both of these propositions are absolutely untrue. They are pure, unadulterated, old fashioned, economically illiterate, right wing cant ideology.
The MMT case is made. It needs to be applied appropriately to other sectors of the economy.
I think you make a good point: the case is made
Or at least, QE altered the case
But the world denies it
Carol Wilcox says:
“I don’t know what LP thinking is …(nobody does, because they aren’t telling)….but I have confidence that something good will emerge before a general election.”
I hope your ‘faith will make you whole’, Carol, but I’m losing faith as the LP is gradually being swamped by an agenda that is not their own. To rely on getting a radical and complicated message across within the short period of an election campaign is a high risk strategy.
In reality the message is not complicated – it is stated as ‘for the many not the few’, but the means to achieve that are complicated and even many Labour supporters don’t entirely believe it’s possible, because nobody is telling them it’s eminently achievable, and explaining how it will be done.
A Labour Party win at the next general election will be because the Tories have failed to keep themselves together. Another FPTP government by default.
Lions led by donkeys, but without the mud and bullets.
It’s not faith, though, because I go to John McDonnell events. As I keep repeating here, there is no way that he could talk about using MMT without being excoriated in the tory press. John and his advisors are not as stupid as some here seem to think.
I know the team
I wish I shared your confidence
Carol Wilcox says:
“It’s not faith, though, because I go to John McDonnell events. As I keep repeating here, there is no way that he could talk about using MMT without being excoriated in the tory press.”
I’m not denying the nature, or scale of the challenge. But if John McDonnell as shadow chancellor can’t shift the agenda of the policy debate where is that shift to come from ?
Further I suggest he has bugger-all to lose because if Labour is going to fight the next GE on terms dictated by the Tories they start with both hands tied.
@AndyC “Further I suggest he has bugger-all to lose because if Labour is going to fight the next GE on terms dictated by the Tories they start with both hands tied.”
I tried to get in touch with JohnMc’s team before the election to warn them not to mention LVT . They were far too busy. As a result a small mention of LVT was in the manifesto (inserted I understand by someone in our campaign) and the tory press went to town over “The Garden Tax”. Thousands of leaflets were distributed throughout the land. It may well have lost Labour the election.
I simply do not believe that
You can believe it or not, Richard. Over a dozen years ago I was talking to an Oxford economics professor who has written about the benefits of LVT and used to advise Gordon Brown. I asked him why he never promoted LVT and he told me that it is politically infeasible. I don’t think anything has changed. It’s the case with knobs on for MMT.
I will blog…
Carol Wilcox says:
“I tried to get in touch with JohnMc’s team before the election to warn them not to mention LVT . They were far too busy. As a result a small mention of LVT was in the manifesto (inserted I understand by someone in our campaign) and the tory press went to town over “The Garden Tax”. Thousands of leaflets were distributed throughout the land. It may well have lost Labour the election.”
You illustrate my point perfectly, Carol.
The ‘Garden Tax’ propaganda scam was a ‘beauty’. People swallowed it whole and there was no time to defuse it.
The ‘Dementia Tax’ propaganda scam closed down the possibility of sensible discussion of elderly care funding options in exactly the same way. I don’t know exactly what was being tabled for discussion there, and neither does anyone else, because the discussion was killed before it had started by suggesting the very opposite of what it sounded to be simply by inverting, the implication of, minimum and maximum.
An over powerful right wing press cannot be allowed to dictate policy for ever. Especially so when they persist in publishing distortions and misinformation which is tantamount to lying.
Have we learned nothing from the EU referendum campaign either ?
That is not how I read it. Although I support Labour I am so disappointed that they have not spent the time since the last election pushing the idea of new monetary policy and promoting the Spend and Tax agenda that Richard Murphy in the UK and the likes of Steve Keen, Bill Mitchell and Stephanie Kelton are tirelessly arguing elsewhere. One must conclude that Corbyn and McDonnel believe the neoliberal nonsense that the Tories are trotting out. What the rest of the PLP believe is beyond my imaginings.
If they did that, they’d be crucified by the press, largely owned, it appears, by multi-billionaire tax-dodgers who can expect to be a lot poorer if Labour get elected. I doubt Labour’s Butch and Sundance will be taking visible aim at neoliberalism itself until it’s being seen already as past its sell-by date. This is called politics. From politicians, I expect little else.
Rod White,
I share your disappointment. And agree with your conclusions.
Aaaargghhhh.
It was lovely to hear Clare Short on ‘Broadcasting House’ yesterday.
A voice of sanity.
I think a new party would get maybe 15% of the vote, and probably taken equally from Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems (who may cease to exist if a new centre party does well). Depending on the geographical distribution of that vote, a new centre party could actually help Jeremy Corbyn get into government. Or, it could help the Tories shore up power. It’s beyond hard to predict how this will shake things up. I’m more enthusiastic about the prospects for progressive government under Corbyn than Richard is, but there remains a lot of work to do in terms of formulating decent progressive policies. A LOT of work!
If Labour would only think a bit more…..
It would help, I believe
They should be made to read the Joy of Tax before they proceed and we’ll set them a test to check they truly understand it! I’m not very hopeful though. The Green Party could do with some of that money as they’re all set up and ready to be elected on a non-neoliberal and green platform.
” …. some re-heated pre-crash tribute act.”
I like that. Pretty much sums what what’s being planned. And just what the country doesn’t need right now. If it fields candidates in 2022 it will damage Labour much more than the Tories. I’m no fan of Corbyn as a potential PM but any port in a storm. From what little has been published thus far, it doesn’t appear that it will offer the radical solutions required to deal with the country’s structural socio-economic problems. Just different deck-chairs, different position. I wonder if TB is throwing any of his ill-earned millions at it. Deeply depressing 🙁
” If it fields candidates in 2022 it will damage Labour much more than the Tories.”
That’s completely counter-intuitive on so many levels partly (just partly) due to the fact hat governments suffer more from these kind of stunts than oppositions do.
I thought about that Marco. But, in the current political climate – incl. a general swing to the right across Europe, FPTP, Brexit, Russiagate, national defence, law & order, the anti-semitism narrative, plus all the other fabrications of reality peddled by the Tories in cahoots with their pals in the MSM – the incumbent government will benefit from the perceived uncertainty. The Tories will manufacture enough consent with the middle classes while further consolidating their core vote.
Unfortunately, the LP under Corbyn has seemingly failed to come up with a new, inspiring narrative that appeals to a wider audience necessary to win sufficiently where it counts (unfortunately, winning Greater London and Greater Manchester isn’t enough). If they had then by now it would be reflected in all the polls. Higher party membership numbers can give a false sense of popularity with the electorate at large. Besides, how many people outside the party have ever read its manifesto? The Conservatives have historically low party membership (maybe down to as little as 70,000 paid up) yet can win general elections.
This new party initiative, if it ever materialises, will apparently promote centre-left policies which would be most appealing to those on the right of Corbyn, all the LibDems and doubtless a few on the left of the Tories. Plus of course the millions of ‘don’t knows’.
One of the innovative strengths of New Labour was its sophisticated & efficient publicity machine at Millbank Tower, which became the envy of the Tories and from which they have learned. Corbyn struggles to get anything positive into the public arena. A new centrist party would have a clearly defined message for change that could resonate favourably with the current right-leaning ‘centre’ ground and, as Mrs Patrick Campbell might have said, ‘without frightening the horses’.
This is a longer than intended response to your post but I just sense that the LP, in spite of the regressive policies of the current administration, is quite a bit more vulnerable than the Tory Party at this moment in time. If it’s counter-intuitive then so is MMT lol. Anyhow, hopefully I’m wrong. And, if it’s any consolation, I usually am!
The trouble is that Labour may tack even further right and in many ways it is too far right now
I know there are some left-wing policies but it is all wrapped in neoliberal economics right now
Marco Fante says:
” If it fields candidates in 2022 it will damage Labour much more than the Tories.”
That’s completely counter-intuitive on so many levels….”
Counter intuitive, yes, but not necessarily wrong for that.
UKIP was seen to be going to split the right wing vote and damage the Tories election chances but somehow seemed to do more damage to to Labour. How damaging a new party is to established parties will depend on their respective footwork.
If a new party materialises at all. Without PR (voting , not marketing !) it will struggle to gain traction.
It will not gain traction
But it could keep the Tories in office
John D says:
“Corbyn struggles to get anything positive into the public arena……. and, as Mrs Patrick Campbell might have said, ‘without frightening the horses’…”
The horses need frightening. What better time to do it than in mid-term when there is still opportunity and time to counter the mainstream hysterical kneejerk backlash ?
There is no shortage of easily defensible ‘radical’ proposals which would get the MSM into full-on fulmination mode and open up a stimulating dialogue, and properly gauge the public mood.
I’d go head-on for re-Nationalisation of Rail and Water. A party that can’t sell those as desirable aims is obviously frightened of its own shadow and has zero confidence. It would make for a more interesting debate than the present obsession with spurious anti-semitism. If there’s a real internal party problem there (which I’m sceptical about) it should be dealt with while we discuss national issues.
What’s to lose ? The next general election ? Labour can’t possibly win that if they are confined to arguing the toss about the minutiae of a Tory neoliberal agenda.
TINA is in remission it seems.
Richard, there will come a point where your refusal to enter the political arena will look like cowardice. The time is right. You have the talent and ideas. What are you waiting for?
What might I wait for?
How about ceasing to be a single dad who cooks for his teenage sons most days of the week and will be for a couple of years or so as yet?
Or having time beyond that, work and blogging to take on more and still have a life?
Or even having the temperament to be a politician, which is very different to that of being a political thinker?
I am finite and I also now know my own limits. I am really not suited to be a politician.
We need thinkers and campaigners as well as those who want to engage in the muck and bullets of politics and governance. You’re still a distinct and challenging voice Richard.
That said, both Left and Right are led by ideologues which may not appeal to the large body of voters who are more pragmatic in what they are looking for. Another party in our FPTP system does not help. Until we shift to some form of proportional representation we will continue with the artificial squabbling constructs that are the two main parties. It feels like more time is spent on internal arguments than external. For too many voter it’s about voting for the lesser of evils rather than a party that genuinely represents their interests
I wish Labour would note what voters want
If they were they would be on 45+% and Tories on 35-%
But they aren’t
And that says a lot
And much of that is because the messaging is not clearly for the benefit of ordinary people
Holly Goodhead says:
“Richard, there will come a point where your refusal to enter the political arena will look like cowardice. The time is right. You have the talent and ideas. What are you waiting for?”
Much as I would relish seeing Richard (and others) taking an active role in the main arena of politics, I think it is unfair to level an accusation of cowardice.
Even at a local government level political office is not by any means an attractive arena.
Bullet makers are not always the people best equipped to fire them.
Since so much in national well-being terms hinges upon politicians understanding the consequences of the UK leaving the Gold Standard in 1931 and the new era of fiat money ushered in it seems utterly pointless to float a new political party that does not have this at the core of its philosophy.
It seems highly reasonable to me to argue there is gross negligence amongst all the existing political parties represented at Westminster in regard to having and broadcasting this new money understanding.
Indeed it is obvious from comments by the public on articles and items in the media there is a massive lack of understanding of the core functions of money and how the UK monetary system creates its medium of exchange. Indeed some use the facile assumptions about money they cling to fuelled by their hatred of government as a means to attack others.
Much of this nonsense would stop if there was an official consensus available to the public which explains these things and especially recognising that a clear understanding of money is necessary because it’s at the root of so many of the country’s problems. Any new political party needs to make achieving this consensus and public dissemination the core plank of its manifesto. If it isn’t it’s obvious it’s not worth supporting. In hindsight that is the central lesson to learn from the failure of the SDP!
I agree
It baffles me how the world remains bemused by fiat money
But the vast majority of politicians are
I can’t see how a new centrist party could be anything other than New Labour in a new guise, ie same as the tories but a bit less spiteful. These types of labour policies have been rejected in both the 2010 and 2015 GEs
The Tories, for the last 40 years, have succeeded by persuading people that running a national economy is just like running a household (common sense?!?) and that labour can’t be trusted to do that. I don’t think Corbyn and McDonnell had much choice in 2017 other than to present a manifesto that had everything carefully budgeted for. But in spite of that they produced the most radical manifesto I have seen. I hope that once they’re in power they can start showing people that the country’s economy is more like a game of Monopoly – what fun the MSM is going to have with that!
You can hope – but I see little sign that their team have any serious economic undertsanding and that worries me
John tried in 2015 but would not listen – and it backfired. They have never got over it since
This isn’t politics it’s self indulgence by a rich man who has become bored with business and wants to appear to be doing something worthwhile with his life. Where’a the plan , what ‘s the policy ? That old cliche ‘ breaking the mould’ isn’t either.
If these ‘new party’ guys really wanted to break the mould of UK politics they’d put all their effort into promoting and educating re the need for:
1. PR
2. MMT
The last thing anyone needs is more of the same crap we’ve had for the last 30 years. Unless you’re The Establishment attempting to split the centre/left vote again.
That one-two just one sums up what is needed
Jim Green says:
“The last thing anyone needs is more of the same crap we’ve had for the last 30 years. Unless you’re The Establishment attempting to split the centre/left vote again.”
Bingo. Got it one.
And I’m afraid they’ll get away with it.
But has it got the backing of Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rodgers and Shirley Williams?
What’s that they say about those who cannot remember the past being “…condemned to repeat it.”
Is is quite hard to get the backing of Roy Jenkins for anything these days. But I agree that this looks like an SDP rehash, and likely to be just as successful. Perhaps it may eventually pull Labour back towards the centre ground (which is currently very much further right than any of the main parties were 40 years ago).
Who knows, perhaps everything will be sweetness and light in the few years immediately after Brexit and we will get yet another 5 years of Tory government. God help us.
I sent a link for the 2017 Labour manifesto to a friend, a Social Democrat politician in Sweden.
He said it wouldn’t raise any eyebrows at all over there.
They’ve tried everything else to undermine the current party leadership. So now it’s The New Party…called, well maybe SOS (Same Old Shit)
Ziggy M says:
“I sent a link for the 2017 Labour manifesto to a friend, a Social Democrat politician in Sweden.
He said it wouldn’t raise any eyebrows at all over there.”
I don’t suppose for a minute this would raise many eyebrows in Sweden either:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/economist-james-k-galbraith-isnt-celebrating-dow-25000-2018-01-08?mod=mw_share_twitter
You might like to confirm that.
“Centrist”
Boring! A dead boring bit of opportunism aimed at picking up the disaffected Remain vote. To be an anti-UKIP. Being an anti-UKIP sounds OK actually – but “centrist? Boring.
The young will have no interest in it.
Agreed
BTW – did you get anywhere with that WTO stuff?
Sorry,
I hadn’t forgotten about the WTO thing but I got busy, hadn’t found time yet and wasn’t sure that anyone was paying much attention when I initially said that I would look into it. But it is very interesting so I will get on to it and get back to you on that within 48 hours.
I
Many thanks
“I am finite and I also now know my own limits. I am really not suited to be a politician.”
seeing as what immoral bastards they are i could see that you wouldn,t fit in:-)
A disruptive tactic by neoliberal minded Blairtypes. I view this as a narrative, in part, to counter and weaken any arrangements between left leaning parties (Labour and Greens) to develop before the next GE. Think what £50M could buy to establish a broad left leaning alliance.
Yes….
And to educate on economics
“How about ceasing to be a single dad who cooks for his teenage sons most days of the week and will be for a couple of years or so as yet?”
Oh no, what’s happened to your wife? I hope all is ok and I’ve misread this!
A long story, but the last five years have been pretty tough for her as a result of her health, and consequently us.
Very sad to hear that, Richard. My thoughts are with you, whatever has happened.
I didn’t realise your wife had been unwell for 5 years.
Luckily for the tax world we can tell from the amount of travelling that you did that her illness didn’t stop you from working endlessly.
Had you been forced to be by her bedside your out put would have dwindled so we can all be grateful for small mercies.
I had to work out ways to make things work despite her illnesses
And did
The void I see from both major parties is in the area of enterprise and business. Where are the decently paid jobs going to come from that will create the wealth that the country needs and provide well paid, sustainable employment for both current and future generations? Not to mention a flow of tax – no-one is suggesting that MMT does not do away with the need for a flow of taxes (unless Im much misguided). Add in challenges such as demographics and technology/AI. Thats a question which I suspect might be asked on the doorstep, after worries about the NHS and other public services. Questions about immigration can be interpreted as concerns about pressures on jobs and public services.
The Tories and neo-liberal right are stuck with the assumption that we can just leave it to the market, when that model has patently failed. For all the reasons regularly gone through here, not least the dysfunctional, value-extracting nature of the City which no longer has any real interest in investment, in the true meaning of the word. Its only about short term speculation and fee earning for M&A and the like.
However, the debate on todays left (whether centre or further left) does not really move much beyond additional taxes on the rich and perhaps MMT to pay for better public services, plus nationalisation to bring poorly performing and expensive natural monopolies back into public ownership. Whilst as it happens I wouldn’t really argue with any of that, it does not tackle the problem of a fundamentally low performance, low productivity economy which creates neither the jobs nor the wealth that we need to provide the standard of living we’d like for the majority of people. Nationalisation might move jobs from one sector to another but it does not necessarily create new jobs. That requires investment (amongst other things) in innovation, R&D, people and skills, technology and infrastructure. A healthy private sector is a big part of that.
I suspect that this is partly why there are a number of people from the business world behind the talk of a new party. It might surprise the more anti-capitalist subscribers here to find that many in the business world (or from what one might term ‘real’ business) are disillusioned and angry with the current government. Not just about Brexit. They too recognise the ‘socially useless’ behaviour of the City and would like to see it fundamentally changed.
When the choice might seem to be between Clause 4, 60/70s old Labour, and the lunatic fringe on the neo-liberal right we should not be surprised if many are looking for something new and different. That said, if Corbyn and McDonnell showed some genuine interest in the wider economy and business they might gain a lot of friends and broaden their appeal. Unfortunately , as the collapse of their economic advisory group last year showed, they seem not to be interested. I fear that it clashes too much with their underlying ideology.
@ Robin Stafford
I agree that the LP should focus much more on wealth creation and not just redistribution. It should indeed be a principal plank of their vision for the future.
MMT isn’t just about providing requisite social services. That’s misleading & inaccurate. Maximising the potential offered by proper management of a sovereign fiat currency could transform and transition the economy via direct government investment into many areas such as R&D, training, etc. Nor should one underestimate the the contribution to national wealth that a reformed education system would make. We’re lagging behind in all these fundamental areas.
Business would also benefit from a vastly improved physical infrastructure – building for the future using new technologies such as 3D printing.
Add to that a Basic Income coupled with a Job Guarantee Scheme, ending unemployment and giving many people the opportunity to become creative citizens who are currently despairing of their future, and that of their children.
Most importantly, MMT shouldn’t be seen as an economic ‘programme’ that governments apply. It’s not some mad-hat socialist ideology to screw the rich and pamper the poor, i.e. the inverse of Neo-liberal austerity economics. It’s actually the way an economy such as ours currently ‘works’, and has done for the past 40 years. That’s the starting point. And that’s what the LP have got to explain – whatever it takes.
If you have any further concerns, Richard’s your man – not me. I’m only a novice in such matters.
I agree – MMT is just ‘what is’
“I agree that the LP should focus much more on wealth creation and not just redistribution. It should indeed be a principal plank of their vision for the future. ” They are. Becky Long-Bailey is leading on this.
“Add to that a Basic Income coupled with a Job Guarantee Scheme”. You don’t need UBI with a Job Guarantee Scheme”. Wages should provide that. You use MMT with the objective of creating full employment.
A lot of discussion here about this rumoured new party, but no-one has mentioned the principal reason why, as far as I know, it’s being proposed.
And that is because a lot of pro EU people in business and politics are in despair at the Government’s and Labour’s approach to Brexit. The Government because they seem committed to a ‘hard’ Brexit despite the disastrous consequences, and Labour because, despite all the evidence that the Leave campaign broke the law and lied through it’s teeth, is doing very little to oppose the Government’s policy.
In other words, that those who voted to stay in the EU are getting FA representation in Parliament, and this party seeks to represent them. To be honest, if this government collapses before March 2019 and we get another election, and this party is committed to revoking Article 50, they’d get my vote.
he he free NHS Barbados holidays….
that would create some economic growth no?