“so the chances of flakey former witches opposed to masturbation securing a major party nomination are limited.”

Can I be the first to make a Nadine Dorries joke?

“British Tea Party”

Winner of the 2010 Ironic Name of the Year Award.

It’s all about class. The public school educated leadership of the Conservative party has nothing in common with the discontented rabble. They don’t like them and the antipathy is mutual. The natural home for an English Tea Party is the BNP.

1

I think the fact she is an MP is funny enough…

American political ideas transfer uncleanly onto the UK body politic, and it’s unwise to try.

However, the growth of the Tea Party movement in the US has much to do with the right’s disenchantment with the GOP.

The right of the UK are not disenchanted with the coalition, for the most part quite to the contrary.

In the US they have had a low tax high spending president followed by a high tax high spending president. The space for a low tax low spending agenda is clear. In the UK, from 2006 onwards people sharing that view have been able to invest their hopes that a resurgent Conservative Party would beat Labour and enact their agenda.

It’ll never get off the ground here, not in the same way as the US anyway. The loonies in the Tea Party there tend to distrust all government (and quite often science) in a way that you just don’t find here.
The closest thing to the tea party here in the UK is the EDL. There are increasing links between the nasty racists here and the nasty racists there, (have a search on the Guardian website for articles about this).

With any luck the Tea Party movement in the US will help the Democrats by weakening the Republican party, although it could be a more worrying development if something so extreme supplants more mainstream Republicanism, or forces the GOP (even) further to the right.

As wrong headed as the Tories in this country are, they have a long way to go to be as odious as the Republican party, still less the Tea Party.

The original idea of the Tea Party in the US, (Cuppa with a slice of less government please. Ta Luv’.), was perfectly sensible, (if unlikely to gain support on a site like this).

They did of course pick up various crazies and it remains to be seen whether any of the original plan will stick once some of the TPs have gained seats.

I fear this article is more right than wrong. It is almost painful to admit it, but I think the current coalition are basically as small state in social and economic terms (in intent at least) as we are going to get even as an option for some time. Which is awful to contemplate as they aren’t that great at that. The old white man contingent is never going to be coherently Hayekian or Nozickian.

9

“The original idea of the Tea Party in the US, (Cuppa with a slice of less government please. Ta Luv’.), was perfectly sensible….”

Not from what I’ve heard or seen it wasn’t! I have a number of friends and work colleagues in the US who would probably describe themselves as GOP supporters, and/or those who wanted a slightly more radical response from the “mainstream” right.

They quickly discovered that the Tea Party movement was from inception infested by religious extremists and other sundry wing-nuts.

@ 11

Never trust an allegedly moderate movement that gives itself a dramatic and revolutionary name.

Time for the Coffee Collective
?
:/

The Countryside Alliance taps into many of the same sentiments, as does UKIP. Dan Hannan will continue to be something of a “licensed populist” working from inside the Conservative Party and pressing for referendums on just about everything in the longer term. I’d put money on a US-style ‘proposition’ system (plebiscite) tied to local election dates. That would take much of the sting out of the feelings of powerlessness and disenfranchisement, which do need to be mollified.

“Time for the Coffee Collective”

It’s better than the Lager Louts, I guess.

The Coffee Collective…. sounds like some obscure Seattle grunge band from the 90’s.

As for local plebiscites… can you imagine it transferred to a UK context…like parish councils writ large but without the relatively harmless aspect!

‘Perhaps the crucial difference is that the Conservative Party’s flirtation with a US-style primary system has been limited to asking the punters to choose from a list of pre-approved candidates, with our homegrown equivalents of Christine O’Donnell and Rand Paul not allowed to make it to the starting block.’

America’s founding myth was a rebellion against taxation so it has more resonance over there.

We have the myth of Robin Hood, but that’s currently being successfully articulated *in favour* of taxation – ironically against theiving bankers.

‘The Coffee Collective…. sounds like some obscure Seattle grunge band from the 90?s.’

Or a bunch of Brechtian tossers in berets.

In the wake of Wednesday’s spending review announcement by the coalition government, which heralded half a million public sector job losses, thousands of associated private sector business collapses, across-the-board tax increases, and restrictions on spending on essential services at levels not seen since the 1920s, the Great British public confounded pundits by taking the news on the chin, giving a plucky shrug, and deciding things probably wouldn’t look so bad after a nice cup of tea.

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/10/20/uk-rallies-as-nation-remembers-%E2%80%98worse-things-happen-at-sea%E2%80%99/

Galen @ 16

As for local plebiscites… can you imagine it transferred to a UK context…

Yep, and if we had them already our local council wouldn’t have closed the swimming pool or cut library hours while spending tens, even hundreds of thousands on useless and unwanted outreach crap.

A British Tea Party could only work given a drastic reduction in IQs. Perhaps a national progamme to encourage severe cranial trauma would do the trick.

I see no reason to beat about the bush here, so to speak – the Tea Party exists because, when they’re beaten, the republicans and their backers immediately start cuddling up to angry, snake-handling morons and fruitloopy Christian closet cases.

I like the US, had the best holiday of my life there a few years back. You have to admit though, they do have a significant pinhead problem.

This is the most succinct summary on next week’s election I’ve seen yet… http://tinyurl.com/3857o3j

Since the Tea Party are seeking a return to what they see as the terms of the US constitution, a document which has a quasi-religious status to almost all politically-active Americans, it is perhaps quite clear as to why we do not have a Tea Party in this country – there is no ideological fixed point to fix on to, and no text that the discontented can refer back to and read in their own way.

There is an argument that being an American politician is a religious experience in some ways (I’d also adduce the use of ‘Mr President’ and ‘The President of the United States’ as honorifics). Add to this the fact that there are American voters influenced by actual religion and by a hotchpot of beliefs, and you get a situation very different from our quite stable democracy.

Good analysis, Watchman.

It is unfortunate that the Tea Party movement is being infiltrated by the Religious Right. It needs to remain as a libertarian movement.

Most of our Conservative MPs would be considered Marxist by the US Tea Party.

There is a tiny part of the angry white male syndrome that dominates the tea baggers who are genuine small government libertarians. Most of them are kooks with a grievance. They believe in small government for everyone else but not for themselves. Unfortunately the US is going through one of its regular know-nothing phases where ignorance and stupidity is not just ignored but is positively celebrated.

20

Yes, yes.. of course it’d be the best possible of worlds; all the hobby horses of the Tory nimby brigade safely catered for…

…. don’t you have a carpet to bit somewhere?

shatterface:

‘The Coffee Collective…. sounds like some obscure Seattle grunge band from the 90?s.’

Or a bunch of Brechtian tossers in berets.

Kaffee Kollektiv? Very Weimar Germany, that.

As for a British Tea Party (cue PG Tips monkey jokes?), the ‘angry bloke’ syndrome is more the line of the English Democrats and petty nationalism.

27

“….the ‘angry bloke’ syndrome is more the line of the English Democrats and petty nationalism.”

And sundry Tory and Libertarian trolls who grace LC with their presence of course!

@26,

Galen 10,

Whilst I do not necessarily think local councils would solve all evils by letting voters take a more active role in decision making (plebescites), I have to question whether Flowerpower is not correct – given a straight choice, how many would vote for outreach work or for something tangible like a swimming pool?

And that would mean that in all liklihood, Flowerpower is representing a majority view here. Obviously, without putting it to a vote, we can’t say for certain, but do you really believe otherwise?

If you want to argue against direct democracy, feel free (there are very good arguments – minarets in Switzerland for example). But I wouldn’t pick the fight on the subject of local council spending if I were you – and especially not with such lofty arrogance as you display. It makes it look like you think you know what is best for everyone, and you believe everyone else is an idiot.

As for a British Tea Party (cue PG Tips monkey jokes?), the ‘angry bloke’ syndrome is more the line of the English Democrats and petty nationalism.

Would it be unfair to chimps to compare them to the English Democrats in this joke? After all, real chimps are vicuous, territorial and thuggish…

29

Oh I see, so the lofty certainty that this direct democracy you seem so enamoured of would be an unalloyed “good thing” is so much better?

The swimming pool vs outreach worker straw man sounds like you’ve swallowed some ghastly Daily Mail editorial whole.

Sadly for the advocates of direct democracy and “common sense” the majority opinion isn’t invariably right, well informed or particularly “liberal” when it comes to making hard choices.

Direct democracy might have had a place in ancient Athens, but the idea that it might be great help here and now are more than just questionable!

@21
Easy with the xenophobia FlyingRodent, the US may or may not have a “significant pinhead problem”, but it will be no worse than anyone else’s.

The difference between there and here, is that their democracy is more direct. Our main parties now control candidate selection as much as possible, and I’m sure the central machines would like to see closed-list elections extended.

You can argue that our system is better, because it eliminates undesirables, but it’s not an argument the main parties (or anyone else probably) would wish to make in public.

Galen 10

Direct democracy might have had a place in ancient Athens, but the idea that it might be great help here and now are more than just questionable!

OK, so you don’t like plebiscites. What about related activities such as participatory budgeting – sometimes used in quite left wing places such as Tower Hamlets?

One of the things that feeds political disengagement is the fact that many parts of the country are “safe” for one party or another. To be a Tory in the Labour heartland or a socialist in a Tory shire is bound to lead to a form of political despair.

Given that you cannot even bring yourself to support Labour after the NuLab cynicism and serial betrayals, I’m surprised you are so negative about ways that give people political hope. More and varied forms of direct democracy would allow people like you to both have a say and mobilize to get what you want on single issues.

@31
Direct democracy didn’t have a place in Athens either, only a very few had a say.

This is a difficult one though isn’t it? The point you’re making, in brief, is that the masses can’t be trusted with democracy because the masses are insufficiently liberal, informed etc. The standard example is that the masses would bring back hanging.

Many would agree, but ………….

Worse still, the further down the social scale you go, the more likely you are to find the ill-informed, the illiberal, etc etc.

It is unfortunate that the Tea Party movement is being infiltrated by the Religious Right. It needs to remain as a libertarian movement.

This is like saying that the Tories are being inflitrated by people with right wing beliefs. The Tea Party is composed of the 30% or so of the electorate – a much, much smaller proportion of the overall populace – who still thought George Bush was doing a good job in the middle of the financial crisis. They’re the republicans’ political base, wearing fancy dress.

Also, the idea that they’re a “libertarian movement” is cracked and insane. They’re culture war republican fucknuts, with everything that entails. They’ll vanish the second a new republican administation starts sending people to Guantanamo. If you’ve fallen for the liberty rhetoric, then I’m sorry – you’re a sucker.

It is unfortunate that the Tea Party movement is being infiltrated by the Religious Right. It needs to remain as a libertarian movement.

You realise that it was established by the upper-class cowards division of the U.S. military, don’t you?

22 “Since the Tea Party are seeking a return to what they see as the terms of the US constitution, a document which has a quasi-religious status to almost all politically-active Americans, ”

That is what they claim, but most of them have no idea what is in the US constitution. The tea party seem to believe that the US constitution means anything they want it to mean. They have moved closer to the Christian fundies, (Many of whom are the same people ) in wanting to blur the lines in church and state, but the US constitution is quite clear and the founding fathers where quite clear that religion and state should not mix.

The reason we don’t have a tea party here is we already have the tory party and most people in the south of England are just tory sheep.

“It is unfortunate that the Tea Party movement is being infiltrated by the Religious Right. It needs to remain as a libertarian movement.”

HA HA HA

That is really funny.

Do you have any idea who the people behind it are? People like Dick Armey and his fellow Republican cronies. The Tea party and the religious right are the same people.

Don’t believe the hype of the fake libertarians.

Here is Joe Miller, tea party candidate….who claims to be not about social issues.

“Miller tried to avoid saying whether he believes homosexuality is a choice, confusingly stating, “I think that’s up to the individual. The individual has to make that decision.”

“About whether or not they’re gay, or about whether or not they believe that?” Maddow asked. Miller followed-up with a long pause, and then responded, “I’m not going to intrude upon an individual’s decision as to what he or she does. The fact of the matter is it’s a state issue.“

It’s a state issue — but he later tells Maddow that he would vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.”

Very small government, very libertarian.

Galen 10,

Oh I see, so the lofty certainty that this direct democracy you seem so enamoured of would be an unalloyed “good thing” is so much better?

I seem so enamoured of? Lets see, “Whilst I do not necessarily think local councils would solve all evils by letting voters take a more active role in decision making” and “If you want to argue against direct democracy, feel free (there are very good arguments – minarets in Switzerland for example).” seem to be quotes from my comment you responded to. Does that suggest I am enamoured – interested certainly, as I like the idea of more democratic engagement, but I can see problems with it as well.

My point was simply that Flowerpower was probably right about how people would vote given the chance, and that being sneering about his views comes across as at best elitist and at worst anti-democratic.

The swimming pool vs outreach worker straw man sounds like you’ve swallowed some ghastly Daily Mail editorial whole.

Not my analogy – as I am not sure what outreach workers actually do (reach out I presume?). Thing is, most people aren’t sure either, but know what a swimming pool is for, hence my conclusion.

Sadly for the advocates of direct democracy and “common sense” the majority opinion isn’t invariably right, well informed or particularly “liberal” when it comes to making hard choices.

By definition in a democracy the winning opinion is right – it may be immoral, and in some areas (classically the death penalty – although I am not so sure nowadays) illegal, but to say that the voters are wrong is going to be elitist again.

Well-informed – that’s a tricky one. You and I are both well-informed, but we often reach different conclusions and would hardly ever vote the same way, so to prove someone ill-informed, you need to show that you are not confusing political opinions with ignorance – once again an elitist move.

And as for “liberal”, for all I am economically and socially very liberal, I am enough of a democrat to ask why should one particular philosophy be a required outcome – especially since I can’t help thinking you and I would disagree about what it was to be liberal.

Direct democracy might have had a place in ancient Athens, but the idea that it might be great help here and now are more than just questionable!

No – the idea can be questioned, but since the nub of your argument against seems to be that they might produce outcomes that do not suit you politically (and I would point out that I believe they would often produce outcomes that would not suit me politically either) through being ‘wrong’, ‘ill-informed’ or ‘illiberal’, I can’t see it as automatically questionable. Your case seems to be based on an assumption of what the outcome of democratic processes should be like, which strikes me as either odd or in the European Christian-Democrat tradition.

By all means put together an argument against direct democracy; if it’s a good argument I will support it. But what you have presented so far suggests a distrust of the demos, not of the idea.

sally @ 37,

That is what they claim, but most of them have no idea what is in the US constitution.

On the contrary – they read out passages from it a lot. Like religious types, they debate a text they all know well.

Which means your next point is accurate, although for different reasons:

The tea party seem to believe that the US constitution means anything they want it to mean.

But then you go off track again…

They have moved closer to the Christian fundies, (Many of whom are the same people ) in wanting to blur the lines in church and state, but the US constitution is quite clear and the founding fathers where quite clear that religion and state should not mix.

Indeed – and the Tea Party people realise this. They may want more Christian values and prayer in school (the second one strikes me as unconstitutional, but I don’t play their games…), but they do not want a fundamentalist state – although some of their allies do.

The reason we don’t have a tea party here is we already have the tory party and most people in the south of England are just tory sheep.

Ah, that explains the curly white hair so prevalent in Eastbourne…

33

Hmmnn.. participatory budgeting… maybe, I guess it depends how it is handled. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for trying to increase engagement, but I’m not so sure the answer is plebiscites a la Swiss minarets and US style propositions on ballots.

Safe Tory and Labour areas is a no brainer: electoral reform: just a pity the dinosaurs in New (and Old) Labour weren’t progressive enough to see it.

Labour, New Labour, Newer Labour: same, same. You’re either credulous or a fully paid up sheep to believe otherwise. They are as far away from radical and/or progressive as the LD’s are from long term political survival.

More varied forms of democracy sounds attractive, but be careful that the results don’t end up being pretty unpalateable.

@ 40

“By definition in a democracy the winning opinion is right – it may be immoral, and in some areas (classically the death penalty – although I am not so sure nowadays) illegal, but to say that the voters are wrong is going to be elitist again.”

Not so much ‘elitist’ as wanting dedicated decision-makers. I’m against direct democracy because I think people are ignorant: not in a perogative way, but in the sense that it’s not their job to know all the ins and outs of current affairs, unlike the politicians we currently elect (and even then they generally specialise).

Political decisions have to balanced against their consequences, something that’s hard to do in a referendum without the organiser being accused of rigging the vote. If people vote for what they want, they’ll pass a law saying that local health authorities should be given free reign over funding, and another banning postcode lotteries for health services. See the problem?

Add to that the effect of apathy, which would see small special-interest groups getting their way on some issues, and the even greater power of the media under such conditions, and you’ve got something that is a very, very bad idea.

The Economist’s Lexington had some interesting things to say on Constitution Worship:

http://www.economist.com/node/17103701

Largely its bullshit, the constitution was written by men and is full of compromises. I mean, why does every state get two senators? Why is there an electoral college? Also, it was written to strengthen, not weaken, central government. The C18th shouldn’t be a model for anything really.

‘Perogative’? FFS. Pejorative!

@44

It drives me up the wall. I’ve come across so many Americans who think that if you can fit your views onto the constitution, you’ve won and the debate is over. I’ve actually got them to claim that the cause they support (the death penalty, women’s right to choose, socialism, libertarianism, whatever) doesn’t matter outside of the US’s borders so they can keep using this or that amendment as a shield.

Watchman you you don’t have any idea what you are talking about regards the tea party.

The fake libertarians , the Christian right wing and the corporate money is all the same. They are the base of the republican party. They are not a new movement, just the same people who voted for Bush.

“I mean, why does every state get two senators? Why is there an electoral college? “

This is an interesting one and also one that is hard to defend when the republicans increasingly act as a parliamentary party. There is increasingly no difference between them and the vote like a soviet block. They are very proud of how their 41 votes has managed to gum up the works for the last 2 years.

The electoral college was put in place to allow the small states to have a say, but increasingly they just sent right wing speak your weight machine morons so it is madness that California gets the same amount of senators as Alaska or New York gets the same as Arizona.

The Constitution Worship in the US is utterly bizarre. The idea that the views of a bunch of men in the eighteenth century should be binding on life in the 21st century is absurd. I am against written constitutions because it is undemocratic for one generation to bind future generations. Even constitutional amendments run into the problem of the constitutional fundamentalists saying that the amendment itself was unconstitutional.

In fairness to the founding fathers, they were pretty kickass.

@49

There’s arguably a place for a limited constitution that prevents certain major decisions (invading countries, joining or leaving the EU etc) from being made without a supporting referendum. Without that, in theory a strong government could rewrite the electoral rules to ensure they maintained power indefinitely. But if you’re going to do that, each rule should be voted on periodically, possibly during the general election.

“In fairness to the founding fathers, they were pretty kickass.”

Seconded! Especially Jefferson.

I quite like Hamilton, but I’d take almost any of them over the current shower running the US.

“They are not going to read Marx, Lenin or Trotsky and neither are they going to gen up on Nozick, Rothbard and Hayek. Anything that requires the adaptation of a coherent weltanschauung is out for starters.”

“They” don’t even deserve votes, far better the decisions are made for them by clever people like you.

Its quite clear that if being informed was a prerequisite for voting then millions would be disqualified. There’s no point getting sniffy about it, some people really are fucking stupid, a lot of them are in government, in fact.

I had someone complain to me that Gordon Brown shouldn’t have been allowed to set interest rates, when I got up the BBC story from 1997 showing him making the Bank of England independent she didn’t know what to say.

However, that isn’t why people have the vote, its because (among other things) everyone’s views are of equal moral worth.

@ 55

“Its quite clear that if being informed was a prerequisite for voting then millions would be disqualified. There’s no point getting sniffy about it, some people really are fucking stupid, a lot of them are in government, in fact.”

I don’t want to disqualify people from voting due to ignorance. (That’s a lie, I sorta do, but I can’t think of a way to do it that wouldn’t invite corruption and exploitation.) I just think that asking people every five years to decide which party they’d prefer to see in power makes a lot more sense than asking them to make specific decisions on issues that they don’t know about, may not understand, and that the Sun is spewing bullshit about. And then somehow getting all of these decisions balanced out and budgeted. Absolute nightmare, old bean.

“I had someone complain to me that Gordon Brown shouldn’t have been allowed to set interest rates, when I got up the BBC story from 1997 showing him making the Bank of England independent she didn’t know what to say.”

I can beat that. My friend once said to me: “That wasn’t the Tories, it was the Conservatives.” I explained. He argued.

“However, that isn’t why people have the vote, its because (among other things) everyone’s views are of equal moral worth.”

That can’t possibly be true. However you define morality (unless you claim it doesn’t exist, in which case you shouldn’t be using words like ‘worth’ with a straight face), you’re inevitably going to find some people to have more worthy morals than others. Nelson Mandela vs Jeremy Clarkson vs Stephen Fry vs Jeremy fucking Kyle. Don’t tell me you see them all as moral equals.

The only reason I support democracy is that it’s better than the alternatives. Mob rule isn’t ideal. Mob rule with moderating factors is better.

“I can beat that. My friend once said to me: “That wasn’t the Tories, it was the Conservatives.” I explained. He argued.”

Woooo-weeee, that’s worrying, and he can tie his own shoelacesvote?

But yeah, I’m using moral worth in the right way. Not in what they’ve achieved but just that they are human being and they deserve an equal stake in society, everyone gets human rights, especially people like Ian Huntley because otherwise they have no meaning at all. Just as even idiots get to vote, for moral as well as instrumental reasons.

“Woooo-weeee, that’s worrying, and he can tie his own shoelacesvote?”

Adult. Student at the time. Not a total moron. The point is that apathy and ignorance are widespread.

“But yeah, I’m using moral worth in the right way. Not in what they’ve achieved but just that they are human being and they deserve an equal stake in society, everyone gets human rights, especially people like Ian Huntley because otherwise they have no meaning at all. Just as even idiots get to vote, for moral as well as instrumental reasons.”

You’re a canny bastard, in the friendly sense, to bring up Huntley. Ok, I think all human lives are roughly equal in value, and I certainly don’t think it’s ok to kill someone like Huntley just because he’s killed someone else. But I don’t know exactly what you mean by an ‘equal stake in society’. We generally don’t do that. We (rightly) lock some people up and (wrongly) take away their vote. I also don’t see how that translates into moral ‘worth’. That’s a word I’m very uncomfortable with, and I’d like you to define it.

http://mytype.com/blog/?p=161

Further to my point about the Tea Party being taken over by the Religious Right.

There was another interesting article (can’t recall where unfortunately) which pointed out that there are really two Tea Party movements – the original which was effectively started by Ron Paul during his campaign for the Republican nomination and was genuinely libertarian, and the current one which seems to be a lot more opportunistic and ideologically incoherent.

Ah, here it is: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904

@1

Well done. Mission accomplished 😀

This is the view of a Christian Conservative…..David Brody of the Crhsitian broadcast network

“When it comes to politics, I’m not a big fan of CW (conventional wisdom). After all, Hillary Clinton—not Barack Obama—would be President today if CW ruled. Joe Biden would have cleaned Sarah Palin’s clock in the 2008 vice presidential debate if CW had held true. It didn’t.

Now comes word from the CW experts, better known as the mainstream media, that Christians and the tea party just don’t go together.

Their reasoning goes like this: The tea party movement cares only about fiscal issues, so Christians should take their social issues and go play somewhere else. News flash for the CW crowd: Wrong again. Strike three. You’re out.

The tea party movement is the perfect place for Christians to lobby for biblical values and priorities, and many Christians seem to know that.

I have traveled across this great land and flocked to tea party events and rallies. Who do I see showing up? Conservative, Bible-believing Christians. A seat at the table is reserved for this key voting constituency because, as strategist and leading evangelical Ralph Reed tells me, “If you protect marriage and you protect life, but the federal government is destroying our future through a $20 trillion debt, that threatens our future just as much as moral decay does.”

Start marching to a tea party near you. There’s a seat waiting.”

Please stop telling me there is difference between them. There is not, just the same right wing.

Will there be an alliance between UK Tea Party types, the Countryside Alliance, the Green Party and various autonomous groups to force the government to abandon its policy of selling our ancient woodlands and forests to the likes of Donald Trump?

Caroline

Did no one mention TalkSport radio yet?

Ex professional footballers talking sport and the news of the day is where I think the British white van man exsists.

They do have George Galloway on at the weekend. And someone else is on right now.
The overnight show. I think I’ll turn it on and nod off to sleep (1089 AM)

I think there’s so many people here who don’t understand what the tea party is all about. The tea party, in it’s current form, is made up of movement cultural warrior conservatives who are campaigning under the banner of constitutional reverence and small government. They don’t really support the constitution. If they did, they wouldn’t be in support of repealing the 17th amendment or ending birthright citizenship and they would support gay rights. They would also support the separation of church & state. They aren’t defenders of the constitution, they are hucksters trying to make a quick buck. There’s a reason why groups supporting the tea party are funded by major corporations, and there’s a reason why Sarah Palin quite her job as Governor of Alaska, or why Glenn Beck talks about the benefits of investing in gold (gold being a very popular sort of “anti-government” thing that is popular with libertarians) while being a spokesman for Goldline, or why before running for office Christine O’Donnell was unemployed and used campaign money to pay rent. They are feckless hucksters, pure and simple, paid for by corporations and supported by the unknowing. The GOP is (very cleverly) using the tea party to distance themselves from Bush’s horrible legacy; the notion that this is the GOP going through some sort of metamorphosis is a joke.

It is up to us, the rational and sane, to see through their racket and call them out for what it is.

Surely this is all 30 year old history. The Thatcher revoution was the British Tea Party when the ‘garagistes’ and the estate agents took over the Tories and moved the rhetoric if not all the reality away from one nation Toryism.

Some v interesting comments on the Tea Party here from one of its founders

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/karl-denninger-tea-party-founder-tea-party-is-a-joke/

if you follow some of the links, he really gives them what for

Nothing more edifying than a bunch of leftie Brits yakking about something they don’t have a clue about. Top thread!

America’s founding myth was a rebellion against taxation so it has more resonance over there. We have the myth of Robin Hood…

See what I mean? Sam Adams actually existed and the Boston Tea Party actually happened, they are not “myths” like Robin Hood.

They don’t really support the constitution. If they did, they wouldn’t be in support of repealing the 17th amendment or ending birthright citizenship and they would support gay rights. They would also support the separation of church & state.

Not sure how arguing for the repeal of a section of the Constitution equates to not supporting it, unless the first ten amendments to the Constitution were proof that the Framers also didn’t support the Constitution. Perhaps on Planet Moonbat that is indeed the case, I dunno. Birthright citizenship isn’t actually in the Constitution but was a result of judicial activism in modern times. And does the Tea Party call for the repeal of the First Amendment? I don’t think so — get a grip, Christina.

“Angry middle-aged white blokes with a grudge against politicians of all stripes”

Stopped reading after this sentence.

You sir are a bigot.

“They are not racists, you understand. But you’ve got to admit that Labour let in too many bleedin’ immigrants, right? And they all know a family with eight kids that is just taking the piss from the welfare state.”

Your pure contempt for ordinary people is vile to read.

And you wonder why your movement doesn’t gain traction with them? Would you want to follow someone who hates you with the energy that you would appear to hate the working class? I doubt it.

69

“Stopped reading after this sentence.”

Then how can you have anything meaningful to say when you don’t know what the rest of the article said?

You sir are priggish know-nothing.

The Tea Party only works because it’s backed by the Koch brothers. (Their daddy was behind the John Birch Society.)

It’s nice to find a hidden hand behind the movement. It proves that stupid people can’t spontaneously become a political force.

Your pure contempt for ordinary people is vile to read.

And you wonder why your movement doesn’t gain traction with them? Would you want to follow someone who hates you with the energy that you would appear to hate the working class?

Hey, we’re not the ones claiming that “the working class” is an undifferentiated mass of ignorant racism. They’re actually a pretty diverse bunch in my experience – exactly as you would expect from any large and arbitrarily-defined subset of the general population.

You’re not representative.

I love the idea of a mad hatters UK tea party
Right wing loonies like flowerpower, nasty and dim Tim, Nick Cohen and the many right wing journos and bloggers we have in blighty.
Discussing how to get rid of muslims, the state, NHS, the EU, the socialism, and assorted problems caused by lefties. liberals and johnny foreigner
Better than watching the Inbetweeners

Oh I forgot Falco
By the way are you named after the mysterious Eurotrash pop combo of the eighties