Is this article a joke?

What a curious post. “Yes, officer, they are the same, but it was just a coincidence.” I don’t think anyone will believe you.

It doesn’t matter a damn whether the image is a stock image or not. Carswell was laughing at the Fabians, not threatening to sue them. This hysterical humourless response makes it even worse. Here’s a bit of second-hand wisdom: When in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

This post makes Labour looking boring, dishonest and nasty. If it were my blog, I’d remove it; but since Carswell has noticed, it’s too late for that now. All you can do now is endure the derision.

Good luck.

(By the way, people will notice if you just delete all the comments, and will express their amusement at your censorship at Carswell’s blog instead. Don’t do that either. When in a hole, stop digging. Let it peter out naturally).

Well, writing as the “windowlicker” who posted the “sue the b*st*rds” comment…

I presumed that the country under construction image was an orginal one, which is not an entirely unreasonable assumption to have made. I was commenting on a blog, not involving myself in serious research, after all. I would imagine a labour supporter would make a similar assumption if the reverse had happened. I don’t think that such a reasonable error deserves “windowlicker”. Do you?

The image is clearly very similar. That it had already been used on a well-known political book cover may be a coincidence. Or it may not be. The colour scheme is the same, for instance. The overally similarity is remarkable.

What is most disturbing though is that this is a Labour blog. Labour and its supporters purport to be a constituency who care about vulnerable minorities. I would think that that includes the mentally disadvantaged. The term “windowlicker” is a gross and derogatory slang against the mentally disabled, as I’m sure you well know. This only confirms my own view that those on the left love to make loud noises about caring when there is political advantage to it, but have little real personal commitment to those they purport to care about and represent. Once you’ve made your political gain, it’s giggling amongst yourselves about “windowlickers” and, no doubt, “spazzies” and “‘tards”. How pathetic.

roger_pearse, Carswell knows about this post because we told him about it! Using cheap clip art and then claiming it’s an original design is, well, choose your own adjectives!

Good to see Carswell’s window-lickers reinforce their status here too though. Keep it up: the more people read about ‘The Plan’ and it’s authors, the more they’ll see through the ‘progressive conservative’ façade.

IanB: Your non-defence of Carswell is a classic. You presumed that Carswell & Hannan used an original image? Isn’t that precisely what Carswell wanted you to believe? Shame it isn’t.

Offended at being called a window-licker? You have only yourself to blame for that!

There are many definitions for ‘window-licker’. This is the one which best fits people like you:

“A creepy, pathetic and obsessed admirer with no friends that one wouldn’t actually date or admit being friends with but keeps around in order to continually be complimented; a metaphorical situation is one that would involve said individual licking the front window of the person who keeps him/her around.”

Well, I have to admit that you win, mysterious “Labour Matters” person. When it comes to mastery of childish name calling, the rest of us are hopelessly outclassed by you enlightened progressives.

Not quite sure why you would object to “progressive conservatives”! Victory is when your enemies adopt your ideas. But surely the best response is to be forward looking yourselves?

By this I do NOT mean “thinking up plans to criminalise the entire population if they want their bins emptied”, and similar dreadful, hateful, evil things. We have seen much too much of this. Why does Labour spend so much time making the lives of ordinary people harder?

Labour needs vision desperately. Brown has none, and never did. Blair’s has turned out to be a mirage. As for Mandy… brrr. Isn’t he precisely the sort of evil eminence-gris that socialists despise in a despotism? How low can Labour go, when its hopes are founded on someone who seems to me such a revolting, sinister figure?

So… where next? Where is the vision?

It has be something based on solid respect for ordinary people. New Labour never had any. Old Labour often had precious little, when the chips were down, as millions of Trade Unionists found out.

Do you want to empower ordinary people, or enslave them? To protect the poor; or merely to rob the middle classes, who are mostly those members of the poor who managed to save something? To live in a free country; or one where only the rich and privileged can run a car and travel where they will? To share the wealth so that we can get medical help when we need it; or to pretend to do so, while the PM and his cronies go private and patients die of neglect? To ensure that criminals are punished and ordinary people free from fear; or to spy on every ordinary man and arrest the victim, while releasing robbers to rob again?

Questions… but they all need answers, and open-minded answers. Answers there should be, and would be were Labour not rotted by years of office. How can Labour be so easily destroyed by CallMeDave? Who loves or trusts HIM? No-one.

But gnawing the ends of old hatreds and treacheries spells ruin. Time to think, and think again, and go back to first principles. Does the movement serve the people; or not?