The Bit Of A Wasted Party Party welcomes ... The People's Alliance. Or The Peoples' Alliance, in those areas of the website that haven't been visited by the grammar police. What have they got to offer us..?

Direct Democracy: The Royal Assent, given to bills that have been passed by both chambers of parliament, is replaced by a referendum. All bills to be decided by national referendum? Even those that bother slightly fewer people than the viewership of BOYS AND GIRLS? Who in Grimsby would be bothered to vote at a referendum on the Boundaries Bill (Revision) (Herefordshire and Worcestershire)? Decent soundbite, but more holes can be found, and in a shorter time, than when Zaphod Beeblebrox used his four eyes on a Swiss cheese.

The people can propose laws - enough signatures on a petition means they must go to referendum. So rather than having laws drafted to a reasonable degree of precision by professional civil servants, expected to be read by judges and other civil servants, we're going to get sloppily drafted laws, written by tabloid correspondents, aimed at tabloid readers, and with all the watertight properties of a sodden paper bag in the Red Sea. This has been tried in the US, this has been seen as a failure by all sensible commentators with a brain the size of a small pea in the US, so why is it rearing its head here?

MPs to spend two days a week in Westminster and two days a week in national assemblies. Again, looks good on paper, but paper cuts easily and in a painful manner. What is a "national" assembly, and how does it relate to the English regions? Would the English national assembly be Westminster shorn of Welsh, Scots and Irish members? Where does the Greater London Assembly fit into this?

People to decide which powers are to be devolved from Europe or the UK to local level. Political scholars will welcome the return of that buzzword from 1991, "Subsidiarity." Should these things be decided at European, national, regional, county, district, or parish level? At present, everything gravitates towards national level, with even those things best decided locally ruled upon at county or national level. Such is the penalty for the missing regional tier of government, and the increasing toothlessness of the counties that has come to pass over the past 20 years or so. This time, a fine idea. It just doesn't square with the one above.

The key economic policy is a straight ripoff from the Green Party circa 1992. Universal benefit to be paid to every citizen without means-testing. Notionally part of Beveridge's welfare state, but that failed to survive the 1945 Labour parliament. I think the Stalinist states of Eastern Europe tried this approach, and it failed along with their economies. All other benefits would be abolished, which saves a whole heck on administration, and (in theory) this money could be ploughed back to make the UB a liveable standard. Would that be sustainable for the economy? Not a chance. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that a UB in the vicinity of GBP 120 per person per week - roughly midway between the minimum wage on a 40 hour week and unemployment benefits, and roughly on a par with the state pension - would not reduce the labour pool significantly. Much higher, and people are effectively being paid not to work, changing the NAIRU, and increasing inflation until the value of the benefit is eroded away. Aren't self-correcting markets wonderful?

A single rate of tax to be paid on all earnings, straight lift from Steve Forbes' 1996 (and 2000?) campaign for the US presidency. Forbes proposed a flat income tax of 17% for the US; I vaguely recall analysis of the UK economy at the time suggesting a 24% flat rate would have done the trick. Bearing in mind that the UK already has a short 10% rate, a longer 20% taper, and a basic rate of 23%, any flat rate above 22% is going to be very regressionary.

Electronic voting, nothing particularly new, though if they'd care to read the RISKS archive on this matter, they should fairly quickly come to realise why that has to be handled very carefully. Minimum voting age of 16 will come in time.

Citizen enabling card, effectively an ID card by any other name. Would it be worth the benefits? That's a debate for another time.

Points for petty crime; enough black marks and you'll get some of your universal benefit withheld. Borrowed from the driving license, though what happens if one clocks up enough points to lose 100% of UB? Does one cease to be a citizen?

Unspecified reform to health spending and education, yadda yadda yadda. Reduction of false asylum seekers, the usual bandwagon jumping bullshit. If there's one thing that WITHOUT PREJUDICE? taught me, it's that I really can't stand people who want to stop asylum seekers. The sort of irrational thing that comes right from the core of my being: I can't explain it, nor do I particularly want to understand it.

Dogs that don't bark? As well as the English regions, nothing on electoral reform, nothing on the Second Chamber, nothing on transport, the environment, environment, very little on Europe, nothing on EMU. Also no costings, fundings, or other numbers for us to crunch.

The party intends to occupy the "centre-right" of British politics. I have a theory that politics is best positioned not by the old "left-right" axis, but on a two dimensional scale. On one dimension, social policy; on another, economic policy. The two aren't completely independent, but I reckon they're more independent than dependent.

On this diagram, social policy makes the horizontal axis, economic policy the vertical one. I've marked off the main British political parties, plus the Greens and where I reckon the People's Alliance stands. There are grey splodges at two corners ; that indicates areas where policy tends towards incoherence. Debate will rage over whether Labour should be above or below the line. That is not my point.

The PA is almost indistinguishable from the Conservatives, and occupies the scorched ground between Labour and the Conservatives. There is a huge chasm for an economically and socially liberal party, votes that currently go to the Lib Dems almost by default.

Does the PA stand a cat in hell's chance? No, would be the short answer. The main issues for the 2005 election seem to be: healthcare, education, immigration asylum. Europe, especially EMU, may return to the fore by then. So might the probity of government, and if Gulf War III ends in OPEC switching to the Euro, expect the economy to be a big issue. Transport won't be, the environment won't be, pensions probably won't be, electoral and constitutional reform certainly won't be, even though they are the biggest issues facing the country in the next 15-20 years. What does the PA have to offer on all these? Referenda. And more referenda.

I give them no chance at all.