Tuesday, 30 July 2019

Don't let Labour ruin Britain again

Governments are very powerful in Britain. The power of Parliament on the other hand is limited. It can pass or fail to pass laws and it can vote a Government down. Governments have been able to declare war and make peace without asking the opinion of Parliament. What this means is that a Government fully intent on leaving the EU with or without a deal has many advantages. It will be the Government talking to the EU. Parliament cannot carry out negotiations with anyone because we are not ruled by Parliament, we are ruled by the Crown that appoints a Government. This means that if Parliament wants to stop a determined Government from taking the UK out of the EU it will probably have to vote down that Government. It is this that brings us to the possibility of a General Election.

Parliament is in recess now and comes back on 3rd September. If a General Election is called, Parliament is dissolved for 25 days. What this means is that there is a relatively short window of opportunity between early September and early October when Parliament can bring down the Government in order to stop Brexit by means of a no-confidence vote. A few Tory Remainers have that power. They would, of course, be kicked out of the Conservative Party if they brought down a Conservative Government, but for some of them Remaining in the EU is more important than anything else, so they may well do so.

It is impossible to predict anything in British politics at the moment, but a General Election will still primarily be a fight between Labour and the Conservatives. The SNP will still win a lot of seats in Scotland and a lot of Remainers will vote for the Lib Dems. The Brexit Party may repeat some of its success at the European Elections, but would this be helpful for a clean Brexit or a hindrance?

The Conservative Party would stand on a “no deal” manifesto promising to leave the EU come what may. If that Government had a working majority it could force through Brexit, but it couldn’t if it depended on the votes of Remainers or a Remainer party. Ten or twenty Brexit Party MPs might help, of course, but what if splitting the Brexiteer vote leads to the Conservatives not gaining a majority at all?

However well other parties do, it is still the case that the next Government will almost certainly either be Labour or Conservative. Such a Government may depend on the votes of others in coalition, but it is virtually impossible for these others to themselves form a Government. For this reason, it is crucial to focus on Labour.

Here are the reasons to vote against Labour:

1. Jeremy Corbyn.

Labour is no longer a moderate social democratic party. Nor is it working in the Old Labour tradition. Old Labour may have been misguided, but at least it was patriotic. Corbyn’s Hard Left Labour is something never experienced in Britain before. Corbyn has a record of siding with Britain’s enemies including the IRA and Middle Eastern terrorist groups. He would do his best to radically change the UK economy so that it as closely as possible matched his Marxist thinking. If you want a communist Prime Minister, now is your best chance of getting one.

2. Anti-Semitism

Labour’s anti-Semitism is not accidental. It is a feature of Hard-Left thinking that sides with those terrorist groups that would like to destroy Israel. It is anti-Semitic because it judges Israel by a standard that it applies to no other country. If a fascist became leader of the Conservative Party, I would expect every decent Conservative MP to resign. So called moderate Labour MPs are guilty by association. They all campaigned for an anti-Semite to be Prime Minister in 2017. They would all campaign for him to be Prime Minister in 2019. People who campaign for anti-Semites are themselves anti-Semitic.

3. Scottish independence.

A Conservative Government will not allow a second independence referendum for at least a generation. It is nearly impossible given the destruction of the Labour Party in Scotland for Labour to win an overall majority without the support of the SNP. The condition for SNP support will obviously be that Corbyn allows the SNP to have indyref2. Whatever Labour says, it would have no choice to make this deal with the SNP. It would be either that or not being in power at all. Pro UK people who vote for Labour in Scotland are therefore in effect voting for the SNP.

4. Remain.

The overwhelming majority of Labour MPs are Remain supporters. This would still be the case if Labour were to form a Government not least because it would in all probability have to form such a Government with the Lib Dems and the SNP. Labour policy on Brexit has been confused and opportunistic. In the past they have wanted an even softer Brexit than Theresa May’s deal. Now they appear to want a second referendum on Brexit in which Labour would campaign for Remain. Large numbers of Labour constituencies however voted to Leave. It makes no sense for any of these Leave voters to vote for Labour. Obviously too, any party that supports a second Brexit referendum because they didn’t like the result of the first, could hardly deny SNP demands for a second referendum on independence. So once more a vote for Labour is a vote for indyref2.

5. No deal.

Some people think that a “no deal” Brexit would be an economic disaster. But what would a Jeremy Corbyn Government do to the UK economy? I can think of no example of Marxist economics leading a country to becoming more prosperous. China is communist in name only. A Conservative chancellor could mitigate any difficulty of leaving the EU without a deal by means of tax cuts, lowering of tariffs with non-EU countries and a bonfire of EU red tape. A Corbyn Government would instead raise taxes as much as it possibly could. Would add still further layers of bureaucracy to British business. It would nationalise as much industry as it could and it would follow the policies of the Corbyn heroes that led countries like Venezuela into chaos and poverty. Which do you fear more a “no deal” Brexit or a Corbyn led Labour Government?

6. Moderate Labour

The Hard Left may control the Labour Party, but who put them there? The answer, of course, is so called moderate Labour. Despite Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair attempting to turn Labour into a moderate social democratic party, they allowed the Hard Left to remain. The Conservative Party would not tolerate fascists as MPs. It would not allow them to be elected year after year, but moderate Labour allowed racist Marxists and communists to be elected. Communism killed far more people in the twentieth century than fascism did, yet somehow communists are still acceptable to Labour. It was only because moderate MPs thought the Hard Left deserved a chance in the leadership contest following Ed Miliband’s resignation that Jeremy Corbyn was nominated in the first place. Labour isn’t a moderate party led by an extremist. It is a party that sympathises with Hard-Left socialism. Moderate Labour MPs may be willing to temper their socialist ideals out of pragmatism, but they would all prefer that it wasn’t necessary to moderate them. They are therefore not moderate.  

7. Tom Watson.

The leader of moderate Labour is Tom Watson. Does anyone believe that Tom Watson would have championed “Nick” if Nick had uncovered child abuse and murder involving senior Labour figures from 1970s? This illustrates the fundamental problem with moderate Labour. Even moderates hate Conservatives (“lower than vermin”) in a way that is quite irrational and is in no way reciprocated. Conservatives think socialism is mistaken, but there is rarely if ever hatred of the Left. Tom Watson made a catastrophic error in judgement when he supported Nick. It ruined the lives and reputation of innocent people. It helped the SNP depict Westminster as a cess pool.  Tom Watson has not even properly apologised for his actions. Given the chance to attack the reputation of Tories, he would no doubt do so again. Do you really want such a man even as an MP let alone one of the leaders of the Labour Party?

8. Defence.

We don’t know what threats Britain will face either from other countries or from terrorist organisations, but we do know that in order to defend ourselves we need our armed forces, our intelligence services and our relationship with the United States. If there were a terrorist attack in the UK, would Jeremy Corbyn support the terrorists? After all, in the past he has sympathised with the aims of the IRA and Islamic jihadists. He has refused to condemn Russian poisoners and has worked for Iranian TV. If Britain faced a crisis in the years ahead would you really want Jeremy Corbyn in charge?

9. Immigration.

The last time we had a Labour Government it opened the door to mass migration so as to “"rub the Right's nose in diversity”. This remember was a moderate Labour Party. The nature of Britain was changed forever. Pressure on housing and public services was increased. The Hard Left is even more in favour of mass immigration than New Labour was. Is there anyone from anywhere who Jeremy Corbyn would forbid from coming to Britain except perhaps Donald Trump? What damage would a few years of Labour do to Britain? They’d rub everyone’s nose in it, not just the Right.

10. Labour makes you poorer

Labour’s solution to any and every problem is to spend more public money on it. It is for this reason that each and every past Labour Government has either managed Britain’s decline or led us into economic crisis. Old Labour gave us 1979 and the Winter of Discontent. New Labour gave us 2008 and the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Labour promises to help the poorest in society, but because socialism doesn’t work.  It inevitably makes them poorer instead. If even moderate New Labour wrecked the UK economy, what would Hard Left Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour do to our prosperity?

There is an alternative. Boris Johnson’s Conservatives offer us a UK that is fully sovereign and completely outside the EU. This will give us the chance to develop the low tax, pro-business, low tariff economy that is necessary to compete in the modern world. Brexit gives us the greatest opportunity in decades to become more efficient and richer. Economics is really very simple. Decrease the size of the state, lower public spending and tax and offer free trade to anyone who will reciprocate.  This will make not only the poor richer, it will make everyone else richer too. Brexit is about hope. Don’t let Labour wreck it.


  1. Herewith a small point - but, it is submitted, a fairly central one.

    The UK Government, as Effie reminds us, governs. This is quite right - with the provide, of course, that it governs *under the Law*. Any governmental measure has to comply with the Law. If the Government wishes to introduce a measure changing the Law, it will need the support of Parliament. In normal times, it will get such support. These are not normal time, however: all the bets are off.

    1. In respect of Brexit the government does not need to change the law. The law already states that we leave on Oct 31st,

    2. Up to a point, Lord Copper …

      It's a bit more nuanced than Anonymous allows. That had certainly been my view, but I am advised that there is another understanding as well. More of this anon. As it were.

    3. However, Anonymous, you rightly point out that the leaving of the European Community has become a lawful possibility - *after* Westminster had legislated to change the Law.

    4. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/1/enacted

    5. "“exit day” means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. (and see subsections (2) to (5))".
      Later amended to 31 October 2019 .
      That's the law as it stands . No further legislation necessary .

  2. This article is an absolute denial of history, of fact, of political reality. It's a warning to all of what the Tory mind-set really is. It's for the few not the many. It has an unshakable belief in the discredited "trickle-down" theory of wealth distribution that has NEVER worked. This article should be a wake up call to all who want to live in a prosperous social democracy that Toryism is still a threat to that personal prosperity.

    1. You are a ranting brainwashed communist.

    2. Is that your considered opinion based on a careful examination of the facts .... or just your standard knee-jerk reaction to anybody who hasn't deified Thatcher? If you don't know the difference between Communism and Social Democracy your opinion is worthless.

    3. Long on assertion, short on evidence.
      It is your opinion that is worthless, Bungo.

    4. Ooft!! ....that was a sore one and no mistake. It's that sort of nuanced debate and razor sharp insight that will save the union .... or maybe not.

      Though I do apologise to TheTruth for saying his opinion was "worthless". Nobodies opinion is worthless. His "assertion" I am a "ranting, brainwashed communist", however, is without "evidence". I look forward to Anon taking him to task over it .... though I won't be holding my breath.

    5. Yeah, he's probably wrong. There's not much to suggest you're a communist.

    6. Well that's three replies from unionists with simple abuse the goal. Not so much as a passing nod to either the article's points or those in my original post. Contrary to what the unionist media would have people believe, it is all too typical of the pro-union denizens of cyberspace.

    7. Long on assertion, short on evidence.
      1. If any of that constitutes "abuse", then you are a serial abuser yourself.
      2. I'm not a unionist.
      3. 'The Truth' was being ironic. As is obvious to anyone with a sense of humour.
      4. Do point out your own discussion of the article's points. Facetious rubbishing doesn't count.

    8. OK Anon:
      1. It was the claim of my opinions being worthless I was alluding to which, its true, was a response to my use of the phrase. Which is why I apologised for it.
      2. You say you are not a unionist but your apparent defence of a strongly unionist article argues against this claim. Maybe you're not but I have no evidence of it.
      3. "TheTruth" may have been "ironic" but there is no evidence of that. Its fairly common-place for right wingers to make such claims. If they were being ironic I apologise for misunderstanding them. But I'm not convinced.
      4. My post directly addressed point 10 in the article. I didn't address all the points as I had neither the time nor the inclination to do so. It was not "facetious rubbishing".

      Abuse is never my intent but robust criticism is often necessary.

    9. Fair enough, Bungo. And thank you for your equanimity - a gentle reminder that I could be less grumpy

  3. During Effie's absence, her official party line on Labour would seem to have changed. Before, she appeared to see success for Labour asa means of preventing independence. Since her return, she seems to perceive Labour rule from Westminster as the greatest imaginable evil.

  4. Labour in Scotland served its purpose for the Tories in 2014. A role it has paid the electoral price for by becoming increasingly irrelevant. This was a double whammy for the Tories. They got their fiercest rivals to do their dirty work for them and destroy themselves doing it. They are therefore no longer of any use to the Tories and not worth their tacit support in opposing independence.

    Westminster is different altogether. There, Labour still (barely) pose a threat to Tory hegemony, especially if SNP support is sought. The SNP will want indyref2 as the price of supporting a Corbyn govt which terrifies the Scottish Tories who know they are very likely to lose it. Therefore, Corbyn/Labour must now be trashed in order to prevent (among other things) Scottish independence. An ironic turnaround.

    It may all be for nothing though as it is the actions of the Tories themselves that appear to be hastening Scottish independence as they give the British nationalist/Brexit beast its head.

    Personally, I'm happy to see unionists squabbling among themselves.

    1. Historically, several factions, from the Liberal Unionists onwards, have formed strategic alliances with the Tories. Each one has either been absorbed in due course, or just discarded. Which fate, I wonder, is in store for the Labour Party in Scotland?

  5. The fear is dripping of the page. Not so long ago the SNP were dead and the Tories were about to take over in Scotland.

    Here we have what appears to be a terror stricken letter to the world fearing a Bolshevik revolution and an electoral coup in Scotland.

    In the end all Effie has to offer in defence of the union is that the Tories won't allow a vote.

    Democracy seems to have started to get in the way of the right wing and its supporters in the UK. My main concern at the moment is will popcorn supplies run out as this is fascinating and I do love the terror of the blue rinse brigade.

    Any comment on the Tories in Scotland now clambering to free of London's influence....As far as irony and lack of self awareness goes this must surely be close to the political peak.

  6. Oh I don't know Effie. I think we need a wee dose of socialism from time to time, if only to prove that it doesn't work. 40 years have now passed since the end of the disastrous Wilson / Callaghan government and unless you're either old - or a sad bastard like me - then you don't know anything about it. There are now a couple of generations of people who now seriously believe that if only we could have socialism then all our problems would be solved. This is also the primary motivation of independence seekers in Scotland, who seek to cut out England thereby making it easier for the left to win.

    Against this backdrop of relentlessly advancing stupidity and ignorance, I say to hell with it - let them have it. Give them what they really really want. Give them Corbyn. Give them socialism. Give them high taxes, nationalisation, brain drain, inflation, stagnation. It would be more useful than any attempt at schooling these people by any other means. And then, after a few years, hopefully they'll have had enough of it. Alternatively, if the socialism actually works this time - unlike all the other times it has been tried - then I'll be happy to keep it.

  7. Its not about creating a socialist Nirvana. Its about stopping a right-wing resurgence destroying the advances made in society since WW2.

    Because socialism does work, so long as it is not the only game in town. Western capitalism funding progressive (socialist) social policies has worked incredibly well for many decades now. It has led to higher living standards, quality of life, opportunities, innovation, technological advancement and, generally, a society our grandparents could not even dream about.

    Capitalism is good at generating money .... but it is hopeless at raising the living standards of the vast majority of the population. See the entire 19th century and early 20th century for evidence of this. Socialism has loads of good ideas on how to raise people out of poverty but is hopeless at raising the funds for them. So a balance had to be found.

    Many Western Democracies have been very successful at finding that balance. Especially the small, independent ones where a "national consensus is easier to come by. However, in recent times the wealthy (individuals and corporations) have become increasingly resentful of "funding" the wonder that is the Western quality of life (with all its subsequent socio-economic advantages) and are using the 2008 crash, right-wing populists and, in the UK, Brexit to "roll back the state" and hoard as much of the wealth as possible to themselves again.

    I would rather that didn't happen. I don't want society to revert to "pre-socialist" days when a small minority led wealthy, comfortable lives while the overwhelming majority lived short, miserable lives in poverty.