There are two views you can take on Jeremy Corbyn. You can either see him as one who believes first and foremost in dialogue and non-violent solutions - or you can view him as a terrorist sympathiser. I think the latter since Corbyn is a far leftist and shares too many platforms with too many dodgy people for the links to be incidental. There is very obviously a festering anti-Semitism problem on the left and it will be tolerated for as long as Momentum controls the party.
As it happens I would prefer a PM who believes in the power of dialogue and non-violent solutions - but only if you have an astute person capable of recognising threats. Anyone with a grasp of terrorism should really know by now that there isn't much dialogue to be had with our current foes. We can do certain things to influence Saudi Arabia, there are things we can do on the local level, but ultimately we cannot oblige our enemies.
Corbyn has not understood this. What we see from him might be expected in a teenage leftist radical from the eighties - but not a candidate for the highest elected office in the land.
As to the happy clappy hope and change economic policy, all adults recognise the responsibility of government is to find ways of rationing resource to cope with bigger and more diverse demands. Good government is one that finds ways to creatively offload certain functions and enlist the private sector or social enterprise. Shared responsibility is the hallmark of a healthy society. To instead pretend that there is no shortage of resource and to keep all functions under the umbrella of government is actually a sign of an authoritarian and a child.
As ever we are told that there would be enough money if only we could go after those offshore tax havens. Over the years, countries have grappled with these issues with measured intensity in bilateral tax treaties and various international forums, such as the United Nations, the OECD, the Group of 20 and the intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force (FATF). In 1998, the OECD launched a project on harmful tax competition. Initially, this project aimed at identifying and sanctioning a list of non-OECD member tax havens. Twenty years later and we're no further forward because we increasingly find that actions have consequences and there are no easy answers. No matter how many times we tell them, they still won't accept that there is no magic money tree.
It's hardly surprising that the young tend to prefer Corbyn. Leftists tell the same lie over and over to ever new generation - exploiting the idealism of youth. They seek to use democracy to destroy it. The only thing keeping it in check is the fact that the elders vote and the youth tend not to bother. And when that happens, all we hear from the left is that the elders are somehow luckier and selfish hoarders. Every strand of leftist thought is about envy and the confiscation of property rather than the creation of wealth. That which it cannot control it wishes to destroy - regardless of who ends up poorer.
There are, sadly, times when leftists do come to power. When their childish notions meet the reality of modern governance they rapidly fold - but usually take us down in the process. What we find is that even if the left can somehow leverage money to "invest", their idea of investment usually means a mass expansion of their client base. It leads to more wasteful government, more authoritarianism and more men standing idle.
We are told that this is with a view to creating a fairer society but I have never seen the fairness in creating a permanent welfare underclass, nor have I ever seen the fairness in consolidating a powerbase by grossly ramping up the public sector headcount.
Labour is right about one thing though. Poverty is the defining issue of this election. That would be the intellectual poverty of our political class.
As writer Ciarán McGonagle points out, Labour presently reside in non-interconnected world where economic policy can be imposed unilaterally without regard to global context, where increasing tax on upwardly mobile corporates and high earners inevitably leads to increased revenues without risk of relocation. Where the City's hegemony is inevitable and can be squeezed for new revenues as though other nations are incapable of competing for business. Where Government can pick and choose which international laws and regulations it deigns to adhere to without losing global influence in making those laws. Where the Government can nationalise and subsidise industry at a whim without fear of reprisal or economic consequence. Pure political illiteracy.
By just about every test of intellect and decency I find this iteration of Labour wanting. For all that Labour has some sound people here and there who would undoubtedly make a better go of it than the Tories, the very idea of handing over the keys to number ten to a man who would break the union and negotiate over Falklands sovereignty is offensive. That the man shows such spectacular lack of judgement that he would even consider the lazy and pig ignorant Emily Thornberry for a front line role speaks to his manifest lack of leadership ability. It's a slap in the face and an insult to voters. This is not a serious proposition for government and not a choice an adult could make.
No comments:
Post a Comment