Why Theresa May is done for

For better or worse, Theresa May managed to survive the calamitous failure of her 2017 election campaign, which led to her leading a minority government propped up by the DUP. I have to give her credit for at least managing to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of power, but she should enjoy her marginal success while it lasts. After this failure of an election campaign, her career may as well be over. After this campaign, she has weakened her hand significantly, and in a minority government, she has lost all authority and credibility that she barely had before then.

How is she doomed? Well for starters, she basically killed her own campaign. She set out to commit blue murder on the opposition, but she ended up shooting herself in the foot instead. All the more damning was that she practically convinced her fellow Tories that she had it in the bag. They were hoping that she would lead them back into a large majority, giving them the mandate they need to do whatever they wanted. Now that she failed, I imagine that there are now a number of Tory MP’s looking for her head on a silver platter.

There’s already talk of a possible leadership contest in the near future. It’s mainly speculation, but it’s not entirely groundless. Now that Theresa May appears to have been weakened, it’s likely that other Tory MPs may try to undermine her, and if the time is right, they might launch a leadership coup against her, just like Labour’s MP’s tried to with Jeremy Corbyn just last year. It’s not an incredibly likely scenario, but it’s not impossible.

The way I see it, even if Theresa May survives the rest of the year in Downing Street, she’ll basically spend what I assume will be her final term lurching from one crisis to another until she is eventually either taken down, or loses the election to Labour, which I believe they will because from here on out the people will see the Tories as emperors with no clothes. The legitimacy of the Tories has been undermined so badly that the stench of failure will haunt the next government.

And then there’s the European question. In this election, the Tories have drawn blood, and like the sharks that they are, the EU leaders will likely smell that weakness, and attempt to exploit that. If Theresa May were somehow able to hardball the EU despite her weakened position, it could perhaps restore people’s faith in her, and that might translate into better electoral performance. However, there will be Tory MP’s who don’t like her approach to Brexit, some of them may have been re-elected.

Of course, even with her successes, she will be remembered for this year’s seismic election, and by extension, her failure to campaign, which has exposed her failure as a campaigner, but also her arrogance. She honestly believed that the election was her’s to win, and that the people would accept that either vote for her and give her a strong majority or we’d have a coalition of chaos. Well as the old saying goes, pride goes before destruction, and in the end, the arrogance of a politician or a party will inevitably be punished by the electorate. In fact, the Tories did so badly that it makes Diane Abbott look more competent by comparison (incidentally, she was re-elected by her constituents in a landslide).

For me, there is really no other way of looking at Theresa May’s career other than through such a pessimistic lens, because that’s the truth. She’s over. She’s overplayed her hand, she’s weakened her own party, and she may well have crippled Brexit, while handing power to her opposition. At this rate, she’s doomed. If she manages to stay in power for the rest of the 2010’s, that in itself will be an accomplishment, but she will perhaps be remembered as one of the worst Prime Ministers in history, single-handedly alienating everyone that she could. As for Brexit, this is perhaps the best result that the slimy pro-European Tories could hope for, and they will have the opportunity to do to her what they did to Margaret Thatcher in 1990.

Here we go again

theresa may

When I saw the exit polls predicting a hung parliament, I was quite worried, but I still clung to some kind of hope that, maybe people were lying to the polls again. When I got up in the morning, I awoke to realise that the exit polls were right. The Tories failed to win an outright majority, and thus, with only 313 seats as I’m writing this, we have entered a hung parliament. The future of my country is uncertain, and the blame for all of this lies with Theresa May. She called this election with the sole intent of strengthening her majority, and in the end she ended up weakening her’s and potentially putting Brexit at risk. As I’m writing this, the Tories are now attempting to form a coalition government with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (who have 10 seats), and if the Tories manage to win enough seats, this could be possible.

Of course we know why this has happened. Theresa May could have had the sweeping majority she wanted. All she had to do was not screw it up. She could have just focused on Brexit and controlling immigration, and she could have gone about making the public case for a hard Brexit scenario. Instead, she didn’t bother going on TV debates with the opposition, making her look weak. She used her overconfident position to put forward widely unpopular policies, such as fox hunting, and regulation of the Internet. She believed that the Brexit-voting public would simply default to her in order to secure Brexit, but the electorate saw right through it, and thus we have our current situation.

Labour, meanwhile, benefitted not just from a significant share of the UKIP vote, but also from a surge of young voters flocking to Labour. This election has been very good for the Marxists in the Labour Party, and I think this is primarily because the Tories wanted to police the Internet. They could have secured the young vote if they at least kept that part secret until they got elected. I also have to concede that Jeremy Corbyn ran a more positive campaign than Theresa May did. Corbyn, for all his faults, at least tried to appeal to voters, and was able to inspire a genuine following. All Theresa May had was a bunch of empty slogans. Her entire campaign was based on assuming that she had this in the bag, and the only way she could inspire people to vote was through the same old scare tactics. Whether or not she’s right about Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t change the fact that people are bored with the old politics of fear.

I can’t help but think that Theresa May deliberately screwed this up. If she wanted to, she could have carried this election. There’s no way she should have done this badly, so I think it’s possible that she deliberately set her campaign up to either fail to get the vote, or enter a wobbly hung parliament, so that she could abdicate her obligation to fulfil the will of the people. After all, she did campaign on the Remain side of the referendum. If there’s a chance that she might have a way out of actually delivering Brexit, I think she would take it. Then again, it could just be pure incompetence, which is unsurprising given her performance as Home Secretary.

Whatever the outcome after the election, two things are certain. First, Theresa May will not resign. She still has the most seats in Parliament, so she could try to either assemble a coalition, or continue on in a minority government, though I think that whatever she does, there will now be Tory MP’s who will turn against her, and try to undermine her in government, with the goal of possibly removing her from the Tory leadership.

Secondly, with UKIP obliterated, the SNP in decline, the Greens remaining stagnant and the Lib Dems only enjoying marginal growth, today’s election results signal a return to two-party politics. Every party has seen a decline in their share of votes except for Labour and the Conservatives. We haven’t seen a result like this since October 1974, when Labour’s Harold Wilson returned to power in a minority government. It doesn’t look likely that Jeremy Corbyn will resign, given that this is the best possible result Labour could hope for. Whenever the next election is held, the path is clear. We will be faced with the terrible decision of either electing a band of Marxist ideologues under Labour, or electing a clearly incompetent Conservative party that can’t even win a significant majority anymore. Either way, politics as usual will never be the same again.

The greatest lie ever told

all you need is love

“All you need is love”. It’s a nice sentiment is it not? Never has there been a more palliative lie for a generation that craves it. Ever since The Beatles popularised the phrase fifty years ago, most of the population is convinced of this lie (which, if anything, is a testament to how John Lennon intended the song to be written as propaganda), and now we live in a time where virtually any debate can be whittled down to “love vs. hate”, and a mushy generation of know-nothings chanting “love trumps hate” at any given opportunity.

It’s really the last refuge that those who know nothing can turn to when they don’t have any arguments, or any solutions to solve any kind of problem. Why else would Hillary Clinton have made “love trumps hate” one of her campaign slogans? Worst of all is whenever a terrorist attack happens in 2017, and the inevitable responses from the Twitterati include “turn to love”, or “we won’t let hate win”, and other nonsensical slogans, and I’m absolutely sick of it. It feels like every time a terrorist attack happens, the response is exactly the same, driven by a combination of liberal guilt, and the “all you need is love” mentality that has been festering in our culture since the hippie era, culimnating in the One Love concert, in which a bunch of mainstream performers gather to deliver palliative and ultimately meaningless platitudes with no solutions, with the irrelevant Katy Perry harping on about how she wants you “choose love, no matter how difficult it is”, whatever the hell that means.

This is a problem that seems to be unique to the 2010’s. We have become so scared of offending people that we turn to the age-old “all you need is love” nonsense to comfort ourselves in the short term, and now this peacenik mentality has infected the way we deal with major problems. The problem is that when you boil any given discussion to a matter of love versus hate, you make both terms painfully subjective, in that you can define “love” or “hate” as whatever you want, and in today’s culture, “love” is conveniently defined as virtue signalling about how “tolerant” you are, and “hate” has come to mean actively tackling the problem in a way progressives don’t like.

It’s complete nonsense. Surely if we were a more loving and caring society, we would seek to stop more terrorist attacks from happening because we care about our loved ones. If you ask me, the current culture is a manifestation of self-centredness. We’re unwilling to make supreme sacrifices for the preservation of our society and its values because we don’t want to be called bigots, and if we care more about looking tolerant in front of the chattering class than about saving lives, isn’t that the most insidious form of selfishness, putting your vain sense of image and self-righteousness above protecting the lives and rights of others?

For too long, we’ve been convinced of the idea that “all you need is love”, and now we have a generation that won’t take action in times that demand it because they don’t want to “let hate win”. Of course it is but one aspect of a truly decadent and unhealthy culture, but it is an egregious excuse for inaction all the same, and we are already paying the price for this indulgence of utopian fantasy. I’m amazed that nobody’s tried to invade the Western countries yet, but if they did I bet we’d try and stuff a flower in their rifles, end up getting ourselves shot and then surrendering shortly afterward.

What we need is to abandon the lie of “all we need is love”. Taken as a worldview, it doesn’t pan out in the real world, and is mainly good for getting yourself killed. It sounds like a nice platitude, but is it really the hill we wish to collectively die on? I know we aren’t that stupid. In fact, I think most people don’t even take it seriously but they’re pressured to go along with it out of fear of social alienation, and any who go against this sacred dictate are the new heretics, blaspheming against the cult of “love” and “tolerance”.

If we continue down the path we’re on, then we will inevitably march down the path of self-destruction, if not immediately, then slowly. We will destroy ourselves by turning our countries into police states, as Britain looks like its headed towards, therefore overthrowing our own liberal values. The terrorists won’t even need to do anything more. We’ll have destroyed our own culture for them, and the country will be so demoralised that barely anyone will fight for it. Great civilisations have fallen because of the apathy we have created for ourselves, but all we need is love, am I right?

Reasons not to vote Labour #4 – Haven’t we been here before?

james callaghan

Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters love to think that he’s out to bring real change for Britain, for the betterment of the working class. These people are obviously unfamiliar with British political history, as Jeremy Corbyn’s hard-left socialism, or at least aspects of it, have been tried before. We tried big government socialism after World War II, and we called it the “post-war consensus”. The idea was that all British governments after the war agreed on the idea that they were responsible for maintaining the welfare state through state intervention in the economy.

Between 1945 and 1979, post-war governments implemented a regime of high taxes, high spending, and an all-encompassing program of nationalisation, in which everything you can imagine was brought into government ownership. Both Labour and the Conservatives made the same contributions to the creation of the post-war socialist dream, in which the state was supposed to manage everything, and everyone would live in state housing, drive state cars, and work in state industries, and your children would be educated by the state. The state, in theory, would also look after its loyal subjects. That was the idea behind the NHS, one of the last decaying relics of the post-war consensus still around to this day.

The post-war consensus literally was socialism in practice. The problem, of course, was that they never changed direction even as the economic situation deteriorated. During the 1970’s economic growth had become so lethargic that the government’s tax and spend policies had become unsustainable. Adding to the problems facing Britain in the 1970’s was Corbyn’s beloved trade unions constantly agitating the government whenever it introduced policies that threatened their economic bottom line.

In the early 70’s, when Edward Heath was in power, Britain was suffering from high inflation (put simply, everything became more expensive because our currency lost value), and the government attempted to solve this by imposing a public sector pay cap. However the miner’s unions objected, and thus persuaded miners to do no more than the basic requirement of their jobs, causing fuel supplies to drop. The government responded by imposing a 3-day work week for anyone who used electricity, who were only allowed to use electricity for three consecutive days. So yes, if you’re wondering how there was a point in time where you had days without electricity, it was unions’ fault. Keep in mind that much of Corbyn’s manifesto consists of demands from unions, who were instrumental in getting him elected as leader of the Labour Party.

Later on, Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan introduced a policy called “The Social Contract”, in which government ministers and union leaders would meet and discuss policy with each other, and eventually decide on the best course of action. Of course, this gave union leaders more power and influence, and they now felt that they practically ran the country, and set about enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.

After the Labour government decided to cut government spending, which was necessary as by the mid-1970’s even the left-wing Callaghan himself admitted that they could no longer spend money they didn’t have, the Transport and General Worker’s Union abandoned the social contract, and after the government tried to limit pay increases to 5%, Ford workers from the TGWU went on strike. Ford capitulated, and eventually gave them a 17% pay increase. After that, the unions quickly realised that they could easily make money by calling random strikes for “better pay”, which caused the Winter of Discontent. As a result, we had trash piling up on the streets during the coldest winter in 16 years.

Because of the Labour government’s incompetence, the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher easily won the 1979 election, and once swept into power, Thatcher quickly went to work bringing about the end of the post-war consensus. This meant rolling back the welfare state, privatising failing industries that were previously nationalised, and weakening the power of trade unions, and it worked. Within the next decade the economy bounced back from the brink, and because Thatcher’s ideas worked, the post-war socialist lost the argument, and thus their precious dream of state-owned Britain was dead, kept alive only by the machinations of the European Union.

So when people say that Jeremy Corbyn’s economic policies would take us back to the 1970’s, that’s because his socialist ideas, or rather some of them, had already been tried before, with disastrous consequences. If we elect Corbyn, he will most likely take us back to the days of Old Labour, and leave office after we’ve accumulated more debt than we could possibly imagine. Given what we know of his economic policies, I find it baffling that there’s still a third of the population that actually wants to vote Labour on Thursday’s election, also keeping in mind that if we vote Labour, not only will we get Corbyn and his functionally retarded economic policies, but we’ll also elect his cabinet of assorted Marxists and socialists, all of whom are demonstrably incompetent ideologues.

I think over the past few days I’ve made my case, and I this will be the last time before the election in which I write about Labour. Even though I might not vote for the Tories, I still hope that the Tories can still win in a landslide, or at least attain a large enough majority that Labour ends up with less than 200 MP’s, triggering a leadership contest within the Labour Party in which Corbyn is either kicked out of the party, or stays on, forcing the moderates who can’t stand Corbyn to split off and form their own party. It would be the death of Labour, and given what they’ve done in the past, I’d be glad to see them go.

Reasons not to vote Labour #3 – A toothless Brexit, if we even have one

jeremy corbyn eu

In this third part of my series on why you shouldn’t vote for the Labour Party this Thursday, I will talk about Labour’s position on the most important issue of the election – Brexit. The Labour manifesto states that the party “accepts the result of the referendum” and wants to maintain a close relationship with Europe. One thing that Corbyn has made crystal clear on numerous occasions is that he has ruled out a “no deal” option at the end of Article 50 negotiations. What that basically means is that, for him, even if the EU gave him the worst deal you can possibly imagine, he would rather take that than end the negotiations with no deal.

He also wants to “retain the benefits of the single market and the customs union”, blissfully unaware that to be in the single market means us complying with the EU’s laws, and still being under the jurisdiction of the EU courts. He also wants to scrap the Great Repeal Bill, which would repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and hand lawmaking powers back to MP’s, and replace it with an EU Rights and Protections Bill. Of course he doesn’t seem to care that the fact that we couldn’t make our own laws one of the biggest reasons we voted to leave the EU in the first place.

I mentioned before that Corbyn was a moral coward because of his refusal to deal with the issue of nuclear weapons, but his stance on the EU confirms such cowardice. Think about it for a moment – you have a Labour leader who, in contrast to the bloody difficult woman we have as Prime Minister, is soft on the EU. He would mostly cave to the EU leaders’ demands if he thought it was convenient for him. If the EU demanded that we take in more immigrants to fit Merkel’s migrant quotas, I am throughly convinced that Corbyn would do exactly that. As for that £100 billion divorce bill, Mr. Corbyn would probably pay up, as if he hadn’t already gutted the taxpayer’s purse enough already.

He and his supporters have claimed that Theresa May’s approach to the Brexit negations is “reckless”, and they say this primarily because she is pursuing the hard Brexit route, which is what the people actually want. The truth is we don’t have to give the EU anything. In fact, it is the EU that has to appease us, or else they will face the consequences of alienating Britain. As long as Theresa May remains as Prime Minister, we have the upper hand, and she knows it. It also helps that Theresa May is confident in her role as Prime Minister, backed by undivided party loyalty. Corbyn, meanwhile, is not. He acts on his feelings rather than logic, most of his party hates him and would happily see him go, and he’s so gullible that the EU could easily take advantage of him. I would not be surprised if the EU leaders would celebrate a Labour victory.

And that’s just if we even have Brexit at all. I’ve been hearing talk of how a progressive coalition with Labour and other left-wing parties might actually happen. This would require a hung parliament to happen, in which case Labour may have to form a coalition with any left-wing party that’s willing. If in the unlikely event that such a progressive alliance would succeed, then they will try and stop the Brexit process however they can, and if they succeed, then that’s it. Our last hope for sovereignty would be all but dashed.

So, as I’ve said many times before, if you want Brexit to happen, then you cannot allow Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister. He would bring utter ruination to the dream of taking back our national sovereignty, and our right to self-determination, but he’d also do far worse. He’d unwittingly kill off any faith the people have in trying to better their situation through democratic, peaceful means, and that’s when the more far-right nationalists would come in, and usher in something far worse. In the fourth and final part of this series, I aim to debunk the idea that Labour want to change things for the better, using what happened the last time we tried nationalisation as an example.

How could the Tories screw this up?

theresa may

When Theresa May first called the election, it seemed as if she was unbeatable. You have the Prime Minister willing to carry out a hard Brexit as the people demanded, leading the Conservative Party against an openly Marxist Labour Party that is increasingly out of touch with the working class. Early polls showed the Conservatives with a 20-point lead over the failing Labour Party. Experts estimated that the Labour party would be left with only 180 seats, and that’s just being generous. But ever since the Tory manifesto launched, the Tories have been sliding further down the polls, with Labour rising and the Tories’ lead being slashed. Now there’s talk of the possibility of another hung parliament, or worse, Jeremy Corbyn taking power.

My question to Theresa May is this – how could she fuck it up? She had a spotless election that the Tories were guaranteed to win as long as they stuck to Brexit as the main issue. She could do absolutely nothing and still win. Then she called to repeal the ban on fox hunting, which most people in the country still want banned. And then there’s the dementia tax fiasco, which saw her u-turn as soon as things looked ugly for her. And then she released her manifesto, which showcased just how vampiric the one-nation Tories could be, and capped it all off by confirming that Theresa May is coming after the internet. In fact, I’m surprised I didn’t comment earlier.

Up until then I was with Tories. I was even willing to look past some of their left-lurching economic policies in the name of securing Brexit. Now I question whether or not I can even bring myself to vote Tory because it would mean endorsing her platform of internet censorship. She’s alienating young people like myself, and she doesn’t seem to care. It’s almost as if she wants to screw up the election so that she doesn’t have to deliver Brexit, and so this is an opportunity to walk away from her responsibilities as Prime Minister. As for my voting intentions, I’m mulling over either voting UKIP (because I think their policies actually make sense), or spoiling my ballot in protest, signing the Libertarian Party instead. Those are the only two honest options I can think of.

What really baffles me is the idea that Labour is actually rising in the polls. Are the Tories so bad that people are willing to vote for communists instead? Is the government so incapable of running an election campaign that it could lose to complete and total moron? Is this the state of British politics as we know it? I would have thought that Corbyn’s weakness on defence and foreign policy would have hindered his rise, but it seems that Theresa May’s ineptitude on social care, and the many other errors in her manifesto, have helped Labour. As the old saying goes – oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them.

Although I might not vote Tory anymore, I still hope that the Conservative Party manages to win the election, because as I have said before, Theresa May has demonstrated that she is the only candidate capable of delivering Brexit properly. I would trust Paul Nuttall to do the same if UKIP were actually electable. As frustrated as I am with the Tories, I still believe they can win this election.

For starters, the media abhors a vacuum, and election campaigns are famously dull, with this election being the dullest of them all. The media hungers for a big buzz, and what better shock for the readers than the idea of an open Marxist being elected to the position of Prime Minister. Second, I think the idea that Corbyn may actually win the election would spur most or all of the right-wingers into voting Conservative en masse just to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of power. In fact, that may very well be the reason why it will be impossible for UKIP to gain a seat. I also believe that the elderly voters will hand the Tories a victory. After all, they lived through the time when Corbyn’s brand of socialism was actually in effect, and would vote Conservative to ensure that their grandchildren don’t have to go through what they did in the 1970’s.

Lastly, I think the polls are being skewed again. What we’re seeing with Labour’s rise in the polls is exactly the same as what was happening with the EU referendum. Thanks to the social stigma surrounding the Leave vote, many people, when asked by pollsters about their voting intentions, lied to them about voting Remain in order to not look like the “undesirables” of British society. When Britain went to the ballot box, however, nobody could judge them for how they would vote, and 52% of people who turned out voted to Leave. I think the same thing will happen here. After the Tory manifesto was released, more people started telling the polls they wanted to vote Labour in order to look good, and when it’s time to vote, most people will inevitably vote Tory. Given the alternative, I can only hope that is to be the case.

A lot of people, including myself, were panicking when the press started reporting of the Tories’ fall in the polls, and we had every right to. However, I am confident that, despite how frustrating the Tory campaign has been, the Tories will still win. Perhaps they’ll do better than we thought they would, and return a three-figure majority not seen since the days of Tony Blair. Of course I’m being an idealist, but I don’t have to be one to assume that the Tories can still defeat Labour, and stop the return of 70’s-style socialism.

Reasons not to vote Labour #2 – The Labour manifesto

labour manifesto 2017

In the last part of this series, which I released yesterday, I talked about the utter toxicity of Jeremy Corbyn and his cabinet of fools. Today, I plan to talk about his manifesto, which was leaked a week before it was supposed to be launched. I had planned to talk about all the other party’s manifestos ahead of the election, but due to how little time I have left, that might not be possible. A few weeks ago I talked about the Liberal Democrats, and how their manifesto literally contradicts their party’s name. But at least Labour’s manifesto is upfront about its quest for a socialist Britain.

The most glaringly obvious pledge is that Labour wants to renationalise the rail and energy industries. For those who don’t know, nationalisation basically means the government is bringing an industry under its control, meaning that these industries will be part of the public sector, and therefore funded by the taxpayer. Labour are also promising to cap railway fares and deliver free Wi-Fi. For the newly nationalised energy industry, they want to control the grid and energy distribution, and create at least one state-owned energy company for every region of the UK, and cap average household dual fuel bills to £1,000 a year.

While some might ask why this is a bad thing, remember that there was a time when everything was nationalised (I mentioned this when I wrote about the one-nation Tories), including rail and energy. Given how far-left Jeremy Corbyn and his allies are, what’s stopping Labour from eventually nationalising more of Britain’s industries, taking us back to the time when Britain was the sick man of Europe, even as Europe is now the sick man of the world. But that’s not all.

Labour also wants to lower the voting age to 16, which will likely have the effect of introducing more indoctrinated, barely matured voters who will likely vote Labour because they pander directly to their interests. This is the only reason I could think of for wanting younger voters, who will generally be more ill-informed than older voters. And before I get accused of generalising, I’ve actually tried talking to 16-year-olds about politics, and when you’re 16, you know nothing about politics. Speaking of young people, Labour also want to abolish tuition fees and reintroduce any maintenance grants that were scrapped under the Tories. Again, this is a naked attempt to pander to young people, but it’s a dreadful idea not just because it means more government spending. When university is free, you get the wrong sort of students flooding into campuses, whether its drunken chavs who just want to go into university “for the sesh”, or people who just want to blow their money doing a worthless gender studies course, which I wager is precisely what Labour is hoping for, as more gender studies students means more Marxists who will become lifelong Labour voters.

Labour wants to scrap the bedroom tax, which is all well and good because nobody liked it. That said, this pledge is bundled in with plans to build 100,000 council homes. Ever seen what a council flat looks like? If you haven’t, you’re lucky. There was once a time in which high-rise council flats were envisioned as the future of British housing, but in reality, they’re the kind of homes that the poorest among us live in if they live anywhere at all. That Labour probably wants more of these is simply a show of how retrograde the party is.

Labour wants to create a Ministry of Labour, supposedly to deliver an investment in worker’s rights, but it’s really a front to hand power back to the unions. For a bit of context, under James Callaghan (who, I’ll admit, came to power after the Ministry of Labour was dissolved in 1970), the unions practically ran everything, and they figured out that they could get whatever they wanted by calling random strikes in order to make more money. The resulting disruption led to the Winter of Discontent in 1978. When Margaret Thatcher came along, she broke the power of the unions by stripping away the power of union leaders. Eventually the power of unions had fallen to nothing, but now Corbyn wants to bring back the unions’ stranglehold over the country and its workers. On defence, Labour’s manifesto says that the party wants to renew the Trident nuclear defence program, but Corbyn himself, as a unilateralist, has repeatedly dodged the question of whether or not to retaliate in a nuclear strike on several occasions.

What Labour manifesto would be complete without raising taxes. They want to raise corporate tax up from 17% to 26%, which will have the knock-on effect of making prices higher for consumers. They want to raise income tax for everyone earning £80k or more, and grant extra powers to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (the UK’s tax collection department) to chase down individuals and corporations who try to avoid paying taxes, which I’m sure they will after Labour raises the corporation tax. If you want businesses to pull out of the UK, this is how you do it. If you want to stop people from avoiding tax, why not lower the corporate tax (lower taxes for everyone while we’re at it), and adopt a flat tax so everyone pays the same rate? Of course Corbyn won’t, because that’s not the Marxist way isn’t it?

All of Labour’s plans can be summed up as wild and unrealistic, and they are set to cost the British public £93 billion (roughly £4,000 from each British household). The problem is that way Labour wants to raise money for its spending spree will only raise £63 billion, leaving a £30 billion deficit. In summation, Labour’s plan for Britain is to borrow, borrow and borrow some more until we crash land onto mountains of debt yet again.

I left out Corbyn’s position on Brexit because that’s the subject of Part 3 of this series, so stay tuned for the next part, “A Toothless Brexit, if We Even Have One”.