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.

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”.

Reasons not to vote Labour #1 – The dear leader

comrade corbyn

With a week to go until the general election, I worry that many young people are about to do something insane – vote Jeremy Corbyn into power. It’s not delusional just because they’re voting for a Marxist, but because they honestly believe that he will win, and that he is the only alternative to the Tories still being in power. With that in mind, I’ve taken it upon myself to write a series of posts presenting my case for why Labour isn’t worth your vote, and what better way to start than by talking about its leader, Comrade Corbyn.

When I was a leftist I used to like Jeremy Corbyn because I saw him as a genuine threat to the political establishment, who had principles. Unfortunately I had no idea about economic policy at the time. Of course, now I actually do know about economic policy, and that’s why I think his economic policy is crap (and I’ll get to that when I talk about the Labour manifesto in the next post). Now that I think about it, most of his support seems to come from young people (especially students), and middle class champagne socialists. I’m not even sure he even represents the actual interests of the working class, and it doesn’t help that he doesn’t have a firm stance on Brexit, which is the winning issue at the moment.

I’ve heard the argument that Jeremy is more moral than most politicians. I don’t think so. When I think of a politician who’s more moral than the rest of the bunch, I think of Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley who did battle with zealous feminists in parliament and got into Parliament’s “women and equalities committee”. In my eyes, Jeremy Corbyn is a well-meaning moron at best, and a moral coward at worst. This is the man who supported the IRA during the 1980’s, and tries desperately to spin this as a positive, rather than owning up to his mistakes. He’s also a complete coward on defence, always dodging the question of whether or not he approves the use of nuclear weapons.

Jeremy Corbyn is the kind of politician who just five years ago would have been dismissed as a loony, but he’s a loony with an army of loonies prepared to follow him to the end. Like many Marxist leaders, Corbyn enjoys a cult of personality which he denies even exists. His supporters are so unwilling to see how much of a crappy candidate Corbyn turned out to be that they blame anything but him for his failings, and turn to the age-old leftist tactic of blaming the mass media, as if ordrinary working class people are incapable of thinking for themselves. This cult of personality, I think, is a mask for how crappy Corbyn is as a candidate. I’m pretty sure most Labour supporters are in the position of “I like Labour’s policies but Corbyn is a bad leader”. I can at least sympathise with that position. Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with the majority of Labour policy, but I can sympathise with people who feel that they’re party is getting screwed by its own leader. I feel the same way about UKIP.

It’s not just Corbyn that’s the problem though. His Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, is a full-blown Marxist. He’s the kind of Marxist who saw the financial crisis as an opportunity to advance his agenda, and he’s surprisingly open about his communist leanings, as shown in a May Day rally where he had communist flags behind him, and denies that he was aware of that. And then there’s Diane Abbot, the Shadow Home Secretary who’s so incompetent she can’t even answer a question on how much Labour plans to spend on hiring extra police officers, and blames her embarrassment on the media. Like Jeremy Corbyn, she too was a supporter of the IRA in the 1980’s, and when asked about it on Andrew Marr’s show, she attempted to downplay it by comparing her change of views to a change of hairstyle. I should also mention that Diane Abbott is the biggest race pimp in Britain. A few years ago she once tweeted that white people “love playing divide and rule”, and as recently resurfaced remarks show, she believes that Britain is one of the most racist nations in the world. Of course, she’s going by the Marxist definition of racism, which explains perfectly why she doesn’t see herself as racist.

In summation, Corbyn and his cabinet are a sinking ship. Even though the Tories have been hampered by Theresa May’s manifesto, Corbyn will probably run Labour into the ground because of his inability to give a decisive position on Brexit (which I’ll discuss in a later post). Regardless of whether he’s well-meaning or not, you’ve got to accept that Corbyn has surrounded himself with people who are either complete morons, or people who might undermine him and/or his party. It makes me wonder why he even hired such people, until I did some reading and found out that Jeremy and Diane were once doing each other. A billion-piece jigsaw puzzle instantly came together.

So there’s my first reason why Labour is the wrong choice. Vote Labour, and you get Comrade Corbyn and his loony cabinet, and then Labour will drag the whole country down with them. In the next part, I will be discussing Labour’s manifesto, which, to sum it up in a sentence, is essentially a throwback to the longest suicide note in history.

Why I’m voting Conservative in the snap election

theresa may

UPDATE (4/6/2017): These do not represent my current voting intentions, but rather my views at the time of writing the post.

Yesterday, from out of nowhere, Prime Minister Theresa May decided to call a snap general election, which was passed in the House of Commons today, meaning of course that we’ll have yet another round of voting for us beleaguered Brits in about seven weeks time. To be honest, I had a slight suspicion that there might be an early election, but I was taken aback by how soon and sudden this came up. Before that, I decided that if a snap election were to occur, I would vote for the Conservatives, and now that there is a snap election, you probably know where this is going.

Some of you may find this odd. Why would I willingly cast my vote for the party that I spent the past few years excoriating with ceaseless zeal? Well for starters I am not the leftist teenager that I used to be, and I wish I had actually done more research back then too. Second, let’s consider the reality of the political situation in Britain today. Brexit is definitely happening now despite all the establishment’s attempts to stop it, and right now, Theresa May, whatever you may think of her policies, is the only politician with the ability and the will to make it happen.

UKIP is probably closer to my more libertarian positions, but they’re completely useless. Think about it for a moment. The one thing UKIP was founded for, Britain leaving the EU, is already being accomplished under the current government. As long as this is the case, UKIP has no purpose in the political arena, other than potentially stealing Labour seats from the north. In a normal election I suppose I would endorse the UK Libertarian Party, but I don’t think they will have much of an impact in a sudden snap election. Plus, I don’t know anyone running as an MP for the Libertarian Party who I can vote for.

While we’re here, let’s talk about the other parties. I hope nobody tries to convince me to vote for the Liberal Democrats, because they will quickly find it impossible to convince me to vote for the pack of snivelling sell-outs that the Lib Dems. Under Tim Farron, they’ve become a party for social justice warriors, as if the Green Party wasn’t already. I honestly think the Lib Dems want to fail. Their leader is a useless wimp, and they don’t seem to know how to appeal to ordinary voters. And then there’s Labour, the sad socialist club whose leader was practically salivating over the prospect of a snap election, one in which he will undoubtedly be crushed because he is less popular than most British politicians. At this point, they’d do better if they kept Ed Miliband as leader. Even worse are Corbyn’s deluded fans, those larping revolutionaries who will finally get the chance to campaign for their dear leader, lose, then protest the outcome and start a petition to kick the Tories out.

I should reiterate that I don’t actually agree with most of the Tories’ policies. In fact, if I was a Tory, I’d probably be a very crappy Tory. My policies, which would be considered centre-right in America, would probably be considered too far-right for the Conservatives, which I mostly consider to be conservative in name only. The main reason I am voting Conservative in this election is because I know exactly why Theresa May called this election. It’s a move to strengthen her majority, and giver her government democratic legitimacy, all while thinning out the Labour opposition while it’s already weak. In short, I think she wants to attain a larger majority, which will be easier for her to work with while she’s negotiating the Brexit terms with Brussels.

I know full well that the snap election is a political power move on Theresa May’s part, but I am not voting for the Tories on ideological lines. You may remember that I wrote in favour of leaving the EU. Now that we are leaving the EU, this country needs a capable leader who will deliver on the will of the people, and at the moment the only one who can rise to the challenge is Theresa May. I dislike much of her policies, but I think leaving the European Union takes precedent over everything else at the moment, and I want a government that will deliver on its promise. If Theresa May wants her democratic mandate then as far as I’m concerned she can have it. After all, she has thus far demonstrated that she is more than capable of delivering Brexit, while Labour, the Lib Dems and the Green Party have openly opposed it, and UKIP will do nothing to help, having served its purpose.

I leave you with some predictions for the election in June:

  1. The Tories will win in a landslide victory, increasing their majority by at least 40 seats.
  2. Labour will lose at least 30 seats, and Jeremy Corbyn will either resign or be challenged in a new leadership contest some time in the autumn.
  3. The Lib Dems won’t gain or lose many seats, UKIP will probably steal seats from Labour if they gain any at all.

I doubt that it will be a very exciting campaign however, given how exhausted the general public is when it comes to national politics. One thing I can guarantee is that, after the Tories win again, the left-wing media and the progressive busy-bodies will throw a hissy fit yet again, but this time nobody will care.

However you vote in June’s election, I hope that people won’t pick each other apart over they plan to vote, or are at least less enthused about it than they were in last year’s bitterly divisive referendum campaign.

The fall of Labour

dying rose

“The Dying Rose” by Janina-Photography on deviantART

The political fallout from Brexit has so far been spectacular in its brutality, with the Tory split now being wider and more pronounced than ever before, Scotland whining about how it wants another independence referendum, and a bunch of whining youngsters from London crying over the last weekend. However, the biggest casualty of all was the Labour Party, which even as I write this is busy cannibalising itself to oblivion.

For those of you who live outside the UK, Labour is Britain’s major left-wing political party. As I see it, they’re basically the party that young people vote for whenever they want the Tories out of power, or because they believe that Labour will make a fairer Britain. Whenever the conservatives are in power, Labour is referred to as the opposition because they tend to gain more seats that the other competing parties aside from the Conservatives. In government, they are usually the well-meaning but incompetent political party, much like the Democrats in America. By contrast, the Conservatives are the major right-wing political party, and they’re known for running competent but sometimes overbearing governments, much like the U.S. Republicans. To my knowledge, most of the prime ministers that have ever been elected since the office was created have been Conservative Party members, so I’m guessing either they do a damn good job in government, or they’re very good at getting votes.

After Brexit, several Labour MP’s blamed Jeremy Corbyn’s performance for the failure of the Remain campaign, and as a result, twelve members of his shadow cabinet resigned in protest, along with five of his shadow ministers. Several members of the Labour Party are giving Jeremy a motion of no confidence, and openly challenging his leadership, possibly leading to another leadership contest. Jeremy obviously has no intention of resigning, and has recently stated that he will continue standing as the party leader, standing as a candidate in the leadership contest.

Of course, one might blame the downfall of the Labour Party on Brexit, but I contend that the Labour Party has had serious problems before Brexit. All the referendum did was expose the problems of Labour. The party always claims to stand for the working people, but as we saw in the referendum, they apparently don’t care about the problems facing the working class. Why else would some of Labour’s strongholds in the North vote Leave? The answer is because Labour has failed them, and I imagine that this has been a lingering sentiment for a long time.

In 1997, we elected Tony Blair, the first Labour PM since 1979, when the party was defeated by Margaret Thatcher. Until then, the Conservatives continued to remain in government for the next 18 years, first under Thatcher and then under John Major in 1992. When Tony Blair was elected, he was unlike any other Labour prime minister we’ve seen before. He was more of a right-leaning centrist like then-US president Bill Clinton, than a left-leaning socialist like any of his predecessors. The ideological differences between Blair’s wing of the party and the traditional leftists in the party were so stark that Blair’s party was called “New Labour”. Even today, those who support Blair’s policies and the centrist ideology of New Labour are called “Blairites”, while the more hard-left Labour backers would now be called “Corbynites”.

Given that Tony Blair is to date the only Labour leader to win three consecutive elections and lose none (having resigned in 2007), you’d think that he would be revered by the Labour Party, but he’s actually rather unpopular in his own party, and in the wider British public, and I can see why. He’s unpopular amongst Labour MP’s because he embraced capitalism rather than rejecting it, and also attempted to rid the party of its left-wing elements in his attempts to modernise the party (this is the New Labour I mentioned earlier), generating strong animosity between him and his chancellor Gordon Brown, who took office following Blair’s resignation.

Blair was also the man who led the UK into the Iraq War without popular consent, and refused to apologise for it. He might have been forgiven had the Iraq War been successful, but not only did it fail to bring peace to Iraq, the destabilisation of the country also created the ideal conditions for the rise of ISIS, and other Islamic extremists in the area. He also managed to offend both the left and the right because of his failure to control immigration. Indeed, the legacy of Blair’s Labour seemed to taint the reputation of the party, but I think Gordon Brown did worse. Brown’s government oversaw the worst financial crisis in global history, and he bailed out the banks. On top of that, his government was implementing some very bizarre policies, like the time the government considered making a quarter of the adult population face “anti-paedophile tests”, in what I could only describe as overbearing government paranoia.

Needless to say, Brown failed miserably in the three years he served as PM. He lost to a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition (which would later become one of the most maligned governments in history), and the Labour Party became virtually unelectable. They later elected a new leader, Ed Miliband, and I frankly don’t understand how he got elected. Miliband was basically an inept buffoon incapable of competing with the Conservatives. Somehow I’d rather have David Cameron than him. Basically Ed Miliband was a PR disaster for the party, and his ineptitude led to another Labour defeat in 2015. On policy, he only ever seemed to make his point in reaction to whatever the government did (for instance, whenever energy prices went up, he called for controls), and as far as personality goes, he often seemed awkward, and he never really connected with the people he wanted to vote for him.

With all that in mind, it’s no wonder the working class people have been rejecting Labour. If it’s not just that, then I would blame Labour’s policies. Labour’s entire strategy is convincing poor people that rich people are making them poorer, and that’s quite rich coming from a bunch of middle class leftists. Labour MPs have also been wasting their time on social justice issues (such as censoring “sexist” video games and “reclaiming” the internet), with the party itself becoming the party of the modern social justice warrior. None of this has anything to do with the interest of working class, with all the SJW’s filling shadow cabinet seats (Harriet Harman comes to mind), it seems that the Labour Party has lost touch with the very people they purport to represent. They have become the party of The Guardian, The Independent, the anti-democratic European Union, and of all the pretentious middle class liberals who tout themselves as progressives who believe in democracy, but then whine when the popular vote doesn’t go their way, as they did after the 2015 election, and again after Brexit.

So there you have it. The Labour of today is now hopelessly divided, and most jarringly, has lost touch with the average man. The consequences of this are obvious, with the Labour Party still reeling from their failed EU campaign, and Jeremy Corbyn facing a revolt from his own party. As I see it, the party that once championed the working class now has its head so far up where the sun doesn’t shine that it blames the leader they elected for failure of a Remain campaign that, to be frank, was destined to fail.

Now, I actually don’t mind Jeremy Corbyn, but I don’t think he’s that good a leader. He supported EU membership just to keep his own party together, and that didn’t work out so well. He’s only been the Labour leader for nine months and already he’s got a good chunk of the party wanting to oust him. If anything, this is so far a worse performance than Ed Miliband. I’m no Labour supporter, but I think there’s dark times ahead for Labour party, and at this rate, they’ll have very little chance of beating the Conservative government, especially if Boris Johnson becomes the new Tory leader.

Unlocking the nation’s chastity belt



British politics is in quite a sorry state. The Tories are apparently so childish that they actively drown out whatever point opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn tries to make, and Labour is hopelessly divided, which brings us to a particular issue that Labour has decided to bicker about. Last week, Jeremy Corbyn upset various members of his own party by saying  to students at Goldsmiths University that he would prefer to decriminalize sex industry, on the grounds that he would not “want people to be criminalized”. This statement was made two months after Leeds introduced a fully legal red light district, which was set up after recent research had found that police action against sex workers failed to reduce levels of prostitution in the area.

While Corbyn’s reasons were quite valid, he’s inadvertently revealed that people in his own party aren’t exactly ready for this discussion, as perhaps best demonstrated by the temper tantrum thrown by Harriet Harman, who openly stated that “women should be protected and men prosecuted”. Similarly, another Labour MP, Caroline Flint, spent her energies riling up the Labour backbenchers into a frenzy over the matter, and has consistently posted outraged rants on Twitter espousing the claim that prostitution is “not an industry”, and claiming that “few people in the sex industry are there by choice”.

Of course, Flint and others like her have made a plethora of claims about prostitution and the sex industry, but these have not been backed by any sort of statistical evidence. In fact, when one sex worker asked Caroline Flint to back up her claims, she was blocked. The Labour MP continued blocking other sex workers and activists from responding to her tweets, under the delusion that she and others like her are protecting sex workers. It seems very obvious that people like Caroline Flint and Harriet Harman have no idea how to treat sex workers, since they’re treating them as if they can’t make their own choices, and since they’re always referring to female sex workers, it’s literally not very much different to how sexist they perceive the sex industry to be. Say what you will about prostitution, but which is more sexist – an industry where men can pay for sex with women (or the other way around), or politicians treating female sex workers like children?

For me, this is the other thing that is very weird about the discussion of prostitution. Whenever most people discuss the sex industry, whether in politics or not, they always refer to female sex workers, even though there are male prostitutes (and a wide range of words for them). Depressingly, any talk about the sex industry in the political arena is almost bound to involve slut shaming, and if that’s not enough, it’s mainly the female MP’s that seem to be doing a lot of the shaming. It shouldn’t be too surprising though, because in this country, they’re the ones enforcing the narrative that sex work is rape, sex workers are victims without agency, and that willing prostitutes are “handmaidens of the patriarchy”. That does not sound like a party that empowers women. In fact, they sound no different to the conservatives.

That’s why Jeremy Corbyn’s call to decriminalize the sex industry is important. He revealed just how little Labour’s zealously prudish backbenchers cared about the rights of sex workers. People like Harriet Harman believe that they want to protect sex workers from exploitation, and have readily accused Jeremy Corbyn of “betraying women” and “supporting pimps”. What they won’t allow themselves to realize (and probably would realize if they did the research) is that not only do many prostitutes do sell sex on their volition (even if it’s mainly for the money), but also that, if prostitution was completely legal, pimps would actually have less power than they would if prostitution was completely illegal. In countries where it isn’t, most prostitutes wouldn’t be likely to call the cops for fear of legal reprisals, thus they wouldn’t be able to do anything about the risk of physical assault from either their pimps or their clients.

As for the so-called “Nordic model”, which criminalises the purchasing of services from a sex worker, there are numerous testimonies from sex workers who say that it has done more to harm women in the sex trade than helping them. In turn, the Nordic model sounds more like the 18th Amendment, with idealistic intentions and poor results. If such a model were introduced in the UK, we’d only be taking a step backward, and all because most of this country’s politicians can’t talk about the sex industry in a frank and mature fashion. Yes, sex work has been known to be a dangerous profession under certain circumstances, but tighter criminalization of the trade will not do anything to help them, and will only make matters worse.