McDONNELL THREATENS BREAK UP OF UK

As part of a desperate bid to woo voters in Scotland, John McDonnell has apparently said that a future Labour government in the United Kingdom would not attempt to stop the Scots holding another referendum on the vexed subject of their independence. However, this puts him at odds with the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, so it looks like another mess over referendums.

Labour has previously been as opposed to breaking up the United Kingdom as has every other party of note; the only ones in favour are the nationalists in Scotland and Wales and, of course, those who want to establish a united Ireland. McDonnell's latest commitment changes things dramatically and potentially heralds a break up of the UK with Scotland going its own way. Once the UK has left the EU, it could well mean the Scots gaining their independence from the United Kingdom only to cede it to the far more bureaucratic and authoritarian powers in Brussels; as a very small nation, Scotland would also find its voice carries little weight in the debating chambers of the EU.

The Scottish Nationalists have previously suggested that leaving the United Kingdom would be managed quite simply. The Queen, or her successor, would remain head of state and the Scots would keep sterling as their currency; there would be no 'border problems' and movement of people and goods would not be hindered. Given the attitude of the European Union to the little matter of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, as well as its insistence that new member states must adopt the Euro as their currency, this all seems to be 'pie in the sky'.

IF Scotland achieves independence and then seeks to join the EU, it would have to adopt the Euro. The border between Scotland and England would become a frontier and the EU would undoubtedly want to implement border controls to prevent the nasty English from gaining any advantage. Tearing up the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 would throw the British Constitution into crisis and it is far from certain that the government in London would look kindly on the monarch continuing to also have a role in Scotland. The Scots might then be faced with either finding a different monarch or accepting the creation of a Presidential post - President Sturgeon, perhaps.

McDonnell's plainly electioneering stance demonstrates just how far Labour is now prepared to go in order to gain power. For power in Westminster, they will happily sacrifice the integrity of the United Kingdom. These power hungry Marxists must never be allowed to gain office. 

LABOUR'S ANSWER : NATIONALIZE EVERYTHING !

I have never trusted a politician since I was a lad in short pants, but the proposals of John McDonnell, Labour's 'Chancellor in Waiting' really do take the biscuit.

In fine Marxist tradition, he has promised that all manner of largesse will be showered on those stupid enough to vote Labour in the next General Election, whenever that is. His latest wheeze is to promise to re-nationalize the railways, apparently at no cost; at least, he says that it will require no government borrowing.

Now, in my book, buying things costs money and nationalizing industries is, actually, buying things. Of course, in Marxist dictatorships, companies are simply stolen from their previous owners without any compensation being paid, but the UK is not yet a Marxist dictatorship, unless things have changed while I was having a kip. Currently, the rail infrastructure is owned by the state owned Network Rail, but the rolling stock and services are provided by an assortment of other organisations; some of these are private companies and some are controlled by state owned monopolies - not owned by the British government but by German, French, Dutch and others. For instance, the ubiquitous 'Arriva' is owned by the German state-backed company Deutsche Bahn, while a range of services are operated by Dutch state-controlled Abellio, Govia is backed by both French and Canadian public funds, and there is also involvement from Italian and Japanese state-owned companies as well as others. In other words, if McDonnell wants to privatize the railways, he'll have to pay off various foreign governments to do it. That will cost money.

If he's serious about doing this without incurring any additional borrowing, how's he going to do it ? The various companies have contracts and have invested large sums of money in rolling stock. Yes, the tracks and stations are already state owned, but the trains themselves aren't; is McDonnell planning to steal these from the current operators, including Governments, or buy new stock ? What about the anticipated returns which the current operators expect to make over the coming decades ? Whatever his plans, McDonnell will have problems and it will cost him, actually us, a fortune. 

There is, of course, one way in which all this nationalization could be managed without borrowing any money. How silly of me not to realize - he could increase taxes ! He could go back to the dark days of the 1960s when tax rates peaked at 98%. The rich would happily cough up and all would be well, or not. Sadly, the likes of McDonnell live in the days of the "workers' struggle', when 'soak the rich' was the watch word of the socialist elite. In the modern world, such an approach is impossible although this doesn't bother dyed-in-the-wool Marxists; they happily ignore the realities of a world in which 'the rich' simply move, leaving the rest of us to pick up the bill.

Anyone who experienced the strike ridden days of the 1960s and 1970s knows that nationalization doesn't solve anything. Strikes at British Leyland and Ford destroyed our car industry, strikes by coal works, steel workers, ship workers and the rest, all nationalized industries, reduced our industrial base to almost nothing. The only results of nationalization were strikes, unemployment and the eventual demise of the affected industries. That isn't to say that private enterprise has necessarily been a panacea but it certainly hasn't been as bad as is claimed by the likes of John McDonnell. British Gas, British Telecom, British Airways, National Grid and others haven't exactly been failures.

McDonnell is a typical Marxist. He will promise the earth, at no cost, and will deliver only dictatorship and misery. Unfortunately, many of our younger people simply don't remember the days of the old Soviet Union and have no conception of the appalling lives that the people lived under that regime; they don't even remember our own dark days of strikes and 3 day weeks in the 1960s and 70s, when Labour governed and the unions ruled our lives.

They have no knowledge of the old Soviet states or the old eastern European bloc - Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (where, I hear many cry !) Romania and Poland, not to mention East Germany, from where the present German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, hails. The old Soviet regime was horrific but McDonnell cares nothing for that. He ignores the inevitable consequence of any dictatorial state, that is, that those who oppose it in any way are eliminated. He is an idealist who happily forgets about the tens of millions murdered under Stalin in Russia and Mao in China; he prefers to concentrate on promising to run the railways well, as did Hitler, to everyone's cost.

No one should be fooled. McDonnell, and his partner in crime Jeremy Corbyn, are dinosaurs who would drag the United Kingdom into a new dark age. Their ideas, as vaguely proposed, may be popular with the uneducated and uninitiated, but no one should be fooled. Given power, they would destroy our country.

McDONNELL HEIR APPARENT TO CORBYN ?

Following David Blunkett calling for "seismic change" in the Labour Party, John McDonnell has been reported as saying that he's "worried and saddened" by the prospect of the party splitting over the anti-Semitism row. McDonnell has also said that he wanted to avoid a split "at all costs" and is happy to talk to unhappy MPs.

What ? 

The person who should be saying these things is the party's leader, Jeremy Corbyn but it seems that he is almost nowhere to be seen. For McDonnell to talk of HIS desire to avoid a split in the party "at all costs" and to say that HE is happy to talk to unhappy MPs is highly suggestive of a leadership bid. 

With the party conference season soon upon us, Jeremy Corbyn may well have a pretty rough ride ahead, so is McDonnell lining himself up as the heir apparent, the more acceptable face of the extreme left who will carry on the fight if Corbyn is forced out ? 

In Russia, they've been unfortunate enough to have Putin and Medvedev running the show between them for decades - is the Labour Party about to set off on a similar course ?

McDONNELL'S MARXIST NIGHTMARE.

Listening to John McDonnell on the radio this morning sent shivers down my spine.

As Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, McDonnell is attending the meeting of the pompously named ‘World Economic Forum’ in the exclusive Swiss resort of Davos, along with an assortment of other people who consider themselves part of the world’s elite. Supposedly, there is much discussion about matters of great importance, though I suspect it is the opportunity to enjoy the very best accommodation and food that the world can offer, and to be seen hob-nobbing with their peers, that is the real attraction for most.

Today, McDonnell wittered on about his party ‘preparing for government’ which is a horrifying prospect. As committed Marxists, McDonnell and his pal Jeremy Corbyn would raise taxes and borrowing to terrifying levels in order to pursue their entirely outdated and discredited socialist economic model. The election of a Labour government run by these two would ultimately result in a huge increase in government borrowing, a collapse in the value of the pound and the stock market and virtual economic annihilation of a type experienced in the past only by those unfortunate enough to have lived in the command economies of Russia, China and other Communist states. It would be a catastrophe from which it would take decades, even generations, to recover.

Many have made similar claims about the consequences of the UK’s exit from the European Union, although these were based on entirely imaginary and politically driven scenarios; the consequences of a Corbyn - McDonnell government are not imaginary as we know from their own statements what economic policies they would pursue. They have made it clear that they would commit vast amounts of money, OUR money, to all manner of socialist schemes and that they would hugely increase the involvement of the state in the everyday lives of every one of us.

Be under no illusion and don’t be conned by the promises of a glorious tomorrow. It would be anything but.

TAX AVOIDANCE : LET'S HAVE MORE OF IT !

Yet another media storm has been kicked off by the so-called revelations contained in a huge number of papers which have been 'leaked', though from where doesn't seem to be stated.

It seems that evil people have been using 'tax havens' to avoid paying their taxes. Shock ! Horror ! Even worse, it's reported that some of the investments of the Duchy of Lancaster, from which the Queen benefits, have been made in these dreadful places.

It's hardly a surprise to find that the BBC is deeply involved in reporting these supposed wrongdoings. Indeed, this morning it had the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, John McDonnell in full voice on the 'Today' programme; he went on and on without saying anything other than sounding outraged, though I have no doubt that many will have believed that his bluster actually did have meaning.

For the avoidance of doubt, Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal, in fact many would say that it's the duty of every citizen to ensure that they abide by tax law, exploit whatever 'loop holes'  are available and only pay the taxes which are due. Successive governments have actually introduced some 'loop holes' quite deliberately into the system, with special tax treatments for pensions, ISAs, investments in the arts or forestry and so on. Why should using these 'loop holes' be considered acceptable, while using others is considered something akin to a capital offence ?

The way in which Tax Avoidance has been conflated with Tax Evasion in recent years is worrying. Those who use Tax Avoidance measures are being increasingly portrayed as Tax Evaders, which is fundamentally wrong. Tax Evasion is illegal and should be met with the full force of the law; Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal and should be applauded.

Those like John McDonnell who simply can't abide the thought that there are people who have more than them should shut up whining, and organisations like the BBC should stop giving them an outlet for their tedious political posturing.

BEWARE LABOUR'S PROMISES !

With the Labour Party's annual conference getting underway in Brighton, it's already very clear that a future Labour government would take our country back to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s.

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, the Party's two ultra-socialist dinosaurs, have plans that would tax and borrow to a degree not seen since Harold Wilson's time, when tax at 98% hit some people. Both Corbyn and McDonnell are careful not to say much about this side of their plans concentrating instead on the giveaways to younger people which they hope will bring them into power.

Abolishing university tuition fees is obviously very attractive to some, but would cast the country tens of billions of pounds that it does not have; the answer, of course, would be more borrowing. A huge programme of nationalisation of industries such as rail, water and energy may also sound attractive but would be paid for by the printing of money, dressed up as 'Government Bonds', which would be handed out to the shareholders whose investments were affected. Additionally, it seems that Corbyn and Co. would not compensate the holders of shares in these companies for the actual market value but only for a figure to be determined by a future Labour government, certainly to be a lesser sum. This would adversely affect the pensions of millions while still incurring a new vast debt for the country. Nothing has yet been said about how these new bonds would operate, what interest rate they would carry nor what redemption date they would have, leaving savers with much to ponder.

Taking an assortment of industries back into public ownership would, say Corbyn and MacDonnell, allow the government to run them more efficiently and to invest in them. I think we all know how efficient government management is at the best of times, let alone the efficiency of a bureaucratic and highly ideological socialist monolith; as for future investment, that simply means still more borrowing and still government debt that has to be serviced and eventually repaid. It all adds up to more taxes to pay for it..

Corbyn always sounds so reasonable and McDonnell so fervent, and one can easily understand why it is that so many younger people, idealists themselves, fall for their ideology and promises. Older generations that have lived through all this before are less sanguine. The government owned industries of the past, railways, energy, water, telecoms, steel and, above all, car making, were disasters. Badly managed, far too little investment, inefficient, and constantly on the point of collapse; there was a time when the UK had a thriving car industry but the trades unions got rid of that, as they did ship building, coal mining and steel making, all with the connivance of Labour governments. Don't be conned into thinking that it was 'Maggie' who did away with coal or anything else; all she did was to clear up the mess left by Wilson and Callaghan.

However charming, appealing and fervent the old unreconstructed leaders of the Labour Party sound, never forget that these are men on a mission to destroy how country. Ideology is all very well but idealism rarely works and never in politics or government. A future Labour government overseen by Corbyn, McDonnell and their acolytes would be a disaster with control, snooping, monitoring, taxation and debt at hitherto unimaginable levels.

Beware - you have been warned !

GRENFELL TOWER : APPROPRIATE RESPONSE NEEDED

No one can deny that the Grenfell Tower fire was almost certainly exacerbated by a failure to ensure adequate fire safety measures, in particular, that the cladding affixed to the outside of the building was fire proof. However, the subsequent reaction of the media and some politicians has been, to say the least, questionable.

Labour's John McDonnell, a man whose ambition it is to bring down the government and replace it with a communist-style dictatorship, has claimed that the victims of the fire were "murdered" by political decisions. Presumably he would also claim that the victims of other disasters and atrocities were also killed by the state as this is an easy way to blame the whole capitalist system for anything that befalls its people. He is, of course, using this tragedy to further his political ambitions, seeing those who lost their lives at Grenfell Tower as little more than collateral damage and a weapon to use in his on-going war with capitalism. McDonnell is a nasty little man who has spent most of his political life hiding in the shadows and waiting for an opportunity like this to arise; don't be fooled by him. We are all no more than pawns in his attempt to climb the greasy political pole.

While McDonnell tries to make political capital at the national level, many local councils are now running around like headless chickens trying to discover if they might also have a Grenfell Tower disaster in the making. It seems that a very high proportion of similar tower blocks may also have the same cladding as was on the tower in Kensington and councils have been panicking mightily as a result. Tenants have been ordered out of their homes in the middles of the night, special 'fire wardens' have been appointed and fire engines are on emergency standby; all of this even though the buildings in question have stood happily and safely for many years, even decades, without the slightest sign of any problems. While taking additional precautions might be sensible, the over-reaction in some areas has been almost risible.

With all of this going on, the media has been having a field day of its own. Interviews with tenants from here, there and everywhere, coverage of demonstrations, constant badgering of politicians and daily updates on developments, particularly on the number of buildings now thought to be potentially dangerous. Rather than sticking to facts and investigating the veracity of those facts, the media prefers to make the most of every bit of perceived 'bad news', reporting and commenting on such snippets in such a way as to ramp up fear and distrust. Instead of reporting dispassionately, the media loves all that is dramatic and so the truth is all too often overlooked and unreported.

The aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy will be with us for a long time to come, but we really should not get carried away by it. We need a measured and appropriate response, not the wild flailing around that is currently going on, and certainly not political points scoring or finger pointing.

CONSERVATIVES VERSUS MARXISTS - VOTERS' CHOICE.

With the General Election now less than 2 weeks away, the gap between Conservative and Labour in opinion polls has closed quite significantly. However, has anything really changed ?

Exactly as at the start of the campaign, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour believe in much higher taxation for all, much greater public sector borrowing and debt, less support for our armed forces and the defence of our nation, nationalisation of major services and industries, more state control of our lives but little control over immigration. The people currently leading the party have fairly extreme left-wing views and some, such as John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, are clearly much closer to Marxism than to Socialism.

In contrast, the Conservatives believe in taxation being at the lowest sustainable level, less public sector borrowing and debt, greater resources for the defence of the country, relative freedom for major services and industries, less state control of our lives and greater controls over immigration. The Conservatives are not dominated by a faction of extremists and remain mildly right-of-centre in political terms.

The Conservatives are committed to carrying out the will of the people as expressed in the Referendum on membership of the European Union while Labour's position on this crucial issue is less certain but would quite possibly lead to the UK remaining members of this egregious organisation.

While Labour would rob us all through increased taxation and create vast amounts of 'new money' through borrowing, which it would throw around with gay abandon, the Conservatives would try to tackle the most serious economic issues affecting us by increasing productivity, increasing efficiency and reducing public sector costs. The Conservatives believe in personal responsibility while Labour believes in the 'Nanny State', which knows best and will keep us safe by taking control of our everyday lives away from us.

It cannot be denied that the Conservatives have made a bit of a hash of things in the last week or so of campaigning but the basics remain the same. Do we want to control our own lives and be able to spend our money on our priorities, or do we want the government to do it all for us ? Do we want to be in or out of the European Union ? Do we want to be in a forward looking country or one that is harking back to the Trades Union dominated days of the 1960s and 1970s when we were bankrupted by Labour policies ?

Do we want a government run by moderate Conservatives or one run by fanatical Socialists and neo-Marxists ?

LABOUR TAX PLEDGES HIDE THE TRUTH.

In their efforts to convince the populace to vote for them in June, the Labour party is 'pledging' not to raise income tax for those earning less than £80,000 per annum. In addition, they're saying that they won't increase employees national insurance or the rates of VAT currently in place. However, they are saying that the 'top 5%' of earners will pay more, though how much more isn't stated.

Allowing that they have also promised to spend several hundreds of billions of pounds more on public services, this implies enormous increases in the taxes which they don't promise to freeze, and also a huge increase in government borrowing. Back in the 1960s, some 'top earners' found themselves paying an eye-watering rate of income tax of 98% on part of their income - is this where Corbyn and McDonnell are heading ? What about a straightforward 'wealth tax' to rob those who have anything, or a vast increase in inheritance tax ?

They've been careful to say nothing about employers' national insurance - watch out all those providing jobs ! Keeping the rates of VAT the same doesn't preclude extending the scope of this iniquitous tax - might we find that currently exempt items, such as lottery tickets, museum entrance charges, burial and cremation costs, hospital and care home charges, school fees and much more - are suddenly made subject to it ? There are also a myriad of other taxes and duties which can be dreamt up or increased and no doubt this would also happen.

Together with massive increases in taxation, the vast increase in public sector borrowing would lead to a collapse in investment, higher prices, a dramatic surge in both inflation and interest rates and a collapse in the value of the pound. Within 12 months the UK would be back where it was in the 1970s when Chancellor of the Exchequer Dennis Healey was obliged to go, cap in hand, to the IMF for vital financial support.

Don't be conned. Labour's pledges aren't worth the paper they're written on if, indeed, they're written down at all. After Ed Miliband's 'Edstone' fiasco, they may well decide to avoid putting pen to paper on this economic nonsense.

AUTUMN STATEMENT : MORE OF THE SAME.

Today's 'Autumn Statement' and its accompaniments is a prime example of everything that's wrong in the governmental arrangements of our nation.

New Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, made a reasonable job of delivering a difficult statement though it will no doubt eventually be divined that his announcements on spending were mostly, if not entirely, repeats of earlier announcements. Small increases in minimum wages, a slight amendment to benefit withdrawal rates and the freezing of petrol duty will probably be more than cancelled out by the increase in insurance premium tax and the rental increases that will inevitably result from his proposal to ban letting agents from charging fees to tenants. All-in-all, it was the same old mix of playing with numbers and tinkering at the edges.

What followed was almost farcical. Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell made a rambling and largely incoherent political statement that had little to do with the Chancellor's original. On television, this was followed by interviews with an assortment of figures who expressed varying degrees of satisfaction, understanding, dissatisfaction or outright condemnation. The one thing that was clear was that most of those interviewed were only interested in their own parochial views of the world, the politicians involved being the worst offenders by far.

Our elected representatives do nothing other than promote their own pet projects and political preferences; they do nothing to try to do the best for our country, only the best for themselves. They trot out the same tired old platitudes, make the same protestations and put on the same appearances of outrage and consternation. MPs of all parties do it and none ever shows the slightest sign of living in the same world as the rest of us.

The one thing that's certain after today is that the vast majority of us will be poorer in the years ahead. It's 'deja vu' all over again.