CONSERVATIVE CONTROL OR LABOUR PROFLIGACY ?

Although, as every financial adviser is required to say 'past performance is not a guarantee of future performance', it is worth considering history when it comes to choosing governments.

In 1964, after 13 years of Conservative government, the electorate voted for a change and chose to be ruled by Harold Wilson's Labour party. The Conservatives had left behind them a reasonably stable country though they had, perhaps, rather run out of steam; nonetheless, they had begun the process of giving independence to many countries of the old Empire and had thus taken on a strongly reformist role whose ramifications we still feel today.

Labour, while being supportive of breaking up the Empire, also seemed intent on handing control of the country to the Trades' Unions. Increasingly left-wing policies introduced by the likes of Tony Benn and Barbara Castle saw the beginnings of the almost total demise of our traditional industries - steel manufacture, car making, ship building and coal mining. Increasing union domination saw productivity collapse beneath the weight of ludicrous and destructive restrictive working practices, while wages increased beyond the ability of industries to pay them without eventually introducing significant price rises. The economy went into decline and the pound was devalued, though many of the people may well have been more interested in the excitement generated by the 'Swinging 60s'; sadly, this was transitory and the realities of life would soon become apparent.

Although 1970 saw a brief interlude with the surprise return of a Conservative government under the arch Europhile Ted Heath, high inflation and a multitude of strikes, a legacy of the Labour years, culminated in power cuts and the 'three day week'. Labour, and Harold Wilson, returned to power in 1974 and remained in office, with Wilson replaced by Jim Callaghan in 1976, until 1979. By then, the Trades Unions were in almost total control; some people had found themselves paying tax at 98% on part of their income, the government had been forced to beg for support from the International Monetary Fund to avoid effective bankruptcy and we were visited by the appalling 'Winter of Discontent' when rubbish was piled high on the streets and bodies remained unburied, all due to industrial action.

Labour were soundly beaten at the general election in 1979 and so began 18 years of Conservative government. During this time the Trades Unions were brought to heal though little could be done to negate the ravages of the past; coal mining, steel manufacturing, ship building and car making were reduced to minor side lines of the economy. However, the country did begin to become more prosperous, taxes were reduced, more people were enabled to buy their own homes and the economy thrived. The Falklands War was dealt with in stern fashion and it was not until the attempted introduction of a so-called 'poll tax' that the government found itself in real difficulties. After the succession of John Major to the Premiership, things were certainly more problematic as various factions vied for control of the party but withdrawal from the catastrophic European Exchange Rate Mechanism was eventually managed successfully, if not without some pain, and by 1997 the country was on a sound financial footing.

However, after 18 years of government by one party, the electorate wanted a change and voted for the populist approach of Tony Blair's Labour party. The succeeding 10 years saw huge amounts of money thrown at public services and an assortment of popular 'family orientated' measures. Taxes and borrowing were increased in order to support this spending while the banks were increasingly encouraged to lend to individuals and businesses without ensuring adequate security. These policies were also followed by other countries and culminated in the catastrophic financial collapse of 2007-08, from which we are still suffering. Once again, Labour's profligacy had resulted in economic disaster.

The return to power of the Conservatives, initially in coalition with the Liberal Democrats but, from 2015, by themselves has necessarily been a time of retrenchment as the economy has been slowly restored to a semblance of health and the years of excessive borrowing and spending have had to be paid for. We are now faced with a choice between continuing along the path to full economic recovery set out by the Conservatives, including getting out of the money-pit which is the European Union, or returning to the bad old days of tax and spend under what would be the most left-wing government ever to take power in this country.

If the Conservatives are returned at the election there will be a degree of stability; taxes will be controlled and business will thrive. Unemployment is likely to remain at a low level and the economy will grow at a consistent and sustainable rate.

If Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party is returned, there will upheaval; taxes will rise dramatically, the pound will lose value and inflation will 'take off'. Business will suffer and unemployment will most probably begin to increase. The productive economy will shrink even as an already inefficient public sector balloons out of control.

So which is likely to be the better choice ?

SOCIAL CARE COSTS - THE REALITY.

I have previously written that I agree whole-heartedly with Theresa May's proposals about the funding of social care for the elderly. Michael Portillo, a former senior Conservative Cabinet Minister with whom I was at school, though never very 'pally', has also supported this as being a thoroughly right approach.

On last Thursday night's 'This Week', one of the few truly bright spots in the BBC's recent output, Portillo repeated and expanded on his previous comments in debating with Suzanne Evans, UKIP's Deputy Chairman. While Evans made the case for those with significant assets nonetheless being supported by the state when it comes to their own social care, Portillo shot her down in flames.

Portillo quite simply pointed out the illogicality of the state being expected to safeguard the inheritance of the wealthy when it is supposed to be there as a safety net for the poor. He made it clear that the expectation, which has only arisen in recent years, that the state would provide for our old age regardless of the value of our assets is misguided. He pointed out that the uproar against Theresa May's proposals is not about the funding of the costs of care, but about the potential loss of inheritance that could be suffered by the children of those who happen to own their own home; Portillo stated clearly that the issue is not about the care of the elderly but about the state guaranteeing the inheritance of the younger generation of the well-off 'middle class'.

In defending her position, Evans stated, unequivocally, that she is a socialist and thinks that the state should support everyone regardless of wealth. However, Alan Johnson, sitting alongside Portillo and certainly a socialist, supported Portillo and even said that he had a degree of admiration for Theresa May's approach. Johnson pointed out that the current system, and that proposed by Andrew Dilnot, both suffer from the same defect; they leave the 'just managing' paying the same as the very well-off when it comes to care costs which is not at all socialist.

To my mind, Theresa May, and Portillo, are absolutely right. Why should those with property, which includes myself, be supported by the state simply so that we can be allowed to pass more onto our own next generation ? Surely it is better to use the value in the property in such a way as to reduce the costs to be borne by the generality of the younger, tax-paying generation.

The opinion polls suggest that some in the electorate don't agree with this approach. Presumably this is due to a reluctance on their part to accept that their lifelong efforts and savings should be applied to their own needs rather than being purely for passing on to their children. In this, they are categorically wrong !

We all have personal responsibility for our lives, which includes making provision for our own old age and, if needed, our own care should we become incapable of looking after ourselves. In the past, the elderly were often cared for by their families though, today, this is less common as the state has become more and more involved in our lives; the consequence is that children are less happy about looking after mum and dad as it impinges on their own lifestyles and, anyway, 'isn't it down to the state and what about my inheritance ?' Astonishingly, in the days when families cared for themselves, they were far worse off than almost everyone is today and inheritance was usually irrelevant.

The state should be there to help those who can't help themselves, basically the poor who simply don't have the resources and others who have the most complicated medical or social needs. Some of us, perhaps even a majority, seem to have forgotten this very basic point, though Theresa May and Michael Portillo have not; they understand the realities. The rest of us need to wake up and accept that the 'free lunch' no longer exists.

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 ?

CORBYN & TERRORISM.

Jeremy Corbyn seems to believe that the reason for terrorist attacks in our towns and cities is our previous involvement in conflicts in Islamic countries. He thinks that, rather than going to war in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, the Western world should have conducted what might be called 'peace talks'.

Corbyn is wrong. The reason the Western alliance launched their attacks against these barbaric countries was their support and harbouring of terrorists. Al Qaeda came into being long before there was any Western intervention in Afghanistan and terrorists from Libya were in action around the world, and in London, long before Colonel Gaddafi was overthrown; Saddam Hussein sent his forces into Kuwait in 1990.

Terrorists who claim to be Islamic cannot be reasoned with. They have been so indoctrinated as to believe absolutely in a cause that most of us cannot understand and which makes little sense. They are fanatics. Unfortunately, the countries within which they principally live and thrive are disorganised, backward and often barbaric places; the Western world has no real understanding of either the places or people. Attempting to negotiate with their leaders, people like Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi who were insane megalomaniacs, is pointless, as was attempting to agree peace with Adolf Hitler.

Where the Western world has, indeed, got things horribly wrong, is in failing to lend meaningful ongoing support to countries such as Libya and Iraq once the initial aims of conflict had been achieved. Libya and Iraq are now disaster zones while Afghanistan is just the same as always - an unbelievably medieval place. Only in Syria, where the West has failed to remove the country's leader is there any semblance of effective government.

Corbyn is trying to find a way of laying the blame for atrocities such as the Manchester bombing at the door of governments such as our own and, by implication, blaming the Conservatives for it. In truth the blame lies with the insane notion of 'multiculturalism' that has swept our own country in recent years. The idea that people could come to live in the UK and carry on as if still in their former countries is the problem; we now have millions of people here who owe no allegiance to the UK and, indeed, still see themselves as being Libyan, Iraqi, Afghan, Kurd or whatever. Many do not speak English and do not wish to do so; they do not engage in the UK's own traditional culture, but create ghettos where the indigenous people are unwelcome.

Corbyn may be well meaning but he's also the Neville Chamberlain of his day. He refuses to see the truth and prefers to seek out any and every alternative to it. In his hands, the UK would be at the mercy of terrorists of all types.

MANCHESTER BOMBING : MEDIA OVERKILL.

Those responsible for the terrorist attack in Manchester last night know full well that no matter how appalling their actions are, they will have little long-lasting effect on life in the UK. However, what they really want is to cause disruption and to gain the maximum possible publicity.

Sadly, publicity and disruption is exactly what they have achieved. Wall-to-wall coverage on multiple television channels plus chaos in Manchester and the surrounding area as police cordon off streets, hospitals cancel appointments and schools consider cancelling examinations. While the short-term disruption may be necessary, the blanket coverage by news media is not.

BBC, ITV, Sky and, no doubt, other broadcasters have given over hour after hour to mostly repetitive coverage of the events. Their normal schedules have been abandoned and they have simply tried to wring every last ounce of 'news' out of the horror, injury and loss suffered by the people who were at last night's event. All other news, however, important or worthy, has been side-lined and one wonders what would have to happen to gain their attention, focused as it is on a mawkish and morbid determination to concentrate on this one tragedy.

Of course, the bombing was shocking and awful but does it really demand such coverage by the media ? There is little to report on a moment-by-moment basis and, after the initial reports and coverage, updates in the regular news bulletins would surely have sufficed. In fact, in their excessive coverage, the media has provided exactly what the bomber and his accomplices wanted - maximum publicity for their cause, whatever that may turn out to have been.

SOCIAL CARE - TIME FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Various organisations have risen up to criticize the Conservatives' proposals about changes to the funding of social care. Some have said that this is some sort of tax, a suggestion which is, frankly, nonsensical. What it is, is a restoration of freedom of choice.

Everything provided by the government is a 'benefit'; every aspect of health and social care that is funded by the government is a 'benefit', however it is dressed up. Altering the terms of a 'benefit' is not a tax and never can be. All benefits are funded by taxing all of us; therefore, how can the reduction of a benefit be seen as anything but a potential reduction in taxes ?

This is akin to the attempts of the left to claim that the restrictions of housing benefit introduced a couple of years ago were a 'bedroom tax'; this change did no more than equalise the treatment of tenants whether they were under public or private landlords and had nothing to do with tax.

Social care never was a state responsibility other than for those who were seriously incapacitated. In the past, families looked after their own elderly relatives and, mostly, that was that. It is only in more recent times that selfish and self-serving generations have sought, and become accustomed to, state support for their parents' generation. The idea that the wealth of parents is a right to be inherited has taken hold, and the suggestion that the accumulated wealth of a life should be applied to caring for a person in old age has become anathema.

Of course, parents want the best for their children and of course they want them to benefit from their achievements. However, we are all responsible for ourselves and it is fundamentally wrong for children to expect, automatically, to benefit from their parents' efforts and frugality; most people talk about 'saving for their old age', which is exactly what they do by buying a house or putting money in the bank. They don't, and never have, saved for the specific purpose of passing money over to their children. If that has been possible, all well and good, but if it hasn't, so be it.

The Conservatives proposal regarding the funding of social care is not only logical, it is right. Anyone who has been cautious with their money may have a little nest egg which they might like to pass on to family or a favourite charity; that is good. However, if they are unfortunate and find that they require an element of care as they grow older, their nest egg is also available for that too. Which did they really save for - their family or their own future ?

The Conservatives' proposal won't actually affect many people in a negative way. Under the current system, anyone with more than £23,000 in savings pays for themselves; under the new proposals, this is lifted to £100,000 but includes the recipient's home. Perhaps this may actually encourage more younger people to think about other ways of looking after their aging parents and not simply dump them in a home, paid for by the state and safe in the knowledge that they'll still inherit the old family home worth £500,000.

Unexpectedly, Theresa May's initiative may actually result in a rekindling of genuine family feelings and relationships which have been so eroded by the increasingly left wing, state orientated policies of the last 30 or 40 years.

SOCIAL CARE FUNDING QUESTIONS.

Listening to representatives from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, one would think that 'The State' is some sort of bank with never-ending resources.

Today, they've been having a go at the Conservatives and, in particular, their manifesto commitment regarding the funding of social care. While the Conservatives believe that people with significant assets should take responsibility for funding their own care to a large extent, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties believe that 'The State' should pay and that individuals should be able to keep their assets to pass on to their children.

The trouble with this socialist nonsense is that 'The State' is all of its people. 'The State' has no money other than what it can take from its people and the businesses that are based in it. In other words, when they say that 'The State' should pay for something, what they mean is that the people, in general, should pay. They have no interest in protecting family assets, they simply plan to get their hands on them in different ways, for instance, through increasing inheritance taxes or introducing a wealth tax.

While the Conservatives believe in people taking personal responsibility, Labour and the Liberal Democrats believe that the bulk of the people are incapable of running their own lives and, therefore, the government should do it for them. Their way of paying for this state organised management of our lives is to tax us increasingly heavily and to borrow large sums as well.

The choice is simple. Do we want to keep more or less of our own money; do we want to run our own lives or hand over responsibility to whomever is in government ?

I know which I prefer.