ELECTION RESULT SERVES NO ONE.

Well, well, well !

In a catastrophic result for the Conservatives, they've lost their majority when they expected to increase it significantly. It seems that the people have done their thinking and decided that they don't much like Theresa May and the Conservatives, while many more than was expected decided that they did rather like Jeremy Corbyn's offering of 'tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend'. The polls were mostly wrong, again.

There is no doubt that Corbyn ran an effective campaign with many frankly populist policies; he also seems to have managed to get a substantial number of younger voters to support him and the final outcome of around 41% of the vote is dramatically higher than the opinion polls were indicating throughout the campaign period. Corbyn's success may also owe something to him being a true socialist rather than a 'middle-of-the-road, politician; he may have galvanised many of the traditional Labour supporters who have drifted away from the Party in recent years as it became more centrist in approach.

On the Conservative side, 44% of the votes would normally have produced a healthy majority in Parliament but, in this extraordinary election, it's only resulted in the Conservatives being the largest party; while they seem likely to be able to remain in office with the support of the Democratic Unionists from Ulster, it will be far from straightforward and policies will have to be watered down, perhaps significantly in some cases.

Theresa May's position has been seriously weakened though the expectation is that she will remain as Prime Minister. However, she has suffered a huge blow and must carry much of the blame for this wholly unexpected result. Six weeks ago, the Conservatives were apparently heading for a landslide victory but a quite appalling campaign all but destroyed them; the furore over the funding of social care, issues over the NHS and a crazy policy to replace free school dinners with free school breakfasts, the policy to meddle with the 'Winter Fuel Allowance' and May's refusal to appear in the televised 'Leaders' Debate', as well as her stuttering performance on the social issues. Indeed, the initial approach of concentrating the campaign on Theresa May, rather than on the Party, and the absence of other major figures such as Boris Johnson and Liam Fox from the frontline seems to have been a huge mistake. It also seems certain that the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London allied to Labour's promise to put more police on the streets caused many to turn to Labour.

The Conservative miscalculation is undoubtedly the worst since February 1974 when Ted Heath called an election expecting the country to support his stand against the miners; on that occasion, the country gave Heath the elbow and Labour actually ended up forming a minority government; they then went to the country again a few months later to give them a majority and 5 years in power which ultimately produced chaos and Margaret Thatcher.

What will happen next is anyone's guess. It is possible that the Conservatives could remain in office for a full 5 years though their position is obviously highly vulnerable; 1 or 2 by-election losses could easily prove fatal, although the '5 Year Parliament Act' could now act in their favour. It will be difficult to put through their manifesto, if not impossible, and 'Brexit' negotiations will certainly be more problematic. Theresa May, herself, seems very unlikely to be able to survive a full 5 years and there must be a possibility of another election within the next 2 years; if that happens, a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn becomes a distinct possibility.

Whatever the eventual outcome, this result serves no one. It is disastrous for the Conservatives and could become catastrophic for the country if Corbyn ever gets into power. Those who voted for Corbyn this time didn't get what they wished for; next time they may well get their wish but, as is often said, 'you should be very careful what you wish for as you may get it'.

SO WHO WILL WIN ?

As election day approaches and the party's campaigns are wound up, only one question remains - who will win ?

6 weeks ago there was no doubt that the Conservatives were heading for a spectacular landslide victory. Labour were in total disarray and the Conservatives seemed to be riding the crest of a wave. However, things are now somewhat different and the opinion polls are giving a very mixed view of the likely outcome. What has happened ?

Firstly, Theresa May and her Conservative colleagues have run a distinctly lacklustre and rather messy campaign. They've put forward one or two policy proposals which seem to have been badly miscalculated and Mrs May no longer looks like the strong and steadfast leader that she was initially portrayed as and on which basis much of the early part of the campaign was fought. In the end, the damage to the Conservatives campaign hasn't been enormous, although their predicted share of the final vote has probably fallen by 4 or 5 percentage points.

On the other hand, Labour's campaign has been one of unashamed bribery. Populist policies and promises to increase spending on the NHS and on education, to abolish university tuition fees and to put more police officers on the streets have met with general approval from many traditional Labour supporters, as well as some others, and Jeremy Corbyn has usually cut a fairly sympathetic figure. All of this has contributed to the predicted share of the vote for Labour rising by 7 or 8 points, reducing the overall deficit to the Conservatives quite dramatically. The lead may now be down to somewhere in the region of 5 - 10 % and some pundits are even talking about a 'hung Parliament'.

While the campaigns started with Mrs May being the adored figure, they seem to be ending with Mr Corbyn having become the more appealing one of the 2; Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats has gone largely unnoticed as have most of the other peripheral leaders. In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon's SNP seems to have lost a degree of support and may lose several of its seats, though it will still be easily the largest party in that part of the UK.

Will Corbyn's popular cuddliness and promises to throw vast quantities of our money at public services win the day or, when it comes to the crunch, will the electorate go for the less cuddly Mrs May and her distinctly less exciting but financially much more prudent approach ? For what it's worth, I think that sense will prevail and I predict an overall Conservative majority of about 60.

All will be revealed come Friday morning.

CORBYN TRIES TO BRIBE US WITH OUR OWN MONEY.

It is clear that Jeremy Corbyn has only way real policy as the election campaign enters its final week and that is to buy votes.

Promises to abolish student fees and an indication that a Labour government might also cancel existing student debts are policies aimed directly at buying the votes of students, though at a huge cost to the country in general. Other promises to provide extra resources to the NHS and to schools while nationalizing an assortment of services mean billions of pounds would have to be found from higher taxes and / or increased borrowing.

What no one seems to have pointed out is that all this money that a Corbyn-led administration would commit has to come from somewhere. As has been pointed out, there is no magic 'money tree'; governments have no money of their own, all they have is what they can wheedle out of the people. Every penny that governments spend comes from us, one way or another.

Income tax and national insurance, VAT, insurance premium tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, council tax and corporation tax; tobacco duty, alcohol duty, vehicle excise duty, fuel duty, stamp duty, air passenger duty, gambling duties, all manor of environmental taxes and duties, business rates, assorted levies and heaven alone knows how many more.

This vast array of taxes, duties and levies all take money from the people who often seem to forget that taxes paid by business are ultimately passed onto their customers. In the end, all taxes are paid by the people, all of the people and not just those who can easily afford to pay them. Sometimes, we pay tax on top of tax, as with the VAT charged on top of the fuel duty added to the cost of fuel and, of course, the basic price of the fuel includes an element to enable the producer - BP, Shell, ESSO etc. - to pay their employer's national insurance, corporation tax and so on. We all pay more than enough already without allowing a Corbyn government to rob us of still more.

Even when governments hide their financial excesses by borrowing instead of taxing, the people still pay. Borrowing incurs interest charges which the people pay annually through their taxes. It also incurs debt which has to be repaid over a number years, meaning that future generations can end up paying for the services and benefits enjoyed by the current generation, surely the ultimate and most pernicious con-trick perpetrated by governments. In the end, someone has to pay though today's politicians don't worry about that as they won't be around to carry the can.

All Corbyn is attempting to do is to bribe us with our own money. He will happily promise to spend whatever he can get his hands on but it's all smoke and mirrors. Don't be fooled and don't let this conman loose on our economy.

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 ?

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 ?

WHAT IS A 'PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE ' ?

With the Conservatives maintaining a substantial lead in the opinion polls, various voices on the political left are urging the creation of what they laughingly refer to as a 'Progressive Alliance'. What they really mean is an amalgam of socialist parties, all of which are hell-bent on raising taxes, borrowing vast sums and interfering in our lives as much as they possibly can.

The Labour Party is currently a party of the fairly extreme left, with Jeremy Corbyn being a throwback to the days of Michael Foot and John McDonnell being an admitted Marxist; both favour the creation of a Marxist style state with strong central control and little room for individual action other than their own. Watching some of their colleagues in action, it's clear that they have similar ambitions and would be quite at home as extreme left wing union agitators.

There are then a variety of other socialist parties - the Liberal Democrats, who are neither Liberal nor Democratic, the Greens who are potty and the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists who would be Labour if they weren't so fanatically nationalistic.

Importantly, none of these parties, with the possible exception of the Greens, are 'progressive'; in truth, they are locked into a class war which ended long ago but which they continue to whine about. They all believe in increasing the size of the State and in the State's control over the lives of the people; none of them believe in individual liberty beyond the liberty to do what the State allows. The Greens do, at least, have long standing policies which look to the future, though their way of implementing these is by pursuing the same fundamentally socialist policies.

Socialism has been tried in many countries, most notably in the Soviet Union and China; both experiments resulted in brutal dictatorships and economic collapse. Socialism is fundamentally contrary to human nature and cannot ever succeed; people are competitive while Socialism is all about removing competition and replacing it with State direction. In a Socialist state, there is no incentive to rise to the top as the top is at the same level as the bottom, with only the ruling elite experiencing a better lifestyle. In the end, a Socialist state as desired by Corbyn and his pals winds down and stagnates, at best; at worst, it results in the rise of Stalin, Mao and others of their type.

Don't be fooled. Voting for a 'Progressive Alliance' means voting for a socialist government with an extreme left wing and potentially disastrous agenda. Don't do it.

POLITICAL BRIBES ABOUND.

With the General Election campaigns getting into full swing, the 3 main parties are busy trying to buy our votes.

The Conservatives have made noises about immigration numbers and most recently, have issued a promise to 'cap' energy prices. Labour are offering to shell out loads of money on higher wages and benefits, and more spending on public services, while increasing taxes for what they call 'the rich' and the Liberal Democrats keep banging on about 'Brexit' and how unfair it all is.

This is all 'par for the course' and is the usual meaningless rhetoric that is trotted out at every election. Labour knows it can promise anything it can dream up as it has no chance of winning and the same goes for the Liberal Democrats. Both would be disastrous for the country anyway, with utter confusion over our relationship with the European Union and / or economic meltdown.

However, the Conservatives are treading on thin ice with their promises on immigration and energy prices. They will win the election, at least that's what the opinion polls strongly  predict, so they will have to act on their pledges. Having failed to have any effect on immigration over the last 7 years, it seems most unlikely that they will be able to make any real progress in the next 5, thus making the whole matter a hostage to fortune. Regarding energy prices, imposing a statutory control over these smacks of the type of price control beloved of Socialists and that was imposed by Labour in the 1960s and 1970s. It may also be a wholly unproductive policy, leading the energy suppliers to increase all of their uncontrolled prices in order to make up the shortfall resulting from the controls on their standard tariffs. Just as the regulation of railway prices has had unforeseen consequences, so would the regulation of energy prices and, while some would see their costs capped, others would see them rise dramatically.

Wouldn't it be nice if our political parties could be honest with the electorate for a change and not simply use our money to try to bribe us to vote for them.