It’s quite amazing to read the starry-eyed treatment the BBC affords the latest claims from Chairman Mao fan John McDonnell.
Labour insisted that the new rule was not a commitment to spend more money than the present government. Chancellor George Osborne has put in place rules saying that the government will create an overall budget surplus “in normal times”. Labour voted against the rule in Parliament, and Mr McDonnell said any future Labour government wanted to invest more than the Conservatives. Which could mean more borrowing. The Office for Budget Responsibility – the government’s economic watchdog – will be given new powers to “whistle blow” when it believes that the “credibility rule” has been breached. And under the Labour plans it will also report to Parliament rather than the Treasury.
Spot the weasel word from the BBC. Yes. it’s “could”. OF COURSE McDonnell will increase spending – but he redefines that as “investment” in true Marxist fashion.
Well, Gordon Brown often said that public sector spending was investment, so at least the message is consistent (ly wrong).
Let’s have a go at reporting this in true Al Beeb tory attack style….
McDonnells ‘responsible’ rules to control Labour spending declared ‘impossible’
The labour party claims to control spending have been savaged today and branded impossible by leading financial experts. Experts have ridiculed and torn apart ‘crazy’ John McDonnells claim that labour can even attempt to control spending.
The BBC have looked into how impossible the task is for labour
Reduce spending:
Clearly will not happen. Labour have rejected every single budget reduction placed before the house. Housing benefit, job seekers allowance, public sector pay and pensions will all rise instantly. Care and foreign aid budgets will also rise. Only viable reduction in spending is to the armed forces whom Jeremey Corbyn is already at war with
Tax increases:
Clearly tax rises to the rich and big business will come, however flight of big business and the rich to more beneficial tax locations will heavily reduce expected tax revenues, leading to increase in all basic tax. National debt will rise at unimaginable scales and destroy the economy
Isn’t it amazing how easy it was to write about the true nature of this story and the labour party
The British hating broadcasting corporation at its very bias best
Commented deleted.
Tbasket. Read this wonderfully put review on socialists from John Hawkins and see if there is an argument for economic growth under a Corbyn government.. Apologies for the length of this but clearly there’s a little education required
“Socialism is particularly dangerous because it’s so perfectly suited for the modern era. It’s the ultimate “miracle” product: it’s “nice,” it’s “fair,” it’ll make you feel good about yourself, it’ll “help” people who “deserve it” by taking things away from people who “have so much” they’ll barely miss it. It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? But, like most products with sleazy salesmen and hidden track records, the promises socialism makes are all a mirage. Since our schools do a terrible job of teaching history and economics these days, it’s our job to explain how socialism slowly, insidiously eats away at the core of a society.
1) It kills economic growth: Strong economic growth is what produces jobs, tax revenue and a better standard of living for everyone, including the poor and middle class. That’s what John F. Kennedy was driving at when he said, “A rising tide (in the economy) lifts all boats.” Socialism strangles economic growth in the crib by penalizing success and rewarding failure. When you loot the successful people in a society to give it to the less successful, you quite naturally reduce the number of successful people and encourage more people to fail. This leads to a never-ending cycle. The more people in need there are, the more the successful must be penalized to pay for them. The more the successful are penalized, the fewer successful people there are. This causes wealth to concentrate in fewer hands, the economy slows down, and even more people need help. It goes on and on until you get a slow economy that can’t produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself. That’s exactly what killed the Soviet Union, it’s killing Greece right now and sadly, the United States and most of Western Europe is on exactly the same path.
2) It stifles free speech: Why is there ridiculous government propaganda in nations like North Korea? Why are most schools, papers, and colleges run by liberals in the United States? Why do liberals often try to disrupt conservative speakers on college campuses? Why are there such extreme speech codes in Canada that it practically makes some conservative arguments illegal? Why does speaking out against the government risk imprisonment in China and the old Soviet Union? Because socialism requires protection, propaganda, intimidation, and darkness to survive. Socialism can’t survive honest, informed debate about its merits among people who are free to choose or reject it because it would not survive the conversation. As Reagan said, “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
3) It leads to an increasingly tyrannical government: Freedom and socialism go together like oil and water. The more socialism you have, the less freedom you will have because socialism can’t survive if people are free to choose whether they want socialism or not. People who are free to say what they want will criticize socialism’s many failures. Areas that aren’t tightly controlled will move towards the free exchange of ideas and goods, not socialism. So, socialism requires a massive bureaucracy that almost inevitably grows. As government grows, it inevitably becomes more centralized, more distant from the people and ultimately more menacing.
4) It creates strife and division: Socialism is all about turning people against each other. It has to be. After all, if you believe in controlling people’s lives, the people who don’t wish to be controlled need to be vilified. If you believe in confiscating the wealth of successful people who won’t give it up willingly, then others must be convinced they’re terrible human beings who deserve to be punished. “Victim” classes must be created for the socialists to defend because if everyone is responsible for himself, what need is there for the socialist? Eventually, those who depend on government for their livelihood and those that the government smears and loots to pay them off come to hate each other.
5) Socialists believe the ends justify the means: Like the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm, socialists believe that, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” For a socialist, the overriding concern is always promoting socialism; so process, rules and regulation mean different things for different people. Fidel Castro may have been the leader of a Communist revolution against the evil “rich people” in Cuba, but he’s worth 900 million dollars today. A law broken by a Democrat and a Republican may be treated very differently by the papers, the courts, and even the Department of Justice under Eric Holder. As Margaret Thatcher explained,
“Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag.”
One of the reasons so many socialist nations are wracked with violent protests and revolutions is because when the rule of law is abandoned, only outlaws have any hope of receiving justice.
Still think our economy will grow?
Excellent points and informative, theres also the leader worship that seems to go hand in hand with a command economy, socialism seems to attract those who like the idea of handing all personal responsibility over to the state, no thinking required, or allowed. From Adolf to Mao and Stalin to Chavez socialists appear to love a bit of cult like leader worship, say what you must about call me Dave, at least cult worship status is an unlikely prospect.
Commented deleted.
Commented deleted.
My point listing the ‘wonders’ of socialism was not to patronise and I apologise if it came across that way tbasket. My point is that the word ‘could’ is just a matter of semantics. The fact that Corbyn may benefit from favourable economics at the beginning of his tenure will only make things worse as it will provide the platform for the traitors to push through their grotesque policies. The people in control of the labour party are nothing but a cult of warped and delusional sociopaths. Of course I do not know what the tax revenues will be but the country will be terminal and on its knees once they get into government.
The cast iron guarantee is that a Corbyn government will destroy our economy and our standard of living will fall, taxes will rise…
Commented deleted.
Oh yes. The BBC use of ‘could’. Similar to ‘some say’ and ‘the BBC has learnt’. Usually from anonymous ‘sources’.
Gordon Brown identified a rising tide of tax revenues and spent (and borrowed) on the basis that future revenues would always cover it.
Hence the U.K. “downturn” (did the BBC or Big Gord ever call it a recession?) was notably deeper than most of our European neighbours.
Gordon Brown called most of his spending “investment”.
Has anyone identified the dividends?
He ran out of other people’s money to spend.
A familiar problem with socialists and not just in the U.K., It has already hit Venezuela and Brazil is heading rapidly down the tubes too.
Commented deleted.