Wednesday, 7 June 2017


Once more, though it is no doubt pointless:

1. Economy.
If you are tempted to believe the economy is in safer hands with the Tories than others, seriously, ask yourself why you believe that?! I'm tired of repeating myself, but here goes: We've had six recessions since the Great Depression in the 1930s and FIVE of those were under Tory governments and attributable to Tory policy. The one that happened under a Labour government (2008) was caused by a global banking crisis and was exacerbated by domestic economic policies which were wholly backed by the Conservatives (bank deregulation) and which would have been implemented by them if they had been in power at the time (go on, find me any statement made by a Tory which is critical of bank deregulation prior to the banking crisis in 2008). Moreover, it is highly unlikely that a Corbyn-led Labour party would have pursued a policy of bank deregulation.

2. Renationalisation.
I keep hearing people asking "how are we going to pay for all this renationalisation?" What the hell is so hard to understand about this? Those industries which the Labour party propose to renationalise are highly profitable, and right now the profits are, by and large, not being reinvested adequately, are not being used to bring down prices for financially pressed consumers, and are in many cases leaving the country and going untaxed. Bringing highly profitable industries back under the control of the people means that the profits belong to the people and the people get better and more affordable services. This doesn't cost, it is a way of generating income.

3. Security.
Yes Corbyn spoke to Irish Republican political leaders in the 1980s. He did so at the same time as Tory ministers were speaking to the same Republican political leaders. This is a matter of historical record. It is such dialogue that paved the way for the peace process and saved lives. If you think peace in Northern Ireland is a good thing then surely you believe that those who sought dialogue in the 1980s did the right thing? The goal has to be to prevent death and violence. Not to generate more.
Corbyn also campaigned for an end to Apartheid in South Africa and for the freeing of political prisoners there, such as Nelson Mandela. Go look up what many leading Tories were doing back then. You might not like Corbyn, but he was on the right side of history on those two issues, unless, of course, you are some kind of democracyphobe and preferred Belfast as a war zone and apartheid in South Africa.

4. Health.
Objectively there is NO funding crisis in the NHS. One has been created by the present government but there are no grounds for believing we cannot fully fund an effective NHS through taxation. That is the cheapest, most efficient way. We pay less than half (actually close to one third, by some measures) of what Americans pay as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for our health provision. Americans die when they have no health insurance and no cash to pay for the meds they require AND their system is over twice as expensive as ours. Explain to me then why anyone might want to vote for a party which wants to move us to a US style system of health provision? Let's be clear, moving to such a system is nothing to do with affordability or a funding crisis or an ageing population or efficiency, because the system they propose to move us to is MORE expensive and less efficient. Health systems funded by insurance, whether private insurance (as in the US) or state insurance systems (like France) are significantly more expensive because less efficient. It is a myth that we cannot afford the NHS. It is a myth that marketisation will make health more affordable. Marketisation of health makes it vastly more expensive. This is not ideological it is factual. One can find the data on this in such market-friendly magazines as The Economist. This isn't socialism it is economic reality.

5. (And do not get me started on) Shoot to Kill!
There is a distinction between "shoot to kill policies" and allowing police to shoot to kill when the situation demands it (i.e. there is a person trying to kill people and the most operationally effective way to prevent more deaths is to kill that person).
A "shoot to kill policy" is a policy of extra-judicial killing, which doesn't sit too well with claims to uphold the rule of law. When there seemed to be evidence that the Thatcher government had approved a covert policy of shoot to kill in the 1980s it was a huge political scandal, which rumbled on for decades. The same Tories who now sit by and watch Corbyn criticised for refusing to endorse a shoot to kill policy were and still are very keen to deny there was such a policy enacted by the state in the 1980s? Why is this important? Well because no politician who values, or wants to appear to value, the rule of law and due process believes that that is compatible with a shoot to kill policy. If those politicians had integrity they would be defending Corbyn from these blatant smears.
The BBC have already admitted that they misrepresented Corbyn on this last year. What is happening here today and yesterday is that people are being misled by often deliberate equivocation on the term "shoot to kill". A shoot to kill policy is a policy of extra-judicial killing and has no place in a state which claims to uphold the rule of law and due process. Shooting dead terrorists when it is judged essential by trained officers so as to save lives is something different and Corbyn has NEVER claimed this should not be allowed.

6. First strike Armageddon MADness.
WTF?! Has no-one heard of Mutually Assured Destruction? So, Corbyn is to be criticised for refusing to be the one to initiate Mutually Assured Destruction. Some things don’t need rebutting because they’re so obviously mad.

Is there anything else I should cover?

No comments :

Post a comment