It is Obvious

Chris Rick has got altogether too much to say

Been here before

Posted by chrisrick13 on September 14, 2015

It is obvious: digging inside a hole does not get you out

That’s it then.  The Labour party has committed suicide.

We should expect no other.  A very small group of (well-meaning) Labour activists and party members from a long way to the left have voted Corbyn into the leadership.  Democratic?  Possibly but not sure where the union votes stand on that.

There is the problem though.  The idealists, the socialists motivated enough to join the Labour party have marched behind Corbyn.  What about the people who vote Labour?  Few of them will vote for Corbyn.  Perhaps those on benefits who see a larger trough with Labour will stay with the party.  It is not enough though.

Never forget that a week is a long time in politics.  It could all swing round.  However the people running the Conservative party seem to be smart.  They certainly out-thought me.  I think they will give Corbyn an easy ride for some time.  Give him the opportunity to dig a big hole.  He has certainly come out digging today.  Then they will publicly pick apart his policies.  PMQs will be a good watch over the coming weeks.  In the meantime the remains of the Labour party, the bit of it that got 14 years in power will be plotting.  I think that Conservative policy will try to make sure Corbyn is the leader in 4 and a bit years.  They will have to work hard to see him survive!

Today one of Corbyn’s supporters with zeal in his eyes talked on tv of Corbyn’s economics.  He said that all the country was behind this refreshing new approach.  Just a minute sir.  You do not speak for me.  You do not speak for most of the people I know!  He went on to say that this was not a time for austerity and that we should invest in building this country to get jobs and economic prosperity.  I would ask him what his link is between building a bridge or nationalising an industry and prosperity or jobs?  When he says ‘we’ I know he means me…through taxes.  His opponent on the tv said that cutting expenditure as the Conservatives were trying to do (sic) or raising taxes were just two different sides of austerity that will cut the deficit.  At least in that small measure the Conservatives are more honest.

The country is in a very poor place with all its debts, both on view and hidden.  When we have to borrow money at the average long-term interest rate visibility will be high for all debts.  That time will come.  Eventually.  Stirling (pun on purpose) work fixing loans to the government for very long terms on low rates is happening now and has been for a while.  But a lot of debt will quickly roll over to the new higher rates when they come.  There are plenty of home owners will go bankrupt when interest rates rise but it takes time to get someone out of a house.  In that gap the government will beat them into bankruptcy.

Corbyn’s consideration of this is that if we borrow more money all will be well!

If he wins then I am in a group that will benefit out of all proportion – the elderly.  Just need to get assets abroad and I can live comfortably with a trickle of repatriation of those assets.  I can even use them to have my sons send food parcels in from abroad!  If not food then something that has a good exchange value.

It is obvious: digging inside a hole does not get you out, getting help from someone with a bigger spade does not improve your prospects


4 Responses to “Been here before”

  1. Bill said

    Who do you (or rather a labour supporter) vote for in an election? Should you vote for the person that mirror’s your views as closely as possible or the candidate that you think might do (on balance) the most good for you. If the first then I can see why he got it, if the second – well they’ve made the wrong choice as it’s highly unlikely that he’ll ever be PM.

    Mind you British politics is all about the center ground and I can see the conservatives moving leftwards to maximize their vote (and hence gain you a few more labour policies at an earlier stage than would have happened otherwise). They need to be careful or UKIP will take more from the Right-hand side of the electorate and become a contender…

    Incidentally who do MPs represent in a democracy? Do they attempt to represent the views of their constituents (or perhaps only the ones that voted for them), their own views (and assume that as they have been selected then the voters support those views) or do they put forward the views of their parties central office (on the basis that most people vote for the party not the candidate). I suppose I should add forget the politics but ‘express the views that they think will keep them on the Westminster gravy-train for the maximum possible time’ but then I might be considered cynical…

    • You have thought it through much more than I!!!

      Perhaps my interest is more in the process than what it is about or the what the end result might be.

      However I am in this boat and we are a long way from land so I am involved.

      Were it possible I would be voting: none of the above. Failing that I would assess what best served my own best interests. On that basis Labour voters who see that the Labour party does not do what they want will go elsewhere. Then there will be unexpected recipients of their votes…or no recipients at all.

      It is a cynical process of managing the electorate to vote for you. Espousing far left socialist polices will not gain many votes beyond those already in the party!

      Getting rid of a 14 year winning formula has already cost the Labour party 10 years in power. It will cost them more yet.

      I’m a socialist until they want me to put my hand in my pocket…as are 99% of the population I suspect.

      Chris Rick

      • Bill said

        I think that the idea of socialists is (always?) to put their hand into someone else’s pocket to get the money to pay for their policies. They will claim that its the rich that will fork out to fund the ‘most vulnerable’ in society – but I tend to think that it will come down to future generations to pay. A case of Jam today and no bread tomorrow…

        Incidentally we are funding a large number of MEPs in the EU to put forward our views (perhaps – see above). But in the end the big decisions are taken at a summit where (it would seem) that Germany actually has the last word on any decision. I’m just not at all sure how democratic this is or just where the line is where the MEPs lose the right to make important policy/decisions…? Is it just where the heads of government decide that they want to decide and if so why is Germany always the final decision make (I know that they contribute more money than the rest of us but that’s hardly the basis for a democratic decision)

  2. Will said

    This is the age of abuse of the English language. MPs will talk about investing in the most vulnerable in society or high-speed rail – Um what? – To my mind investing is where you spend money now with the expectation of a return on that investment over the years. They think by calling it investment, then it looks prudent as stating it like it is: We will borrow from the middle East/China and give it to the unemployed on the expectation that they will vote for us, come the next election…

    The new Academies are another example – just change the name and people will think that the local comprehensive is much better. Much cheaper than raising scholastic standards (now that we can’t just inflate the grades).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: