Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party have defeated Labour in a convincing victory in the early hours of this morning, forcing Corbyn to announce future plans for resignation. The Labour Party lost a number of votes in leave-voting constituencies, due to their ambiguous stance on Brexit, in addition to Jeremy Corbyn's general unlikability. We will examine how devastating Corbyn might have been, had he won the election. The Conservatives have kept one of their campaign promises: Corbyn neutral by Christmas.
In the tradition of all great socialists, Corbyn and the Labour Party have framed their economic policy as "social justice", attempting to appear somewhat moral. Nevertheless, Labour's policies, founded upon greed and economic ignorance, would hurt businesses severely. A strong example of this is their plan to give company profits to workers. Of course, they argue that they are giving workers "a share of the profits they help create". This statement, as you might expect, from Labour, ignores the fundamentals of economics. Workers are already fairly compensated for their labour; they are paid wages or salaries, as previously agreed with their employees. How can we be so sure that this is fair? The workers personally consented to it. Employment in free-market economies depends entirely on agreements between private individuals and companies. If someone believes they are entitled to something, they should negotiate such a deal independently, without the tampering of the state. Besides, would Labour support this policy if businesses were operating at losses? I think not. This policy is ultimately motivated by greed, not fairness.
In the tradition of all great socialists, Corbyn and the Labour Party have framed their economic policy as "social justice", attempting to appear somewhat moral. Nevertheless, Labour's policies, founded upon greed and economic ignorance, would hurt businesses severely. A strong example of this is their plan to give company profits to workers. Of course, they argue that they are giving workers "a share of the profits they help create". This statement, as you might expect, from Labour, ignores the fundamentals of economics. Workers are already fairly compensated for their labour; they are paid wages or salaries, as previously agreed with their employees. How can we be so sure that this is fair? The workers personally consented to it. Employment in free-market economies depends entirely on agreements between private individuals and companies. If someone believes they are entitled to something, they should negotiate such a deal independently, without the tampering of the state. Besides, would Labour support this policy if businesses were operating at losses? I think not. This policy is ultimately motivated by greed, not fairness.
Much of Labour's policy is driven by deceptive soundbites, purporting to describe the supposedly dire economic situation in the UK. "14.7 million people are in poverty"; "120, 000 people have died from austerity". When most people think about poverty, we conjure images of people struggling to afford food, or people that can't afford even the cheapest of housing. However, in the UK and other developed nations, poverty is often defined as having a household income that is 60% of median income. This is wildly dishonest and says nothing about the financial states of the 14.7 million people in the UK that are "in poverty" by this definition. And the austerity deaths figure? This quite clearly demonstrates the entitlement of Labour politicians and voters; they are so dependent on the government, they believe welfare cuts to be akin to murder. This indicative of the welfare state becoming too large: the welfare state has displaced parents, infantilising families and costing the taxpayer large sums.
Labour have made their ideology clear: they are staunchly anti-capitalist and they have made their intention clear: re-establish the USSR.
Comments
Post a Comment