Wednesday, 15 April 2015

Left Obviously Hoping You Have Short Memories

What with Ed Balls talking about the Tories destroying the country by leading the fast growing economy, creating jobs that we currently have, as opposed to his spend, spend, spend policies and Ed Miliband saying that Labour are the party of fiscal responsibility, is a tacit admission that people might not think they are, based somewhat judgementally, on past performance.

Now the US enters the same territory. Hilary Clinton wants to be the first female President (might work, Obama was elected solely because he was black). And what she hopes most of all is that you won't remember her recent poor performances and chicanery. She certainly hopes you won't mention her involvement, via that titan of manhood, her husband, in bringing forward the banking crisis.

Now, we are aware that many processes were at work, mainly the ability to be rewarded despite failure and led to an inevitable collapse of a house made of hubris cards. But it was given an almighty shove when the Clinton administration brought in new rules, basically insisting that banks give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

To meet the targets, banks got creative; low start repayments made people think they could afford the mortgage, the salesmen got rich on the commissions and banks sold on the worthless paper to other investors, bundled with some that might work out OK. When so many didn't, kerboom! Full scale banking crisis.

New Labour, who were very cosy with the money in the banks, caught a cold. Their reckless borrowing was because Brown had convinced himself (but probably no-one else, oh, maybe Robert Peston) that there would never be a downturn again. Brown had cured boom and bust. He sold our gold and bought Euros (interestingly showing his complete lack of financial nous - he announced to the markets he was going to be selling a lot of gold so the price rocketed downwards).

So when the banking crisis hit here, we were already deeply in the do-do hence it taking so long to climb back out. All the 'austerity' the Left squeal about without identifying is resetting required due to Labour having no idea how to govern whatsoever. Every Labour administration has left the country in a mess. Now Hilary Clinton thinks the US is ready for more.

Wednesday, 1 April 2015

Labour Crashes Into Reality

Ed Miliband is working the, unplanned, distinction with his plan to outlaw 'zero hours' contracts and the Tories getting the backing of businesses. He supported the assertion that this meant Labour was for 'the people' and the Tories for 'the rich', even when asked if his stand didn't just mean people would lose their jobs.

Bang! Miliband crashes into reality, but no - he makes it plain that businesses know it is important that their workers feel secure, so would be OK about his stance. Really? So where do these zero hour contracts come from then? The employees don't want them Ed assures us, but the employers don't want to make their employees feel insecure.

Watching 'The Billion Dollar Chicken Shop' we were treated to an example of the real world, a place Ed Miliband is sure doesn't exist. A worker in a not-very-busy KFC said she hoped custom would pick up because, 'what's the point of a job if you only get 12 hours a week?'

This suggests she is on a zero hours contract and that she realises her income is tied to the success of the business. The business exists and so, as a consequence does her job. This simple fact of economic reality, known instinctively by a girl in a chicken shop, evades the man who would be Prime Minister.

For Miliband the sequence, in order of importance is that the government dictates how a business may operate, what the nature of its employment contracts must be (and much else) and then the business may exist. And in existing it must guarantee jobs for its employees. More than a whiff of Hollande there.

If the disaster of the last Labour administration was not enough to warn you off trying it again, how about the fact Miliband is in thrall to the policies enacted in France, ruining the country, but so big government! For him it is porn, a wet dream just across the channel.

Alongside a man so elite and separate that he doesn't know how to eat a bacon sandwich, was Rachel Reeves. Rachel of course is heavily pregnant and that got me thinking about reality and the lazy, un-considered policies of Labour (no pun intended).

With the enormous amounts of maternity leave now available and offered, will she get elected and then disappear? Will an unelected replacement pop up? And for how long? If you put your cross in the box for Rachel and end up with Dorkus Maximus, how pleased would you be?

The Campaign

The big news today of course is the 100 business people who have signed a letter supporting the Conservatives. Their rationale is that it is not the time to change direction, but to stick with the policies which are quite clearly working.

Difficult to argue with that and even the charge that they are looking after their own interests is hardly different from anyone else. Business votes for the party of low corporation tax, benefits claimants vote for the party that offers the most benefits.

However self-evidently true the letter's contents it does not affect the BBC though. After headlining the letter they go to Chuka Umunna (Labour) for two disparaging quotes. Then they mention that two thirds of economists think that the austerity measures are wrong and unnecessary (not heard that claim before), going on to interview one from the left leaning London Business School.

His point was that things were recovering anyway so the austerity measures were not needed. He went on to explain that the measures were actually just to pay down the deficit in this parliament, something that hasn't been achieved. Oh dear. So which is it? Did it achieve nothing? Was there really an austerity drive? How did not spending not affect the public purse?

But he is an economist so the economy confuses him. Look what it does to Ed Balls! Chuka too was a gem. Apparently, the Tories organised this letter and it was in the Tory supporting Telegraph. And? Proof? But then, what about the Labour advert using unauthorised quotes about the EU, to claim businesses support Labour?

Was this advert not placed in the Labour supporting FT? So do Labour want business backing or not? Why claim it the day before announcing you intend to return to punitive taxing of business?

Then there was the issue of zero hours contracts. I wonder how many people, unable to get any other employment are looking at their job ending if Labour win the election. Because companies cannot afford sometimes to give that commitment.

Thatcher correctly identified that 'the problem with Socialism is that, eventually they run out of other people's money'. Except Socialism is a movement to address issues of deprivation, lack of opportunity and unfair bias in society. Labour today are interested only in state control and increasing its reach.

Much like Oxfam would be out of business if they solved problems, so Labour would be out of business unless there were people locked on benefits. It has not so much created a client class, as condemned a whole section of society to a hopeless future, in the name of maintaining Labour as a party.

All the Union leaders are Marxists, working to bring about a totalitarian state run by them. They do not have to pull too hard on the strings binding Ed Miliband to them as he is also a committed Marxist.

Whilst nothing is perfect, the least worst option is a Conservative government. But the alternative of a communist government under Labour, or worse still a coalition of communists, Greens, SNP would see Britain rapidly spiralling into recession and possibly depression.

They would stifle economic activity, they would increase costs, push up taxes both direct and on things like energy and fuel and would simply lose money dreaming up crackpot schemes and being fleeced by chancers and conmen. Or their friends as they are otherwise known.