Labour in power has only one out­come: Our ruin

Scottish Daily Mail - - Money Mail: Comment -

I AM at a loss to un­der­stand why the Con­ser­va­tives don’t make any ref­er­ence to the his­tory of pre­vi­ous Labour ad­min­is­tra­tions, apart from the most re­cent. They seem fix­ated on 2010 when they should be demon­strat­ing how, af­ter ev­ery sin­gle Labour gov­ern­ment this coun­try has ever elected, our econ­omy has ended up on the fi­nan­cial rocks. 1) 1924 (March to Oc­to­ber), Ram­say MacDon­ald’s first gov­ern­ment: The coun­try sur­vived World War I, badly dam­aged, but with its ba­sic fi­nan­cial sys­tems in­tact. The lat­ter, how­ever, could not sur­vive a few months of so­cial­ism and, in 1926, we were forced to aban­don the Gold Stan­dard. 2) 1929-31, MacDon­ald’s sec­ond gov­ern­ment: A gov­ern­ment of paral­y­sis at a time of fi­nan­cial cri­sis be­cause no one un­der­stood what was go­ing on or what to do about it. It fell fol­low­ing the con­fu­sion caused by the ad­min­is­tra­tion want­ing to de­value the pound by 25 per cent and be­ing op­posed, not just by the Con­ser­va­tive Party, but by the trades unions and its own sup­port­ers. 3) 1945-51, Cle­ment At­tlee: In­stead of con­cen­trat­ing on re­build­ing the na­tion and its econ­omy, Labour in­stead in­tro­duced the Wel­fare State. This en­sured wartime ra­tioning con­tin­ued un­til 1953, and the coun­try was bur­dened with a wel­fare sys­tem no econ­omy on earth could pos­si­bly sus­tain and one which has been driv­ing Bri­tain surely and steadily into decline for nearly 70 years. With to­day’s vastly in­creased and age­ing pop­u­la­tion, there must come an in­evitable and dras­tic col­lapse of this state-run be­he­moth within the next 30 years. In 1950-1, af­ter de­valu­ing the pound from £5 to £2.40 to the U.S. dollar, and with the coun­try’s fi­nances in a sham­bles, Labour had to go cap in hand to the U.S. (which not only turned them down but re­vised the war debt to take ac­count of the de­val­u­a­tion!) and to the In­ter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund for a vast, debt-funded res­cue pack­age. 4) 1964-79, Harold Wil­son and James Cal­laghan: I will ig­nore Ed­ward Heath’s ig­no­min­ious three-year term and count it as part of the same calami­tous era. In this pe­riod Bri­tain’s heavy man­u­fac­tur­ing ca­pa­bil­i­ties were de­stroyed and trade unions — led by men, many of whom, it has since emerged, were ac­tive agents of the Soviet Union — ef­fec­tively ruled the coun­try. The pound was de­val­ued once more. In 1979, Cal­laghan once more went beg­ging to the IMF for funds to res­cue the UK econ­omy. 5) 1997-2010, Tony Blair and Gor­don Brown: Brown might have re­peat­edly claimed the fi­nan­cial cri­sis started in the U.S., but, yet again, at the end of an­other pe­riod of Labour stew­ard­ship the coun­try was ef­fec­tively bank­rupt. Labour can­not pro­duce a sin­gle ex­am­ple to demon­strate that Bri­tain has ever pros­pered when it has been in power. If vot­ers grasped this fact, per­haps they would start to un­der­stand what an in­evitable dis­as­ter awaits them, and the coun­try as a whole, if they once more vote Labour into power.

HENRY C. COMBE, Sut­ton, Sur­rey.

Warn­ings: Henry Combe charts Labour’s fail­ures

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.