Tag Archives: Labour


“If you put a Labour/SNP government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand”   UK version of Milton Friedman’s famous observation.

“History reminds us over and over again, there is no new way to go broke. It is always too much debt. My conclusion is we are either slow learners or have long term memory issues”   Vern Gowdie

There is no doubt that Ed Miliband will team up with Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in order to regain control of the UK and complete the disastrous job he started with Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. A quick comparison of Labour and SNP policies clearly shows how a SNP dominated labour government would work.


Labour – no additional borrowing or new spending.  SNP – increase spending.  Lab/SNP Government – increased spending, increased borrowing, inevitable financial crisis.


Labour – more border control staff.  SNP – support immigration that benefits Scotland.   Lab/SNP Government – increased immigration and increased social and infrastructure problems.


Labour – increase income tax and tax on high value properties plus encourage financially independent foreign nationals to leave the UK with increased “non-dom” taxation.   SNP – ditto. Lab/SNP Government – higher taxation, increased unemployment, exodus of high value contributors to the nation’s finances.


Labour – a “minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent”.  SNP – oppose a renewal of the nuclear deterrent and require a larger proportion of defence procurement to be spent in Scotland. Lab/SNP Government – zero action on upgrading or maintaining the UK’s defences in an increasingly hostile world.


Labour – a “Home Rule Bill for Scotland”.  SNP – Independence for Scotland.  Lab/SNP Government – break up of the UK.

Greece like Britain is a beautiful country. However, pursuing policies akin to those advocated by Labour/SNP has left Greece in ruins. A Labour/SNP government will bring  financial ruin to this country and will be a vote winner for the end of the United Kingdom.



“We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending. I can tell you that option no longer exists. And so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step.”  Jim Callaghan – Labour Prime Minister 1976-1979

Yes, these are the words of a Labour Prime Minister but the party and a large section of the media don’t seem to rate Jim Callaghan’s words of wisdom. In fact if the recent track record of the Labour Party is taken as a benchmark, it doesn’t bode well for a future Miliband/Balls government’s impact on the British economy, living standards and mandatory austerity.

1964-1970 Harold Wilson’s Labour government – Sterling collapses, International Monetary Fund called in – pre-election promises jettisoned and emergency austerity measures inflicted on the electorate.

1974-1979 Wilson then Jim Callaghan’s Labour government – Treasury predicts black hole in public finances, International Monetary Fund called in – pre-election promises jettisoned and emergency austerity measures inflicted on the electorate.

1997-2010 Blair and Brown Labour government – after announcing “no more boom and bust”, the government went on to cripple the country’s finances and to create a record breaking budget deficit (comment from the departing Treasury Secretary after Labour lost the election – “I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left”), followed by, you guessed it, more austerity measures.

On recent form, it looks like a general election win by labour would be a vote winner for austerity.


The Labour Party has realised that the electorate is seriously concerned about escalating energy costs. It is promising to freeze supplier tariffs for a couple of years if voted back into government.

Apparently, one of the major contributory factors to price levels at present is the high cost of renewable energy required to be used under the Climate Change Act. However, the latest report of the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that global warming is nowhere near as threatening as its earlier predictions envisaged. In which case, a major downsizing of renewable energy targets should be set in motion now with a view to reducing the cost of energy to consumers as soon as possible.

More importantly, let’s deal with the hydraulic fracturing (fracking, shale gas) debate as a matter of urgency. At present, the vociferous anti lobby (and sections of the media) is shouting down all attempts to give the general public an opportunity to make a considered decision on whether to support fracking. The risks need to be honestly set out and understood and convincing assurances need to be provided to overcome any concerns the electorate may have. Equally, the tangible benefits for the average householder of exploiting this indigenous source of energy need to be clearly set out. Incidentally, a similar debate should be held in respect of rapidly increasing the UK’s use of nuclear power.

The answer to achieving lower energy costs isn’t to try and restrict the impact of price movements in the global markets; it won’t work. The way forward is to increase significantly the supply of cheaper sources of energy. The UK currently relies on imported gas and nuclear power to meet its energy needs – not having energy independence is potentially  much more risky than exploiting the nuclear and fracking alternatives and certainly more expensive.

Tell your MP we need some urgent common sense in formulating and implementing a competitive and effective energy supply strategy – and we want it before the risk of blackouts highlighted by the National Grid becomes a reality.