Why I Am NOT Voting Labour.

There are plenty of people arguing that we should vote at the next General Election to "Get the Tories Out", or "GTTO", to use the abbreviation popular on Twitter and other social media platforms, voting tactically, if necessary, to achieve that goal, on the assumption that a Labour Government is always preferable to a Tory one in all circumstances. That makes a large, and wholly unwarranted, assumption, which is that the Labour Party is distinguished from the Conservative one by the policies it would pursue if elected to power, and these policies would always be better for this country and its people than those being pursued by the Tories.

That, I concede, used to be the case. It is the case no longer. The Labour Party, under Keir Starmer, has moved so far to the Right that it is now virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives in terms of its policies, to the extent that, if elected, we will see a change of personnel in government, but no discernible change in policies. The Liberal Democrats are, bizarrely, it may seem to some, to the left of Labour!

On Brexit, the Labour Party agrees with the Tories, and they refuse to contemplate the idea of the UK as a whole re-joining the Single Market, even though Northern Ireland continues to be a de facto part of it, thus enjoying an advantage denied to us in "Great Britain".

Even though 83% of Labour Party members support Proportional Representation, the Labour leadership is adamantly opposed to it, being only too strongly in favour of Duverger's Law, which states that countries that have plurality voting in single member parliamentary constituencies - like the UK - tend to have two-Party political systems, which is the case. Starmer wants to keep the two-Party system and its duopoly of power!

On immigration, Labour favours a restrictive points-based quota system, and on asylum-seekers and refugees, its only objection to the Tory Government's Illegal Migration Bill hasn't been that it entails a violation of human rights, a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, of international law or international humanitarian law, but that it won't succeed in its aim of "stopping the boats", whereas Labour claim their policy alternative will! Keir Starmer has said he supports GPS tagging of asylum seekers! As the Breakthrough Party claim, Labour are only offering a more "efficient" version of the Tories' cruelty.

Labour are now competing with the Tories on "get tough on law and order/crime", even though they know full well our prisons are so full the Prisons Minister is having to house convicted prisoners in police cells, and the prisons are a total disgrace, as reported repeatedly by HM Inspector of Prisons. The number of suicides, assaults and self-harming incidents in jails and youth jails continues to rise, with some year-on-year variation, which is hardly surprising, given the numbers of mentally ill, learning disabled and autistic inmates, and the fact that, during lockdown, young prisoners were being locked in their cells 23 hours out of every 24, 7 days a week, and they are still not getting the education and levels of association to which they are entitled by law.

Starmer has compounded this by joining Suella Braverman in criticising climate activists, and threatening to continue the policy of locking them up for years, if and when he becomes Prime Minister. He has absolutely no right at all to pretend to care an iota about the issue, and it is abundantly clear he doesn't. He keeps Ed Miliband in his Shadow Cabinet as window dressing, but that is all he is.

Labour have also started attacking benefit claimants (easy scapegoats), especially disabled ones, echoing the attacks made on them by the Tories, instead of criticising such attacks. Dr Frances Ryan, writing in The Guardian, had some trenchant things to say about this. At least one London Labour councillor (and former MP) has, to my knowledge, resigned over the issue. It is utterly disgraceful and appalling that the Party that founded the Welfare State should resort to political tactics that lead to increased disability hate crime, which they do, and have done.

Starmer ruled out the nationalisation of energy companies, rail and water, supporting the Shadow Chancellor's statement that a Labour Government intent on "balancing the books" could not afford to spend money on renationalising public utilities. (Yet, apparently, it can spend more on defence, see below.) 

As to the NHS, the issue most germane for many, if not most, of those who think that Labour will improve things - alas, they have not been pay sufficient attention to what the Party and its spokespersons have actually been saying, and have confused their own desires and hopes with reality.

One point is that Wes Streeting, the Shadow Health Secretary, has stated repeatedly that private outsourcing in the NHS will not only continue, but be expanded, and Keir Starmer specifically dropped the pledge to end private sector outsourcing in the NHS in July 2022.

Furthermore, there is a very unhealthy - to say the least - financial connection between Wes Streeting and other Shadow Cabinet members, such as Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, and private healthcare, as shown by the Socialist Health Association, the SHA.

If anyone is expecting a big increase in NHS spending, or other social spending, under a Starmer-led Labour Government, they can expect away, because they will be bitterly disappointed!

Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, who likes to boast of her previous employment as a Bank of England economist, has claimed - fancifully - that she will, as Chancellor, ensure that the UK will have the fastest economic growth rate of the G7 countries. She will need God to perform a miracle for her in order to achieve that goal (assuming it's desirable), or failing divine intervention, the assistance of Harry Potter and his magic wand!

Labour's refusal to allow the UK to re-join the Single Market (SM)/European Economic Area (EEA) will continue to cost this country dear in terms of lost GDP, and thus its government dear in terms of lost tax revenue. Our exclusion from the SM/EEA also means that we will continue to pay higher prices for goods than we need do, and that will probably continue to mean average wages will still lag behind prices, and interest rates will still be ensuring people's savings are losing value in real terms.

Reeves has promised that any Labour Government in which she is Chancellor will be bound by "tight fiscal discipline", meaning strict limits on public sector borrowing, shades of Philip Snowden, Chancellor of the Exchequer under Ramsay MacDonald, 1924, 1929-31. She is a fiscal conservative, and will be bound by Treasury/Bank of England fiscal and monetary orthodoxy, seeking as she has said, to "balance the books", yet she won't raise taxes!

She has said she will not give councils new powers to raise local taxes. She told the BBC that Labour didn't intend to increase Capital Gains Tax. She has also said she will not increase rates of income tax or National Insurance.

Labour has called for an increase in defence spending from the £11.534 trillion spent in 2021/2. Add that to the increase in spending that will be necessitated by their "law and order" policy, with more police, lawyers, judges, courts, prisons and prison staff needed, and how will they also increase spending on the NHS, schools, social services, and so on, given that they aren't going to raise taxes or increase borrowing? It just doesn't add up!

The NHS doesn't just need a minor boost in spending, either - but a major injection of cash if it is not to remain on life-support. Demand for NHS services continues to rise as the population ages, drugs and medical technology become more expensive, the situation in which nurses have to rely on food banks to feed themselves and their families cannot be allowed to continue, doctors and other trained healthcare professionals will go on leaving the NHS if they are expected to work all the hours God sends for inadequate pay, and people will not go on wearing ever-rising waiting times for appointments with GPs, or waiting lists for elective surgery or mental healthcare.

The latter is still being treated as a "Cinderella service", years after Theresa May promised things would change, and people have to wait months to see a counsellor, therapist, psychiatrist or psychologist, and inpatients are continuing to be placed in acute beds miles away from their homes, families and friends. The King's Fund points out that "Mental health problems account for 23% of the burden of disease in the United Kingdom, but spending on mental health services consumes only 11% of the NHS budget."

The gap isn't going to be filled any time soon, and it isn't going to be filled by Labour!

If Labour do what they say they're going to do as far as taxation and public sector borrowing are concerned, they will, in fact, have to cut public spending, and that means, if they increase defence and "law and order" spending, a big cut in social spending - which will probably necessitate even more "law and order" spending, to cope with the riots on the streets!

Do you still think voting Labour is a good idea, because I certainly don't, and shall be voting for the Liberal Democrats! The Tories deserve to be in Opposition, certainly, but Labour should stay there!