In the last few days Jeremy Corbyn has been outlining some of his more radical policies for the Labour party.
These have included:
– “Pay ratios”, so that the CEO of a company can only earn a maximum of a certain arbitrary multiplier of the lowest paid employees in the company.
– A ban on companies paying their shareholders dividends if they do not pay the living wage.
– “Discussions” with Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
– Possibly keeping Trident nuclear submarines so that no defence jobs are risked – only with no nuclear warheads fitted to the submarines’ missiles.
– Opening “back channel” discussions with ISIS terrorists.
His totally arbitrary statist overreaches into how our most successful companies compensate their employees will almost certainly drive top-performing CEOs to seek employment elsewhere in the world – at the detriment to their companies’ performance, and thus our country’s economic performance as a whole. CEOs exist in a global market – that is, they can freely and easily find employment anywhere in the world, especially so if they are performing well. This is well understood, even by Corbyn and his cabal of socialist chums in the Labour leadership. However they are perfectly willing to see our country perform worse on the global stage to pursue his fantasy of perfect wealth equality.
He is so vehemently opposed to the former British Empire that he wishes to extinguish the very last vestiges of its territories, namely the Falkland Islands. This is in spite of the fact that the Islands were unoccupied when the British Empire colonised them, in spite of the fact that Argentina in its current form *did not exist* when the British Empire colonised them, and in spite of the wishes of 99.8% of Falkland Islanders.
My opinion on our nuclear deterrent is the opposite of Corbyn’s, but I’m still perfectly able to understand his and others’ positions on complete nuclear disarmament. However his suggestion today that we could keep Trident submarines circling the globe with conventional warheads attached to their missiles is one of the most preposterous things I have ever read. Trident would cease to be a deterrent against a nuclear strike from another nuclear-armed state. Yet if we ever fired one of the now conventionally armed missiles at an enemy, they would have no way of knowing whether it was nuclear-tipped or not, and would thus retaliate with their nuclear option regardless. A policy like this is not only utterly stupid, it is utterly reckless.
His comparison today of the fact that the British government had “back channel” communications with the IRA during the Troubles, with a suggestion that we should be attempting to do the same with ISIS is maybe even the worst of all of his suggestions. While I am not excusing anything that the IRA did, their goal (a united and independent Ireland) was political in nature and could be compromised with. That compromise was reached (partially) with the Good Friday Agreement. There is no communication with ISIS that could lead to a compromise. Indeed there is no possible compromise to reach with ISIS – their aim is a worldwide Islamist caliphate. The methods by which they are trying to achieve their aim reduce them to sub-human in nature and we should respond to them as such, by completely and utterly destroying them. This isn’t done by back channel communication, but with military means in Iraq and Syria, and by defeating the ideology at home so that disenfranchised young British men and women do not turn to extremism.
Jeremy Corbyn over the last day or two has demonstrated that he isn’t fit to be a primary school class president, never mind Leader of the Opposition. And it doesn’t bear thinking about what a state we’d be in if he was elected Prime Minister.
I’m done with the assertion that Corbyn is a principled man who wants to bring about a “kinder politics”. His ideology and his policies are both morally and practically bankrupt.