Category Archives: McDonnell, John

Even if Corbyn loses, millions will have voted for this

Labour’s frightening manifesto

Reading it, Dalrymple realises

how close Britain might be to a catastrophe that would make the Brexit episode seem of minor importance.

If Labour wins,

the party will inaugurate a quasi-totalitarian government. Chávez-admirer Jeremy Corbyn’s deputy, John McDonnell, is an admirer of Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky, whom he has described as the greatest influence on his worldview.

Labour, Dalrymple notes,

lives in a world in which, when you increase taxes, your tax receipts rise in exact proportion to the percentage increase: the taxed do not change their behaviour.

If Labour were elected and tried to put its proposals into practice, there would be

  • capital flight
  • capital controls
  • loss of confidence
  • complete absence of investment
  • forced investment (requiring ever higher taxes)
  • government control over the economy to pay for it
  • emigration of anyone who can earn a living elsewhere

The ensuing chaos and degradation

would swiftly exceed anything previously seen in the UK. The prospect of a military coup, with the support of a large part of the population, would not be far-fetched; nor, if in the meantime the government had managed to suborn or dissolve the armed forces, would be a slide into Venezuelan conditions, in the name of social justice.

The socialist menace

Britain’s Labour party, writes Dalrymple, wishes to provoke a general election, which it believes that it would win. Were it to do so,

it would bring to power people who admire the Venezuelan model and believe in confiscation as the path to universal prosperity.

They would make Brexit

seem like a minor detail in the history of British difficulties.

The abominable McDonnell

Dalrymple notes that the historical figures that John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn’s second-in-command, most admires are Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky. McDonnell wishes the nationalisation of land, railways and public utilities,

which can be done only through rates of taxation so high that they would amount to the nationalisation of everything—with a resultant economic collapse—or by outright confiscation, destroying any faith in the rule of law for generations. It could also be done by agreeing on a price of sale and then inflating the currency afterwards, so that billions will not buy you an egg.

Dalrymple states that an economic disaster, far from deterring such a government,

would be of enormous advantage to it,

its purpose being

the exercise of control in the name of irreversible social and political change.

McDonnell’s nationalised industries

will be owned and run by the workers, just as they were supposed to be owned and run after the Russian Revolution. The state will wither away, as in Marxist theory (though not in Soviet practice), once all power has been handed to him.

The Labour Party

will not be just another political party in a competitive, pluralistic polity. It will be modelled on vanguardist movements from the glorious history of the 20th century.

McDonnell, says Dalrymple,

makes clear his commitment to and desire for socialist monomania.

The arrival in power of men such as Corbyn and McDonnell will, Dalrymple points out,

produce an immediate crisis, which they will blame on capitalism, the world economic system, the Rothschilds, and so forth. They will use the crisis to justify further drastic measures.

There will be

wholesale, de facto confiscation of houses. It is but a short step to communal flats or the nationalisation of bathrooms. Other charming proposals include the erection of tower blocks of public housing flats in old villages and leafy suburbs, à la Ceaușescu. If everyone cannot enjoy beauty, why should anyone?

The populist appeal to envy, spite, and resentment

Dalrymple reports that

Mr McDonnell, deputy leader of the Labour party, which for the time being is in opposition, recently objected to the presence of hereditary peers in the upper house, using the crude and vulgar language typical of populist politicians anxious to demonstrate their identity with the people or the masses.

It is strange, Dalrymple adds,

how rarely Leftists who are in favour of confiscatory economic policies are condemned as populist.

McDonnell and the Glastonbury mob

Dalrymple points out that the most recent demagogic statement by John McDonnell, described as the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, proves that he is

unfit for public office.

It was

a grossly inflammatory, as well as erroneous, thing to say; no doubt he would defend it in his own mind as conducing to a Leninist heightening of the contradictions.

McDonnell has, in his career, been

at the very least equivocal on the subject of political murder; the question for him appearing to have been who is being murdered and who is doing the murdering.

The shadow chancellor

was not aiming at truth in his statement, but at a kind of incitement: an incitement to a gratifying sense of moral outrage among his audience that would assist his accession to power. He was appealing to an uncritical mob mentality, and it appears that at Glastonbury, where he spoke, he found one.

Dalrymple comments:

A mob mentality is gaining ground in this country, and all that stands between the rest of us and it is Theresa May, a nullity’s nullity; and even if she were replaced by palace coup, it would only be, most likely, by another nullity. Our choice, then, is between people who do not even have the courage of their lack of convictions and dangerous demagogues: not a happy choice, perhaps, but I know on which side I stand.