Jeremy Corbyn should stay in bed on Sunday mornings

Poor Jeremy doesn't quite know how to feel about Trump's victory - should he be happy the Americans voted against the system, or angry they didn't get Bernie? He does think he knows how to fix Britain - although at some point he seems to have forgotten that, luckily, most people are intelligent enough to see through the false promises of socialism.

Corbyn on Trump

"Trump blamed Muslims, Mexicans, women... anyone he could think of... except corporate America"

If you're happy to conflate all Muslims with Islamic extremists, all Mexicans with illegal immigrants, and all women with Hillary Clinton, maybe that statement is half believable. I am not. Nor am I prepared to take anything Corbyn or the BBC say about Trump seriously.

Listening to Trump during his campaign, he seemed mostly to blame US problems on the corrupt government and the loopholes it provided to corporate America. Trump's rhetoric thus far has been a plan to 'drain the swamp' in Washington DC, and close the tax loopholes he knows so well - because he used them - to repatriate profits from US companies back to the US. Whether he can achieve this moving forward waits to be seen...

Corbyn fixes the UK economy

"We have to invest in new industry... we need an investment agenda"

Investing government money, obviously, not dirty corporate money - but who's money Mr. Corbyn? We can all agree that there is a dearth of industry and jobs in much of the UK, particularly in the north - but I can see no evidence that throwing taxpayers money at the problem will fix it. 

To grow new jobs and industry I would rather government policy provided stability, opportunity and reward for people to set up new businesses with private investment, than tried to take on all these roles itself. Putting the government into the role of investor for new businesses creates two major problems in my mind:

• It removes the incentive of private individuals to invest in new business and business growth - further consolidating wealth in the hands of those who already have it, as they have no incentive to invest it in new business. Invariably, new businesses will go first to government for investment, leaving only those with the weakest or most risky plans to ask for private investment - which will not be forthcoming. Individuals tend to be a lot more cautious about investing their own money than the state is when spending the taxpayer's; when private money is used for investment there is much more stringent judgement, ensuring only the better plans get funded. The number of new businesses needs to increase to grow the economy, but they can only grow the economy and create jobs if they are successful. Looking at the government's record, I don't trust them to invest wisely.
• It further increases dependance on the state. Already many in low paid jobs are reliant on the state to subsidise housing and utility bills, and all but the wealthiest rely on the state for schooling and healthcare. One of the driving factors for many entrepreneurs, however, is a desire to be more self-reliant - in my mind, putting more state bureaucracy in the process of starting a business only serves to disincentivise this spirit, and adds to the state's burden in managing the growth and stability of the economy. In a time where governments have much to blame for our current economic problems, does it really seem wise to give them even more control over it? When government budgets are already at breaking point, with much being spent on welfare, how can encouraging further reliance of state funding individuals (instead of encouraging individuals funding themselves) solve financial problems?

Corbyn fixes trade and immigration

"Immigration will be lower when we deal with wage undercutting and exploitation"

In Comrade Corbyn's socialist Britain, our shiny new post-Brexit trade deals wont be just about trade, they have to ensure that everything sold in the UK is produced under the same standards as the UK. Less people will want to come here because their countries will be nicer; we'll conveniently neglect to mention that our country will be worse. In one trade policy, we remove immigration push and pull factors - and once we've done that, we don't need borders or an immigration policy, because obviously no-one will want to come to the UK.

As of now, we import a lot of cheap products from countries where labour and environmental standards are lower. People in the UK still struggle to afford these products. How then, can Mr. Corbyn not have the foresight to see that artificially raising standards abroad will increase the cost of products, to the point where British people cannot afford them? 

I say artificially raising standards abroad, as it seems we would have two trade options, both of which make my brain hurt with their stupidity, and would make the WTO pretty angry:

1. Trade only with 1st world countries, limiting the products sold in the UK to those produced in a few wealthy countries, and depriving growing economies of money through trade. Forget the fact we'll have to go without most electronics, this doesn't help with reducing the push factor in deprived countries, so I assume Comrade Corbyn won't go for it.
2. Make sure factories, farms, everything abroad that comes into the UK is produced as if it was made in the UK. Invariably, this means sending a lot of civil servants abroad to ensure producers meet inspection standards, like they would in the UK, or trusting international governments and business people to respect them (which, of course, they would obviously do). 

Where he is right is that most immigrants to the UK work, contribute and pay taxes. This is a good thing, and I want more of it - by improving immigration policies, so that only hardworking people move here, not opening borders to anyone and everyone. Having only hardworking, taxpaying immigrants will not only financially benefit the taxpayer, it also reduces ill-sentiment caused to immigrants because of the well-publicised minority of problem ones. To reduce the burden of mass immigration, Corbyn's idea of throwing money at local governments to improve services is a noble one - but I still wonder where all this money will come from.

Corbyn fixes Europe

Don't worry comrades, he's organising a socialist conference in January for all the European socialist parties - many of whom, he reminds us, are in charge of governments...

If the continent is run by socialists, and the continent is doing badly, why do they think more of the same will fix it?