It's your choice. Vote wisely.

Well, tomorrow is the day.  Will it be May or Corbyn that ends up in No 10?   

You know the strange thing is, on specific issues like Trident replacement I’m with Corbyn.  No sensible person would ever authorise their use, even if we had been attacked.   But I guess that’s why it is called a deterrent.  To stop someone attacking us in the first place, they won’t know how we will react.  We might just send them our nuclear warheads.  Personally I would rather we used all the Trident replacement money on a far broader range of non-nuclear weaponry.  I’d rather have 1,000 cruise missiles for every one nuclear missile.   But Labour are not proposing that.   

How about more “investment” in the NHS?  Well, amen to that we all say.  But when Labour and Corbyn (and the SNP) talk about investment, achieved by borrowing, they are talking in the same breath about employing more doctors and nurses.  Which is insane.  Borrowing money to pay for the weekly shopping bill was never a sensible option.  Yet that is exactly what they propose.   

Or policing numbers.  In the current climate it is so easy to say we need more police.  Bobbies on the beat.  But while that sounds good, is it?  Apart from being an employment generation scheme, which labour governments are expert at doing without at the same time ensuring there was enough revenue from existing taxation to pay for it.   No, policing is changing.  It’s getting smarter.  It’s about using analytics. Diane Abbots 10,000 community police officers actually doesn’t solve the problem.  The answer to that is Mosques should be “outing” anyone who has shown an interest in the view that if you aren’t a Muslim you should be killed.   

And the economy? Yes, we would all like to spend more on "good" things the State decides are good for us.  But we also know that research show that lower corporation tax really does produce more tax revenue.  But Labours obsession with the idea that tax has to go up will actually harm the economy.   This range of policies would destroy the British economy as we know it. It starts by attacking the very concept of private ownership: “The predominance of private property ownership has led to a lack of long-term investment and declining rates of productivity, undermined democracy, left regions of the country economically forgotten, and contributed to increasing levels inequality and financial insecurity. Alternative forms of ownership can fundamentally address these problems.” It then goes on to extol the virtues of nationalisation, seemingly forgetting the appalling levels of consumer service, investment and productivity of the old nationalised industries (think British Telecom, British Rail and British Gas):“National ownership of certain industries promotes long-term planning of the economy, helps to provide modernising infrastructure, quality health and social care, and to combat climate change.”   I think those of you who didn't live under Labour in the 1970s may not quite get that point.  We had three-day weeks.  No electricty two days a week. You couldn't even bury the dead.

But the reality is, it’s not these single issues that are the decisive factors.   

The real question is do you want to vote for a Marxist who has dedicated his life to overthrowing democracy or a Democrat who has, all be it with decisions not everyone will agree with, supported a parliament democracy.   You pay your money, you pick your choice.    

For what it is worth, my forecast is a 57 seat Conservative majority.