The tragedy of #Venezuela.

In 2014, John McDonnell, now Labour’s shadow chancellor, said that the socialist regime in Venezuela showed “the contrast between capitalism in crisis and socialism in action”.

In a way he never intended, he has turned out to be right. 

For the people of that country are now enduring a situation worse than any crisis of capitalism, anywhere in the world, at any time in the last 100 years. Their economy has shrunk by at least half – far worse than the Great Depression or the recent economic woes (sadness, problems and worries) of Greece.

Three million people have fled the country. Inflation, having reached 1.7 million per cent, has made money worthless. Basic commodities (ordinary farm products) are scarce and hardship widespread. More than half the population are now living in extreme poverty.

Yes, this is socialism in action. This is what happens when you take a promising nation, rich in natural resources and human talent, and subject it to nationalization, excessive spending, state control of prices and the discouraging of enterprise and foreign investment. These were the policies of the egotistical (thinking only about yourself) Hugo Chavez, and his utterly corrupt and tyrannical successor, Nicolas Maduro.

This catastrophic approach was praised (to express admiration and approval) endlessly by the current leadership of the Labour Party. 
Diane Abbott said “it shows another way is possible”.

As for Jeremy Corbyn, he appeared on every possible platform to praise Chavez and support Maduro. On the death of Chavez in 2013, he went out of his way to laud his “inspiring” leadership and to say: “Thanks Hugo Chavez for showing that the poor matter and wealth can be shared”.

In practice, Chavez was one of the world’s most outstanding hypocrites (someone who pretends to believe), amassing a fortune estimated at a billion dollars while campaigning as a friend of the poor. Now that most people in Venezuela are desperate for change, there are three charges that can be levelled against Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and their acolytes (anyone who helps and follows another person).

The first is that their economic beliefs are verging (almost be)on madness – if they don’t understand that trying to control the prices of everything in the shops soon leads to severe shortages of everything from food to toilet paper, then their understanding of economics is near zero. A set of policies they were happy to support has led to countless starving people searching for food among the rubbish piled high in the streets. Yet these are the people who would be running our economy if Labour wins the next election.

The second is just as serious. This is that they have been happy to turn a blind eye to the escalating abuse of human rights and disregard of democracy that has kept the Maduro government in power. Faced with mounting opposition and discontent, the regime has rigged (to make an elections false) elections, locked up opponents, practised torture and violence, and presided over rampant (growing and spreading quickly) corruption as it tries to bribe the armed forces to keep it in power.

The shadow attorney general, Shami Chakrabati, in a shameful attempt to defend Corbyn at the weekend, said he was “a lifelong human rights defender”. 

Not any more he isn't. Amnesty International recently reported that the Maduro regime is responsible for the worst human rights abuses in the country’s history, including thousands of extrajudicial executions. Campaigners for human rights are routinely jailed for months in appalling (to make someone extremely shocked) conditions. Yet the self-styled defender of human rights on the Opposition front bench shows not the slightest sign of caring that these are the crimes of a regime he continued to praise.

The third charge against Labour’s leaders is that they now have the nerve to criticize anyone who would do something to help the millions of Venezuelans caught up in this disaster. Corbyn said on Friday that he opposes “outside interference in Venezuela” and that Jeremy Hunt was wrong to call for more sanctions on the regime. He clearly does not agree with those governments now recognizing Juan Guaido as the new and legitimate leader of the country. This is a hugely revealing moment, which tells us a great deal about the limits of any moral compass in Corbyn’s mind.

The nations now joining the US in recognizing the united and moderate opposition as the true government of Venezuela include such countries as Sweden and Spain, which have centre-Left governments, as well as Britain and France. The leader of the British Labour Party is aligned with Moscow and the Italian Five Star populists, while every mainstream party in the rest of Europe and the Americas unites behind an effort to free Venezuelans from their misery.

It should be enough to know that Corbyn, were he to be prime minister, would be aligned with Putin rather than Merkel and Macron. But even more telling is the justification (a reason for something) he uses for his position – hostility to “outside interference”. This is the language of authoritarian rulers the world over, the constant refrain (a phrase or idea) of those who fear a compassionate and responsible world coming to the aid of people they have impoverished and oppressed.

“The future of Venezuela is a matter for Venezuelans”, Corbyn went on. This is the hand-wringing language of moral bankruptcy. No doubt he thinks what happens in North Korea is a matter for North Koreans, overlooking the fact they have no way of 

expressing their views. Extend his argument back a few decades and he would be informing us that dealing with Nazis was a matter for Germans alone.

It is always a crisis that shows you who leaders really are. This is one of them. There are voters who might still think that Corbyn is just a misguided old chap with an allotment (part of an amount) and Diane Abbott a harmless woman who gets her figures mixed up. No, they are guilty on three counts: of supporting economic insanity, of indifference to intense human suffering, and of a refusal to accept any measures to alleviate (to make problems or sufferings less extreme) it, all because of adherence (an act of obeying a set of rules) to an ideology and hatred (a very strong dislike) for any leadership by the western world.

It is to be hoped that, as the wages (the amount of money the person regularly receives for their job) of the army run out, the tormented (to make someone suffer) people of Venezuela will get their chance to be free, and that democratic countries will have helped them to get it. But in the meantime their agonies are revealing the true nature of Britain’s opposition leadership, with clear conclusions for domestic politics.

For those Labour MPs said to be forming a new party – what are you waiting for? And for Tories belatedly (become late) trying to unite – you will never be forgiven if you fail and let Corbyn come to power.