Most people (including many in the Labour Party) are hoping that Jeremy Corbyn never, ever gets into No 10. But elections have been unpredictable thing these days. If, heaven forbid, an unholy pact of EU Remainers gets him in, there will be a morbid fascination among us expats as to how long it will take him to lead the UK into financial ruin.
Venezuela is a sort of precedent. There, the socialists shifted one of the wealthiest countries in South America to disaster in around 7 years. In that time, of course, the destruction of the economy was pretty complete. That nightmare is, of course, not yet over for them.
Australia is another example. Its socialist Prime Minister Gough Whitlam managed to destroy the Australian economy in just 3 years. By the end of that time, having trashed public finances, he had engaged a dodgy agent from Pakistan to try to negotiate a secret bail-out by even dodgier Middle Eastern oil states and was unable to deliver supply. Happily for the Australian people, the Governor-General stepped in to remove him from office before he was able to reduce the population at large to the same penury as Venezuela. The socialists in Australia still cry “Foul!” but Australia had a narrow escape.
Australia has an electoral maximum cycle of 3 years, whereas a Marxist-leaning government led by Corbyn and McDonnell in the UK will have the double advantage of a 5 year cycle and the Fixed Term Parliament Act. 5 years, is probably ample for Corbyn and McDonnell to have the nation firmly on its financial knees, one might guess.
Fans of Russian Communism might point out that the impoverishment of Russia took much longer. But then again, the Soviets had an army. It is hard to imagine the British Army cracking down on dissent in the same way as the Red Army in the USSR.
The problem with UK politics today is partly that there is a perpetuating mechanism: the children in school are indoctrinated by teachers – almost on the political left – who were themselves so indoctrinated and who have never had any experience of real life. They do not read proper history, and so have precious little idea of the damage that socialism does, and believe remarks from illiterates like Dianne Abbott such as that Chairman Mao “on balance did more good than harm”. A few years of economic disaster would effectively flush those sorts of nonsenses out. But it would be an expensive lesson.
 Conveniently forgetting that his reforms were utterly unaffordable.
 The Morning Star describes McDonnell’s contribution to the snappy titled Marx 200: The Significance of Marxism in the 21st Century (Comprehensive analysis of the impact of Marxist theory in achieving revolutionary change today) thus:
This book draws together some of the keynote contributions, with shadow chancellor John McDonnell posing the question whether Marxism is still relevant and an inspiration in motivating people to fight for change.
In answer, he outlines the circumstances before and after the financial crash of 2007-2008 and references Marx writing of the dangers of the massive extension of credit in Capital and he recalls how the crash led to a renewed interest in Marxism among academics, pundits and even the Financial Times.