Skip to main content

Britain needs a Labour government - here's why


https://res.cloudinary.com/dods/image/upload/c_fill,g_center,h_500,w_1120/v1/UK%20politicians/pa-28731826_urym7y.jpg
Will we be seeing Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister come 9th June? (Image: PoliticsHome)

I'm sorry but I feel I must intervene and express my true annoyance over this farcical general election. For those reading from abroad, Britain has to endure yet another election, just two years after having one, and three years before it was meant to be scheduled for. Don't get me wrong, I am more than happy to exercise my democratic right to vote, but not under the circumstances UK faces itself today.

I have a long list of reasons for why this general election is a bad idea, but I'll shortlist these here and conclude why Britain would really benefit from a Labour government. Yes, Labour. While the party's chances of winning a majority is slim - according to polls - the last thing I want is to see them lose seats to this Conservative government under false pretences. Theresa May has so much to answer for, I am finding it difficult to structure my arguments against her regime.

I'll start with Europe. This election, I have no doubt, is the second European referendum. Theresa May won't say this to you but honestly, the EU exit is the primary reason for her calling a national vote so soon after triggering Article 50. The Tories certainly fooled the Liberal Democrats here, as Tim Farron's party are basing their campaign on wanting one once an EU exit deal with the other European nations has been established, whenever that'll be. The Prime Minister insists Europe isn't her primary reason to hold an election, yet, the timing proves otherwise.

Many know Theresa May's European motives and Brussels aren't liking what they hear. She can claim that they'll do anything to jeopardise any deal being made. However, her openness to disagree with them is reckless. Their red tape clauses are clear, and if we want to speculate what type of exit Britons want, a messy divorce isn't one. They aren't the scary bureaucrats the British media pictures them to be. They are visibly frustrated about May, but for her to negotiate the best deal for the UK, instead of attracting a war of words, listen.

http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10328199.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/Britains-Prime-Minister-Theresa-May-and-Tim-Farron-the-leader-of-the-Liberal-Democrats-attend-the.jpg
Theresa May with Tim Farron (Image: Daily Mirror)
The current exit strategy clearly isn't working and remember, we'll have two years of this, once the Article 50 process ends. The Liberal Democrats pledge Brits should vote on the negotiated deal once it is on the table, yet, I question this. Should they have some government power, mirroring that of the 2010-15 coalition, would they not trust their judgement and negotiating skills? Having them anywhere near Downing Street, I fear, would make this leaving process lengthier, and increasingly painful.

Labour offer the best European strategy. The press may disagree, yet, they ought to believe it. Most of the voters who bothered to show up in the EU referendum said they wanted the UK to Leave. I bet most of those want to just Leave, and not want to think about how messy a 'divorce' could be. Labour genuinely accepts the result (as too do Brussels) and they are the only party who are willing to give EU what they want, such as freedom of movement with relative restrictions, and therefore we get our certain 'freedoms' many campaigned for in return. That'll satisfy the hundred percent rather than the 52 the Tories claim to represent and Lib Dems' 48. For economic certainty, we need this so-called 'divorce' to be short and sweet, and the bill won't rocket as high as hyped in the press.

Unfortunately, however, many won't see Labour in a positive light. Instantly, Theresa May has gotten personal. She's made it clear to the public of the choice. She interprets that she offers a 'strong, stable leadership' and brands Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn 'chaotic' and 'dangerous'. I fear she believes she's bigger than the party she represents. Yet, neither leader should be personal as May nor Corbyn will feature on my ballot paper. They will do in the constituencies of Maidenhead and Islington North respectively, but myself and 65 million others won't. This isn't the United States where Presidential candidates are offered on every ballot paper.

If you're asking me, May offers anything but 'strong' or 'stable' leadership skills. It would be good to know her actual views on key issues. Many believed she was an ardent Remain campaigner in the EU referendum, yet since becoming Prime Minister, her standpoint has dramatically shifted. She can claim it's because 'the people have chosen', yet it doesn't hide the fact that the vote was close enough to split the nation.
https://www.amberrudd.co.uk/sites/www.amberrudd.co.uk/files/osborneeulaunch-large_transxev_sfbtnwni-kyolncuqalp8ftejp6wyhzysp5ck3k.jpg
Amber Rudd was most passionate pro-EU Tory. What's changed?

In this instance, May and her colleagues are puppy dogs. They are followers to the apparent majority and don't believe in their true policies just incase they may be seen as unpopular. Do they even trust their own judgement? In particular, I'm thinking of Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson and Home Secretary Amber Rudd. Their views have completely flipped as if the referendum never happened. Don't people enter politics to stand for what they believe in?

Corbyn meanwhile has been a backbencher since 1983, and his views have been incredibly clear. His positive passion for the public services - to which everyone relies on - is explicit. He is pro-peace and anti-conflict. I agree with him on nuclear and getting rid of Trident. The more those who think we need it to defend ourselves, subconsciously they really want to use them as an excuse. And to those who point out his apparent associations with 'extreme' pro-Palestine (or as the press call them 'anti-Semitic') groups and former IRA members - if you don't want them causing problems, you need to turn to Corbyn to sort them out. He is far from dangerous. Trust me, I voted Liz Kendall in the 2015 leadership election.

In addition, Labour can satisfy the Tories 'One Nation' message with ease. By keeping Scotland sweet through continued investment and no needless bickering, the SNP won't feel so compelled to break away from the UK. May and Davidson have done nothing positive to ease tensions. Wales has a Labour Assembly government and through building partnerships and spreading wealth across the north, that'll be the Northern Powerhouse Tory dream a reality. A Labour government is capable of getting the nation to be proud Brits as they did in 1997 when Tony Blair went to power. A vote for Labour isn't a 'vote to the left' - for those who read my blog, the only wings I believe in are chicken. Labour offer convenience and normality. It is important to get back to basics.

All Labour need to do is to execute their arguments with conviction. It does not help when we have Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott delivering a 'car crash' interview or two about policing. There is a lot of campaigning to go. Abbott isn't pitching to be Britain's Home Secretary, neither is Corbyn (or May) for Prime Minister. These could happen as a consequence yet cabinet reshuffles at the start of Parliament have taken place in the past.

So when you vote on Thursday 8th June, think about the candidates who vow to represent your constituency. On the national picture too, how would you want the UK to look? Corbyn's vision may be dull but if it's bland Britain that'll look after everyone without any thrills and spills, then Labour government is the one you should be voting for. If you're looking for unpredictable and a government that can't form their own views due to their hidden insecurities then vote Tories.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Splitting Britain to its eventual death

Londoner Mo Farah and Sheffield-born Jessica Ennis-Hill set to see their cities drift away from Westminster bubble (Image: Daily Mail) I don't know about you, but I'm loving this year's Olympics. The daunting talk about Brazil's corrupt politics, high levels of extreme poverty and the doping scandal are secondary topics for discussion while the spectacular sporting action and country's tourism boost are dominating headlines. But for me, I've been particularly impressed by UK's togetherness in pride for Team GB's overwhelming success so far. The country's dominance in rowing and cycling is something worth celebrating and hopefully they can provide a new wave of inspiration for many that London 2012 sadly couldn't. With Team GB continuing to shine in Rio de Janeiro, it's a big shame that back at home, political leaders are going out of their way in breaking up the country. In this rate, come Tokyo 2020 Olympics or whoever hosts the 2

Sepp Blatter mustn't resign, yet

Fifa President has to clean-up his mess before deciding to leave Living in Blatter-land World football governing body, Fifa's President Sepp Blatter has been under the spotlight for the second consecutive week and again for all the wrong reasons. Last week he banned British isle national sides from wearing a poppy branding the flower "political" but this time around, on countless interviews with major broadcasting companies yesterday, he controversially said that "there is no racism in football" and if racism occurred in a match, then players involved must handshake at the end of the game. This has sparked anger across the world of football including hierarchies of the English Professional Football Association (PFA), football players such as Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand and pundits alike. After hearing those comments by Blatter, people such as myself would bang our heads on brick walls. Today, the 75-year-old went to clarify his previous afterno

Settling the transgender debate like grown-ups

Flag that represents the trans community (Image: The Age) The 'transgender debate' has been hard to escape in recent years. It's impacting many areas of our lives, including in schools , work and sport . Sadly, the media narrative of these stories has made it impossible to rationally discuss how to best support people who have decided to make this life-changing decision, or how to assure their 'opponents' that they aren't being cast aside, or their rights have been taken from them. I'll try and analyse this as level-headed as possible and conclude what we (UK as a whole) should be doing, as a way of being a world leader on what is seen as a divisive matter, where it ought not to be. The current narrative is arguably led by two very different sides - one, the so-called 'pro-trans' groups, who combatively argue that people who want to transition should have easy access to basically everything; from legally changing their gender, to requiring advanced