The U.K Ought to Vote for a Labour Government

As you know Emilrose, I am inclined to vote Labour in the coming election this Thursday. However, before I do so, I think it is vital to try and be vicarious, to try and see the Tory position and the limitations of those who I will likely be voting for. I know this will be a challenge, since when I searched ‘reasons to vote Tory’ into an incognito Google tab, pages suspiciously came up for why I should not vote Tory. Regardless of which, my argument will be twofold; it will focus on some of the strengths of the Tory party currently as well as some of the infirmities of Labour (taking how our party system seems to take the either/or position in that only a Labour or Conservative government can get into power as the dominant political force). Labour Party Corbyn, his history rooted in political activism, has not had any major roles in senior government. So, although his ability to negotiate at the Brexit talks is well in line with his experience, the general administration of senior government will be new to him. At one of the busiest times our government has faced in recent history, Corbyn will not have any time to inaugurate himself into some of the functions of government currently alien to him as an adversarial but not acting politician. The one thing to May’s credit is her political experience: even if you dispute the decisions she has made, she knows how to navigate government. Corbyn, a political outsider, whilst having the appeal of radical change about him in a cultural milieu which is becoming increasingly frustrated by politics, has to be able to penetrate into this system itself in order to function within it. We see this currently: he has gone from tenaciously holding on to his political positions, to gradually conceding them for more central policies (like that of maintaining Trident) and then playing into the political drama. Like Trump, he has voiced encouragement for his opposition to resign right before the election, subtly suggesting that a vote against her is an act of justice. This is just part of a political point-scoring system, where the politician must sell out in order to win votes. Corbyn has had to compromise: he has entered a system and let go of some of his ideals in hope that he will be able to establish others. This type of behaviour in my eyes, makes it clear that there will be no Labour “revolution” (1). http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... Prior to the election, Corbyn has been quite measured and arid staying clear of such ad hominem attacks whilst he has been portrayed as an indolent, scruffy eccentric (interested in trains and drains). This has led to widespread criticism of the Labour party as failing in their opposition. And, it is true that he hasn’t been as fervent in parliament as he has been during this election campaign. For whatever reason, whether media exposure or his own lack of ability as an opposition leader, there are times he has underrepresented the Labour party and allowed the Tories to dominant much of the political dialogue. From the referendum to Brexit to the calling of this snap election, the Conservatives have been the ones to instigate and lead. Labour has just followed. Internally, Labour is dividing into two political stances. There are not only dissenters to Corbyn’s leadership within government, but those with radically different political positions (2). The adversarial layout of government is designed to see parties conflict with each other; the fear is that in the House of Commons, Corbyn will be fighting on two fronts. He will be fighting against exterior powers (other parties and the House of Lords) as well as from opposition within his own government. http://www.newstatesman.com... Additionally, one of the only legitimate reasons not to vote Labour this Thursday seems to be incarnated in the form of Diane Abbott. My attitude on her ability to become Home Secretary, is that she rather lacks it. This I would hold to be a problem with our political system however: by voting for the greatest policies, you also employ people you would not vote for individually. A package system of politics which has seen the likes of Jeremy Hunt and Gove tyrannise their government Departments against the specialist desires of medical and education workers across the country seems moronic. As does employing Abbott as Home Secretary. Labour, playing her down (3) as they did Ken Livingstone, for their own political representation is not ideal. This is political subterfuge, deceit: a vote for Labour is a vote for all of its members, whether they be astute and diligent workers or not. In employing the entire Labour party, we should not just be faced with the likes of Corbyn as the charismatic leader (in Weber’s sense of the term) acting as if a symbol of his entire administration. England does not operate as America does: Corbyn is both defined and limited by his administration, party politics, rather than having the selective power of Trump to hire as his pleases (only the most significant needing Senate approval). Hiding certain aspects of the Labour party is like hiding damp in a house, in hopes that prospectful buyers will purchase it anyway. At least with the Tories, we know the faces who we will be getting. http://www.bbc.co.uk... The Conservative Party The alliterative phrase ‘strong and stable’ leadership was chosen for good reason by the background Tory writers; not only is it memorable, but it simultaneously props up the Conservatives whilst suggesting that the Labour party are devoid of these virtues. The conservative party, whilst no dream-team, is dominated by vocational politicians with a copious amount of political experience. From BoJo to Rees-Mogg, these are well-educated men who are far more politically experienced than Labour politicians. In fact, intuitively, it is much easier to name Conservative than Labour politicians (with the exception of perhaps the Eagle sisters and Dennis Skinner). The Tories have a grip on the media as they have the memorable characters within their party. Such gravitas is essential in running government; one needs character in order to interact and make impressions on people. This of course says nothing of their administrative abilities, but personality is a useful and important attribute to possess as a politician. The ability to coerce, lead, and react to others. As a party, the Tories are vanished as being more professional than Labour politicians; it is surely this representation we want across seas rather than that of division and activism. In terms of priority, surely, we should side with May’s strategy for the Brexit talks (revealing and therefore conceding little) and her experience with the EU rather than siding with a peace advocate. Brexit is centred around the colonist rhetoric that England will make its own way and dominate as a great and independent nation; it is fundamentally not a peaceful strategy but that of pioneering. Talks of trade should not be centred on reaching just amicable relations with the EU, but advantageous relations. May has been able to deliver these. Take the arms trade, the massive global stimulant for all economies, by signing agreements with the autocratic Saudi Arabi, May has been able to generate high profits for the UK whilst simultaneously perpetuating a warfare that enables more economic stimulation advancing the war effort. War has always been one of the best economic stimulants, if done right. Anyhow, by abstaining from weapon sales, we just allow other nations to gain the profits of the Arms Trade. There is no multilateral ban on it. I will respond with some of the positives and negatives of the Tory Manifesto next round. What concerned me most about both party Manifestos however, was their lack of academic content; they are wrote as grandiloquent speeches for the easy access of voters denying the academics of our society to enter a fair dialogue of opposition against them. Discourse is operating on the level of cogency, where even new-fangled colloquialisms like ‘sound-bites’ are becoming ‘sound-bites’ and politics is reduced to what things sound like rather than what they mean. People are told the reasons why they should oppose certain parties and then relay these: voters are not thinking independently and non-partisan sources are scarce. In both Manifestos, consistently, the most frequent words are ‘we will’. And, in fact, “We will [verb] X”, seems to be the formulaic response of politicians these days. At essence, both Corbyn and May are promising that “We will make Britain great again.” Such retroaction, whether it be restoring the NHS or nationalised industries, is backward-looking rather than innovative, suggesting that England is in decline.