The U.K Ought to Vote for a Labour Government

The Conservative Manifesto Sifting through these eighty-four pages (Orwellian or what?) there are some key ideological points I completely disagree with like the naming of ‘fast-changing technology’ as one of ‘great challenges’ this country faces on page seven, demonising all those against Tory regulations of the internet as terrorist sympathises as outlined in their chapter ‘Prosperity and Security in a Digital Age’. With such double-speak as talking of ‘A free media’ (p.80) and the stating: ‘We will be consistent in our approach to regulation of online and offline media’ is nothing short of ludicrous. There should be profound suspicion of those who use tools of authoritarianism in the name of protection. They basically promise everything in their Manifesto, from gender equality to ‘homes for all’ (p.70) by ‘aiming’ for lots of ideal goals, they don’t explain how they are going to reach. Their ‘starting point is that we should take decisions on the basis of what works’ (p.7) reminding me somewhat of a line from Shaw’s ‘Saint Joan’: ‘Do what was done last time and that be your rule, eh?’. But there is some use in holding credence for this maxim: it is definitely stable. It reverts back to a safe way of doing things, where the economy can be predictably regulated. Indeed, the deficit (the rate of debt) is indeed stabilising rather than increasing, which the Tory policies as well as the natural development of the global economy has contributed to. The radical change Corbyn wishes to introduce will have a destabilising effect: small businesses may suffer from the raised minimum wage, the transaction from private businesses to nationalised businesses are a living question mark to the jobs of thousands and quality of these services. Such radical change is likely to affect the pound as well. Since Brexit, the pound has been on the decline: uncertainty in a country's future often leads to a loss of faith as far as the stock markets are concerned: “if the Conservatives tumble in the polls, expect some volatility in the foreign exchange markets.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Now briefly, let us look at some of the promises of the Tory Manifesto: ‘Corporation Tax is due to fall to seventeen per cent by 2020 – the lowest rate of any developed economy – and we will stick to that plan, because it will help to bring huge investment and many thousands of jobs to the UK.’ P14 ‘A good tax system is not just about the headline rates of tax, however, but about its simplicity. [...] We will therefore simplify the tax system.’ P14 (through initiatives like the Red Tape challenge) ‘We will reconvene the Board of Trade with a membership specifically charged with ensuring that we increase exports from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England’ p15 (encouraging economic internalism as a stimulant for growth). ‘A new Conservative government will continue to increase the National Living Wage to 60 per cent of median earnings by 2020’ p16 (much more secure than promising a £10 minimum wage regardless of its practical limitations). HS2 ‘£40 billion into transport improvements’, ‘We want almost every car and van to be zero-emission by 2050 – and will invest £600 million by 2020 to help achieve it.’ P23 Promoting a devolution, or localisation of government replacing the Barnett Formula. ‘We will therefore develop the shale industry in Britain’, using natural gas for economic growth in a way which does not entice fracking or detrimental effects to the environment Going against human slave labour, a principal which seems to be close to May’s heart p40 £178 billion investment into military equipment in the next decade p41 And an issue I personally take interest in, the prison system: P45 ‘The £15 billion annual cost to society of reoffending shows we have so much more to do to make the penal system work better. Prisons must become places of safety, discipline and hard work, places where people are helped to turn their lives around. They should help prisoners learn English, maths and the work skills they need to get a job when they leave prison, whilst providing the help prisoners require to come off drugs and deal with mental health problems. We will invest over £1 billion to modernise the prison estate, replacing the most dilapidated prisons and creating 10,000 modern prison places. We will reform the entry requirements, training, management and career paths of prison officers. We will create a new legal framework for prisons, strengthening the inspectorate and ombudsman to provide sharper external scrutiny. Community punishments do not do enough to prevent crime and break the cycle of persistent offending. So we will create a national community sentencing framework that punishes offenders and focuses on the measures that have a better chance of turning people around and preventing crime, such as curfews and orders that tackle drug and alcohol abuse. We will introduce dedicated provision for women offenders.’ Whilst I profoundly disagree with the last paragraph, an expansion of prison staffing and the raised quality and opportunities in UK prisons is one of the measures which is required to better the prison system. There have been several riots in the past year because of the low quality of prison environments. And of course, ‘we will increase NHS spending by a minimum of £8 billion in real terms over the next five years’ p66 (with perfect ambiguity of what these ‘real terms’ are or whether the government are investing in the NHS or going to just promote the NHS spending what it already possesses). When I criticised both Manifestos, it is because they are both written as simple and coercive propaganda. They don’t tell one what they are deconstructing, they promise to deliver ideal goals and pejoratively attack the other party. By not using simple academic language, writing as though in speeches, they deny the British people the chance to argue with them knowing what they are going to do precisely. Instead of saying things like ‘fairness is integral to our values, and as such we will deliver X’, they should be saying ‘there is this law currently in place, this is its problems and this is what we are going to do about it’. The Manifestos should be much more arid, terse, and precise. Their Manifesto: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com... Nevertheless, onto the rebuttals, The quote Emilrose gave, assumedly from Corbyn, actually exemplified one of my points: '....what would Manchester have done without the NHS?' He is using cogency and the emotions of people to upholster his own political ideologies, in reference to the Manchester bombing, acting his part in the election drama rather than seeing how this event should be off-limits to political point scoring. This utilisation of events is coercive and wrong. My opponent does likewise in arguing how national debt has actually increased over Tory administration and how they are principally to blame. This is a reductive way of viewing the economy. The Tories have reduced the deficit, have ensured that the economy is no longer retracting. Increased debts are a natural product of UK economy post the recession and part of globalised economics. The Tories cannot be held accountable for increased national debts: they would have increased under any administration. We cannot attribute all that happens within a temporal period as the responsibility of the government: it is after all, a limited institution of humans rather than all-powerful controllers. The large amount the government is borrowing and spending to pay off prior loans is what every other European country is doing right now. Why then is this the Tories fault in particular? http://www.economicshelp.org... The NHS Crisis The fact that Labour instituted the NHS, does not mean that we can approve of new Labour's outlook on healthcare; this would be the genetic fallacy. It has changed since 1948 and radically so. A privatisation of health care would allow for more specialist care rather than put the onus onto government departments alienated from day-to-day hospital life: it would empower businesses to come up with the most expedient and quickest way to treat patients. This is of course, what a long-term Tory government would lead to. A largely privatised NHS system. The Tories have promised to invest that 8 billion into the NHS but compared to Labour this is inconsequential. The only argument against it can be that the corporeate tax will make the economy suffer. It will encourage businesses to use places like Ireland (or arguably the Isle of Man) where the rates are lower as tax havens, thereby discouraging UK businesses. It will also make things slightly harder for small businesses, who are already struggling to compete with the modern giants of industry. http://www.investopedia.com... Education As someone with a large tuition loan, I am slightly reluctant to see them go on an individual perspective. They do provide Universities with the funds to expand and offer better services. But, also, to only raise tuition fees to 9k for 5 years would mean that all students who went to University within these years would be at a disadvantage. Corbyn has promised to look into reducing them, but this is a false prospect: tuition fees were a government accounting trick of reducing the deficit by saying that they were owed large amounts of money from the youth. It was the ability to tax students for their entire life a small amount of their earnings, with interest rates on them so high that they would for most never realistically be paid off. At least previously these students had the conciliation of 50% of the population being on the same boat. Labour's 123-page Manifesto, is unfair to these students.