The U.K Ought to Vote for a Labour Government

Rebuttals: Con begins in his argument by coming up with the rather unusual stance that Jeremy Corbyn is somehow a sell-out; I would note that he contradicts himself later in his argument when he references ideological division that has existed within the party (largely which he has overplayed, but I will address that later.) It is clear from policy, that Corbyn has indeed not changed or sold-out on any of the issues that he's fought so tirelessly over the years for. On the issue of trident, he still plans to work towards global nuclear disarmament and has plans to employ a 'Minister for Peace', if he becomes Prime Minister [16.] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...There are obviously certain practical obstacles that would be encountered in actually not renewing trident, which thus why Corbyn has pledged to renew it. The majority of his party support that position, the majority of the country support that position, and, I'm sure as Con will agree with me on, we are living in (still) challenging times. It's far more sensible to try and achieve nuclear disarmament in the entire world, than to refuse to renew trident within your own country. However, there has been absolutely no ideological change from Corbyn; he still wants to achieve a world with peace, and he still believes that diplomatic corporation between countries is what should be aspired to. Which goes back to my point about the E.U; unlike Theresa May, he wants the U.K to have a functioning and workable relationship with Europe. Con then brings up Corbyn having no experience in office, but this statement is devoid of any merit based on the fact that Corbyn has decades of political experience--as an MP he spent years working in parliament, and for two years has been leader of the Labour Party. In fact, as a *leader*, Corbyn has in fact had more experience and preparation than May, who only become leader of the Conservative Party (as a result: Prime Minister) under a year ago, after the Brexit vote. Jeremy Corbyn is also arguably more 'politically active', due to the amount of issues he's been directly involved in and political causes that he has penetrated over the years; something Con previously noted himself in his argument. The first article that Con uses is states in the title that Jeremy Corbyn 'will be a strong and stable leader', and has additional statements within it that more or less benefit my argument. ********************************************************************************Onto Cons next points, he states that the due to the lack of Ad-hominem attacks from Corbyn, that he has somehow feel under the radar and been outshone by the Conservatives in terms of media attention alone; which could not be further from the truth. Unlike May who has basically ignored the public (just as she did with Brexit), he has been ardently campaigning across the country and has in fact attracted vast numbers of people. As one his latest speeches shows, he is actually displaying a great deal of passion [17.] This particular speech is a clear example of just how dedicated Corbyn is a politician; and in-touch with real causes (I.E poverty, lack of housing, lack of education investment, lack of opportunity among the less wealthy, etc.) At the end of the speech, his tone becomes more impassioned and he urges everyone to ask one another: 'what kind of country, what kind of world, what kind of society do (they) want to live in'? Following the question with whether they want to live in a country, a world, and a society of unfairness and injustice. So on the contrary to Cons assertion, the Labour Party has gained significant momentum, to the point where a clear Conservative majority looks doubtful. And let's take note: this momentum was not gained by personally attacking the other election candidate or Ad-hominum attacks, but by ferociously and passionately attacking the policies of the other party; policies that have decreased the life-quality of millions of people across the U.K, policies, that will further damage our future if they are enacted yet again. *This* is how Labour has attracted so many people. I would argue that it's somewhat absurd for Con to say that the Labour party have simply 'followed', instead of 'instigating and leading' themselves. For one, they are not (yet) the party leading the country, and for another, their presence in Parliament has indeed been an extremely important one. Were in not for the Labour party, the U.K would've taken military action against Syria in 2013 [18.] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...In fact, were it not for the Labour party, there's many topics and issues that would not have been at the forefront of politics within the last seven years (since the Conservatives took power.) It was the Labour party that put forward a new bill in an attempt to prevent NHS privatisation, back in 2014. [19.] http://press.labour.org.uk... With every policy proposal that the Conservative party makes, there is Labour there to criticise it--and do all they can do reverse or alter it. Con mentions Brexit, but it was actually Corbyn who campaigned to remain more than May Con also mentions division with the Labour party, but this is something that literally all parties have to some degree. And, Labour actually has it to a much lesser degree now. After winning two separate leadership contests, it has basically been accepted that Corbyn is leader and he has the support of all Labour politicians during this election, and some notable key allies within the party. This is a time in which Labour has been working together to get the best result from this election--which is a Corbyn leadership. In addition, the party is not lacking experienced politicians as Con states, it is quite the opposite. The Mayor for Manchester (Andy Burnam) is a Labour politician [20.] https://en.wikipedia.org..., I include this as Manchester is one of the most prominent cities within the U.K. Let's not forget that Labour are one of the oldest and most politically active parties within the U.K, hence why they generally among the two competing parties in *every* election. Con seems to think that having Dianne Abbot within the cabinet will also be detrimental, but I disagree as her method is yet to be tried and tested. We have an even greater example with Jeremy Hunt, someone who, like Con says, has tyrannised his government (health) department and caused multiple strikes across the U.K, which thus delayed the treatment of many people. Health professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.), overall, have nothing but the utmost disrespect for Hunt. A YouGov poll found that Hunt was the most disliked politician of all parties [21.] http://www.independent.co.uk...This is all compounded by the fact that both David Cameron and now Theresa May, simply refuse to get rid of him. She has no plans to sack Jeremy Hunt at all after this election (if she remains.), which may well provide reason alone not to vote Conservative. Con alludes to a popularity that Conservative politicians supposedly have, but I do not see any evidence of this. He references Boris Johnson, who places himself in positions of continuous ridicule, and is quoted as saying things like this: 'some people are too stupid to get on in life.' [22.] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...In the article, he further states that economic disparity is basically to be embraced--by referring free markets and so on. Those such as Boris Johnson and Jacob-Rees-Mogg are perfect examples of politicians who are out-of-touch with modern U.K society. This particular BBC article briefly illuminates all other offensive comments that Johnson has made, alluding back to to one statement from 2016 regarding former U.S' president Barack Obama's nationality. He further remarked that because Obama was 'part Kenyan', he had an 'ancestral dislike' for Britain. In 2008, Johnson also labelled black people as 'piccanninies' and exclaimed that they had 'watermelon' smiles. If people do decide to vote for the Conservatives tomorrow (June 8th), then they will be voting for this man to retain his role as foreign secretary...as well as for Jeremy Hunt to retain his position as Health Secretary. Concerning Cons final point, it seems an odd contention to make that manifestos are somehow devoid of 'academic' content, as the main purpose is to provide basic policy information and get the party agenda across as simply as possible--so that all members of the public can read it if they so wish. But, there is really anything to suggest to me that people in academic fields of study (or otherwise) cannot 'enter a fair dialogue' on each manifesto; the polices are they be observed and assessed.I will leave a link here of Labour's 128 page Manifesto [23.] http://www.labour.org.uk...Tomorrow, the U.K will be voting. After seven years of severe austerity and cuts to vital public services, I genuinely do hope that people make the right choice. After all this is an election is one in which you are left with a choice of 'yes' or 'no' to the NHS being privatised, to schools being further underfunded, to the elderly losing what benefits they actually have, to the disabled being demoralised, to disenfranchising young people, to our environment not being treated the way it should...to a whole range of things that quite frankly require a 'no' answer, if we are to live in a better society.