The British general elections will be held in eight days,
and we shall know who would be Britain’s next prime-minister.
Theresa May called the snap general election in April 2017, after
insisting repeatedly for several months that she would not call a general
election until 2020 because, it would, you see, not good for the country’s
stability, until she had the epiphany—while on a walk in Snowdonia—that in fact
a snap general election was exactly what the doctor advised to bolster country’s
stability. It also happened to be the case that April 2017 was also the month in which May's Conservative Party was declared to be
twenty-five points (or some such ridiculous margin) ahead of the main
opposition Labour Party by the pollsters (the same pollsters who were
predicting a ten point lead for the remain campaign over the leave campaign in
the last year’s British referendum about Britain’s membership of the European
Union (EU)).
When Auntie Theresa called the election, everyone was
predicting a landslide victory for the Tories over the Labour; and with good reason. Labour, increasingly resembling a
lame-duck party, with its hopeless (and hapless) leader Jeremy Corbyn, surrounded
by left-wing zealots who have been plotting a left-wing revolution for the
last three decades, cocooned in a world rarely penetrated by reality, had seemed incapable of providing effective opposition. In the
two years since the its last general election defeat in 2015, Labour had not so
much been a political party but a battle ground between the rival factions
within the party. Corbyn spent so much time fighting against his own MPs, who
(probably not without reason) formed the view that the chances Labour winning a
general election under the leadership of Corbyn—who, until his surprise
elevation to the leadership of the Labour party, had spent his entire political life on the back-benches, carping against Blair and Brown and Miliband, when
he was not going on protest marches or embracing the leaders of Hamas and IRA—were less than Donald Trump sending a sensible (or even comprehensible)
tweet, that he was unable to—incapable of, in the eyes of some—providing
a semi-effective parliamentary opposition.
However, as they say, it ain’t over till the fat lady sings.
Grandpa Corbyn, the aging revolutionary, has proved to be a
bit of a surprise. No doubt having been tutored (albeit inadvertently) by the
hostile opposition within his own party in the two years leading to this
election, as well as his inherently pachydermic skin, Corbyn, during the election campaign, has come across as relaxed and sure of himself in the face of hostile questions and interviews.
Theresa May, by contrast, has shown herself to be thin-skinned, petulant,
panicky, evasive, and—dare I say it?—unsure of herself. Not exactly the strong
and stable leader she has been ordering the British public to believe she is.
I know crazier things have happened (look who is in the
White House), but, as the election day looms, there is now a possibility that
it might not after all be a smooth sailing for the Tories, and Auntie, much to
her irritation, might not get the brutal majority, which she obviously thinks
is her God-given right.
If May does not get the landslide win she thought was within
her grasp just a couple of months back, she has only herself to blame.
Theresa May’s strategy seems to be as follows: repeat the same thing
over and over again and hope that people would be bored into believing it: I am
strong and stable leader; only the Conservatives will ensure a growing economy; only the strong and stable leader will negotiate robustly with the EU
bureaucrats who are hell-bent on punishing Britain, yada, yada, yada (or yawn, yawn, yawn). May seems to think that she
is immune to the requirement of providing any evidence to support her claims. To
paraphrase Orwell, it is a ghastly thing, really, to have a sort of human barrel-organ
shooting propaganda at you by the hour. The same thing over and over again (and
it is not as if she has anything nice to say; it is just hate, hate, hate—be it
Corbyn or immigrants; let’s get-together and have a good hate). It also seems
to have escaped her mind that (as Aristotle pointed out millennia earlier) it
is your actions and not your talk (even when delivered in a stern schoolmarmish
style) that will tell people about your qualities and abilities. On the evidence so far,
Auntie may talk the talk, but can she walk the walk? If the completely un-costed Tory manifesto was
shambles, May’s U-turn, within forty-eight hours of its publication, on one of
the key-policies in the manifesto (when it dawned on her that it might alienate
the geriatrics who would vote a donkey if it was a Tory candidate) and her
attempts to convince that it was not a U-turn (she had, exactly what she was
saying now, in her mind all along, even though she had neglected to mention it
in the manifesto, and by the way, it was all Corbyn’s fault; darned nuisance
the man was turning out to be, with his scare-mongering) were about as
convincing as a Nazi concentration camp Commandant claiming in the Nuremberg trials that the gas
chambers were for burning wood so that the inmates could stay in comfort in the
winter months. Her fall-back position is: when you are running out of
argument(s) (or, as has been so frequently witnessed in this election campaign,
you have no argument) launch a nasty and personal attack on Corbyn. It is
off-putting.
The list of Jeremy Corbyn’s problems is longer than the
treaty of Versailles. To name a few: his image (incompetent fuddy-duddy with
the charisma of dish-washer and personality of a lawn-mower); the outré statements
he and his pal John McDonnell made over the years when they did not envisage being within the sniffing distance of the leadership of the Labour party coming to haunt them; and the
non-entities that make up his shadow-cabinet (with the possible exception of
John McDonnell, who is probably clinically insane) as no one in the parliamentary
Labour party with a smidgen of common sense would want to associate themselves
with these crazy people.
There, really, is no reason to believe that Theresa May would be a more capable leader than Corbyn. You don't become a strong and stable leader just because you shout till you are blue in the face that you are one. Theresa May's record, first as the home secretary in the Cameron government, and, for the last eleven months as the prime-minister, is unimpressive to say the least. She insists that she, and only she, is the person to lead the country through Brexit negotiations, and accuses Corbyn of not having a plan; yet she refuses to give any details of what plan she might have other than "trust me". She is once again promising to reduce the net migration to tens of thousands (urging the electorate to not trust Jeremy Corbyn, who, she warns, will open the floodgates). Without going into the advisability of this plan (George Osborne described it as economically illiterate) May has repeatedly and spectacularly failed to deliver on this promise. The net migration in the UK, throughout May's tenure as the home secretary (when she was in charge of migration) and now, as the prime-minister, was in hundreds of thousands. Why should people (in particular those for whom immigration is a concern) believe that she would be better than Corbyn, especially as, yet again, she does not come up with any plan as to how she proposes to reduce the net migration? Such flimsy details as she deigns to give are no different from what Corbyn is saying: the UK will leave the EU and free movement of people within Europe will end. There is disingenuousness in blaming the EU for the increased migration. In the last seven years, when May has been in power, the migration from the non-EU countries (on which the UK, presumably, has complete control, as it has nothing to do with the EU) has been consistently higher than the EU migration. So, on the issue of migration, which may well be uppermost in the minds of some sections of the British society, the only difference between May and Corbyn, insofar as I can see, is that May is blithely giving promises which she can't possibly keep, whereas Corbyn is more cautious and is refusing to give promises which he knows he won't be able to keep. That would make him, in the eyes of most sensible people, not less trustworthy, but more honest.
Let's think about the economy a bit. Corbyn has been Father Christmas in his manifesto, showering huge largesse on the public sector services (which have suffered terribly under the Tories). He is going to do this by borrowing more and taxing the rich. He is also going to increase the corporate taxes (he is priceless, Corbyn: a bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool, stamped-and-seeled-in-the-production-factory, head-in-the-clouds Socialist). If he is allowed to do this, May is inviting us to believe that Armageddon will arrive and swarm of locusts will attack the Royal family. All the businesses will leave the UK (even though even with the proposed hike in the corporation tax in the Labour manifesto, the UK would still have one of the lowest corporation tax regimes amongst the rich countries). Fair enough. What then are the economic plans of the Conservatives? Search me: their manifesto is completely uncosted. May was outraged when Andrew Neil, in his interview, had the temerity to ask her how she was going to finance the eight billion pounds she was promising to the NHS (which, incidentally, has been systematically decimated by the Tories). "Trust me. I am Theresa May. Isn't that enough?"
Ultimately, though, it comes to the public perception.Nasty as Theresa May maybe (The Economist described her, in fact, as Theresa Maybe—so much for strong and stable leadership), and, let it be said that she has run a thoroughly despicable campaign, which no one save Donald Trump would approve of, the British public may (reluctantly) choose Cruella de Vil to be in the Number Ten because it may (reluctantly) conclude that Comrade Corbyn and his merry bunch can’t be trusted to look after their washing let alone the country’s economy and the Brexit negotiations.
Let's think about the economy a bit. Corbyn has been Father Christmas in his manifesto, showering huge largesse on the public sector services (which have suffered terribly under the Tories). He is going to do this by borrowing more and taxing the rich. He is also going to increase the corporate taxes (he is priceless, Corbyn: a bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool, stamped-and-seeled-in-the-production-factory, head-in-the-clouds Socialist). If he is allowed to do this, May is inviting us to believe that Armageddon will arrive and swarm of locusts will attack the Royal family. All the businesses will leave the UK (even though even with the proposed hike in the corporation tax in the Labour manifesto, the UK would still have one of the lowest corporation tax regimes amongst the rich countries). Fair enough. What then are the economic plans of the Conservatives? Search me: their manifesto is completely uncosted. May was outraged when Andrew Neil, in his interview, had the temerity to ask her how she was going to finance the eight billion pounds she was promising to the NHS (which, incidentally, has been systematically decimated by the Tories). "Trust me. I am Theresa May. Isn't that enough?"
Ultimately, though, it comes to the public perception.Nasty as Theresa May maybe (The Economist described her, in fact, as Theresa Maybe—so much for strong and stable leadership), and, let it be said that she has run a thoroughly despicable campaign, which no one save Donald Trump would approve of, the British public may (reluctantly) choose Cruella de Vil to be in the Number Ten because it may (reluctantly) conclude that Comrade Corbyn and his merry bunch can’t be trusted to look after their washing let alone the country’s economy and the Brexit negotiations.
I predict a Tory victory. Let’s hope it is not a landslide.