The Right-Minded View: Labour’s Leadership Contest & Our New Prime Minister – A Socialist Case Against Socialism; And A Feminist Case Against Feminism?
One of the great problems of democracy, as we all know, is that people will insist on having their own opinion; especially about such things as who should represent them in government, or lead political parties they vote for. Wiser heads prevail in golf clubs, thankfully, where such things are decided by those best placed. Therefore, it falls to the right-thinking – that is, the decent among us – to set people straight. This is for their own benefit, of course.
In my opinion, the upcoming Labour leadership contest is unarguably best viewed as a game of three halves.
According to one Labour source, a Mr Corbyn PM – upon entering 10 Downing Street – would immediately unveil a nationwide stratagem of preparing shoes for human consumption. Now, I haven’t got any facts or figures to hand; but if you ask me, this type of policy could be a serious problem.
What is more, just as the best way to judge a book prior to purchase is by its cover, so the contents of a person’s character may be duly surmised from their appearance. Whereas the moustache has homely connotations, of joviality and home-spun wisdom, the beard differs markedly in import. It is suggestive of many things: for example, somebody who works in the arms trade; possibly a sugar daddy, fond of frequenting districts of only the lowest morality; or even a professional librarian.
This latter would clearly be unbecoming in a candidate for the Prime Ministerial office – if you read books then there is always a danger that you will inadvertently lapse into saying something intelligent; and thereby disenfranchise ordinary, hard-working people – such as Members of Parliament, political commentators, or representatives of the business community.
What the Corbohydrates need to accept is that Britain demands strength of character in its national leader – somebody who never goes less than the whole hog. David Cameron, for example, fulfilled that porcine criteria palpably – with a probing rectitude, of heretofore unseen thrusting potency. This is perhaps why Mr Cameron demanded Corbyn’s resignation – because Jeremy Corbyn’s strange reluctance to resign as soon as things became difficult clearly shows that he lacks the qualities expected of a responsible leader in this country.
However, it is not only non-partisan people, such as Mr Corbyn’s political opponents, who have called on him to resign; even stalwart Labour party figureheads such as Tony Blair and Neil Kinnock have seen fit to join the chorus.
In contrast to Mr Corbyn, Mr Blair was a pragmatist, rather than an idealist: he was never ashamed to asset-strip the public sector for the benefit of people who had given him money, just because some suggested this conflicted with the ideals of the Labour party. That is because Tony Blair was a man of the people. Or certain people, at any rate (not literally at any rate – he did expect to be remunerated appropriately for his many favours).
And yet Mr Corbyn fellow’s supporters have the temerity to question the merits of Mr Blair’s tenure. Not only that, but they are even quite impertinent about it. ‘Rendition’ this, and ‘asbos’ that. The whole Iraq triumph between the years 2003, and 2003 (we needn’t concern ourselves with the period 2004-present, unduly). It really is most unbecoming. You certainly never hear Mr Blair’s admirers mentioning such disagreeable topics as these – let alone poverty, or record increases in imprisonment, for example. No – that is because they simply have better manners than to do so.
An equally principled figure, Mr Kinnock spent his entire life opposed to the whole concept of the House of Lords; right up until the moment he joined it. This is the kind of integrity which our country needs.
As Mr Kinnock has pointed out, the current Labour ‘leader’ (not my preferred term; but I’m a firm believer in courtesy) Jeremy Corbyn simply lacks electability – as proven by his disastrous landslide victory in the leadership contest. Further proof, should any be required, is Mr Corbyn’s failure to have already won the general election which won’t take place for approximately four years.
By contrast, Neil Kinnock certainly knows a thing or two about victorious general election campaigns: he was, after all the most successfully unelected Labour Prime Minister of all time. If politics was like the Olympics, then it would be possible to say that Mr Kinnock finished in a commendable silver-medal winning position, in 1987 and 1992, respectively. Unlike Mr Kinnock, however, Mr Corbyn hasn’t won any election which he hasn’t contested; whereas Mr Kinnock did at least only lose elections he fought in. And if you ask me, that’s the real victory.
Winning is everything, you see. Our country’s most recent Prime Minister racked up win after win in Prime Minister’s Question sessions, as reported faithfully by the esteemed proprietors of the fourth estate; and it paved the way for him romping home to a respectable second-place finish in the recent EU referendum. Naturally, as with all true champions, he thought it best to bow out while at the top of his game.
Clearly, this same quality is needed now more than ever for the Labour Party. What this country is crying out for is a persuader, not a protester: somebody who is unabashed about making false assertions to support their position, while preaching to the converted; or else forcibly agreeing with the government in principle, before abstaining on a vote with a steely look of defiance in their eye.
If anything, there are simply too many candidates in the Labour Party to choose from, who would fit this bill handsomely; and I’m sure I speak for many when I say that while I may not vote for Labour, I would at least continue not voting for them, if they elected one of these credible, sensible, pragmatic, electable, Moderates to be their leader.
The reason for this is very simple: principles without power are meaningless. The responsible and mature, pragmatic and rational, moderate and centrist, conservative and progressive, approach is to have power with flexible, or time-shared principles. This permits the pursuit of a policy-framework which is all things, to all people.
For example, one could make the anti-austerity case for continued austerity; or an egalitarian case for decreasing equality. Perhaps a socialist case against socialism? That is, proclaiming that inequality is bad, and poverty is so much the worse; then enacting policies which increase both of them. Or saying that spending cuts are unnecessary; and that they are also necessary. At any rate, it would certainly allow somebody to outline a case for replacing and deploying thermonuclear weaponry, while simultaneously expressing support for nuclear disarmament. That is the centrist approach, which sensibly covers all bases.
In this day and age, having principles is a luxury that ordinary people can ill-afford; and the reasons why they can ill-afford them – such as low wages, job shortages, and the exorbitant cost of housing – are not the sort of thing that politicians should concern themselves with.
The moderate centre-left-right-centrist-electable-moderate-wing of the Labour party gets this; which is why under their tenure Labour triumphed in the general elections of 2010 and 2015 respectively. Sweeping to victory in Scotland, for example; just as they did in the aforementioned Iraq.
In fact their imperious track-record of triumph has led many people to wonder how Mr Corbyn came to lead the Labour party in the first place. Leaving aside any facile reference to five years of austerity etc., it did seem almost unanswerable – certainly, nobody in the media has been able to explain it; but now the machinations are revealed in full. Here we see Corbyn cunningly disguised as a polling station:
According to one Labour source, voters insert their electoral slips into Mr Corbyn; at which point those cast against the desired grain are promptly filtered out, and discarded.
This exact same ploy was discerned during the recent EU referendum. It is a well-known claim that Mr Corbyn cast the deciding vote on this ballot; as revealed by the media’s finest investigatory journalists – who temperately decried Corbyn for perpetrating a stab-in-the-back – or Dolchstoß, in German – on the young; as foretold by the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Momentum.
More damning still, perhaps, but if Corbyn had only tried that bit harder, then England would almost certainly have beaten Iceland 2-1 in the recent European football championship. Combine all of this with Mr Corbyn’s extremist beliefs that people should be paid enough to live on, and should have houses to live in – oh, and access to healthcare – and there is more than enough food for the proverbial. The man must be stopped.
Let us move on, however, to the Conservative Party’s – and by extension, Britain’s – new leadership.
On everything from abortion rights, to the continuous refoulment of women who have fled persecution, Theresa May is unarguably the thinking-misogynist’s woman. Not only has she been a party to ending the Health in Pregnancy Grant, closing Surestart Centres, cutting child benefit, undermining the provision of rape counselling, ending legal aid for victims of domestic violence, closing women’s shelters, along with specialist domestic violence courts, but she also found time to vote against homosexual women being allowed to adopt children.
The reason for this is really very simple: Theresa May has principles. Many, in fact; and if you don’t like particular ones, she has an array of others she is perfectly happy to substitute them with, at no more than a moment’s notice.
Instead of focusing on narrow issues such as worker’s rights, maternity leave, poverty, homelessness, mental health provision, inequality, social security cuts, library closures, a record deficit in the NHS budget, long-term unemployment, pressurized public services, and social exclusion – which, for reasons unknown, all increased exponentially between 2010 and the present; our new PM has chosen instead to look at the bigger picture: her first key act was to stage a debate on the subject of renewing Britain’s nuclear weapons.
Theresa May wants to put the great back into United Kingdom; by ensuring that we have the best defended foodbank users in the world. If you ask me, the prospect of apocalyptic casualties is a small price to pay for peace of mind.
By way of contrast, good, old-fashioned feminist values – such as a willingness to induce terminal radiation sickness among a general populace – have been noticeable by their absence in the Labour party, of late. There is no mystery behind this: to put it bluntly, Jeremy Corbyn is not a woman. If that doesn’t prove something, then I don’t know what does.
In fact, when it comes to the advancement of sexual equality the Conservative party simply stands peerless. Feminism is not about empowering all women, at every level of society. Good heavens, no. It’s about putting a woman in charge of authoritarian policies which, let us be honest, may very well undermine many – if not most – women’s positions in society; but nonetheless bring tremendous benefits to white, prosperous, heterosexual males. After all, isn’t that what the whole raisin d’eau thing of feminism is about? I think we all know the answer to this.
It’s heartening, therefore, to see so many Conservative social justice warriors discovering their inner-feminists, of late. It’s wonderful that such people suddenly care about gender equality, having spent so many years between them opposing it; and openly supporting policies which had a disproportionately adverse effect on women. There’s always hope for the future when you see that people are willing to change, I say. Especially as many Conservative party supporters tend to come across as somewhat unprincipled, self-serving opportunists. Clearly, that can’t be the case – not if they’re willing to compromise on their long-standing principles, by making an effort to develop some.
As further proof that people can change, Theresa May herself might very well have supported policies which increased poverty; but upon becoming Prime Minister she immediately began to say that poverty is bad. This is merely one part of her bold, centre-left programme of right-wing economics, combined with right-wing social policies.
Words clearly speak louder than actions in this world; and nowhere was this more evident than in Theresa May’s inaugural speech. Britain’s Prime Minister was quite correct to address the issue of poverty; and to explain that it is caused not through having insufficient money, but by lacking sufficient gumption, pluck, and aspiration; which would otherwise cover the costs of rent, groceries, and utilities respectively – without money even being a factor.
This is all just commonsense. If you ask me, Theresa May’s detractors merely over-think things. This is not a charge anybody could level at Britain’s new Prime Minister and her admirers.