I do get it, that some people will find it difficult to vote
for Jeremy Corbyn. The stories about
support for terrorists and antisemitism that circulate are real barriers for
many, and the scale of investment being proposed by the relatively soft-left,
mainstream manifesto that has been produced by his team does scare some voters -
who may perhaps not have realised the scale of the cuts of the last ten years. Equally, some may feel that the late
commitment to the WASPI women, and the use of the NHS to challenge the Tories,
smack of opportunism.
Equally, many people find Boris Johnson appalling. His misogyny, racism, islamophobia, anti-gay
stance and inability to speak without lying make him unfit for government to
many of us. His casual relationship with the
truth led to a British citizen being incarcerated overseas when Foreign
Secretary, while he has been a representative of one of the most hard-right
ideologically-driven governments we have seen, worse so than that of Margaret
Thatcher. The detailed evidence is that
there have been many more than 130,000 early, unnecessary deaths since they have been
in power, which appear to be directly attributable to their policies.
And the Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson is seen by a large number
of people as no better. A junior leader
in the Coalition, she has expressed no regrets for their support of the hard
right, nor for breaking their promises on tuition fees. Many Lib Dems, let alone others, see her as
too right wing to lead the party of Beveridge for much longer.
I’m sure similar challenges can be thrown at the
other party leaders. But that isn’t my
point. We really do need to look beyond
personality, and the flaws of individuals, and look at the heart of the policies
for which each party stands.
From this perspective, it seems clear that there are three
large-scale policy areas which we can look at, to see how we might vote.
(Note: As the Brexit
party haven’t published a manifesto, they are excluded from discussion below. However, they are, mostly, right-wing Conservatives
in disguise. So most of the discussion of
the Tories below will apply equally to them, or more so).
To begin with Brexit.
If we are to leave the EU, as a small majority of voters in the (I
believe flawed) referendum of 2016 preferred, there are a number of choices:
-
The Conservatives are proposing the hardest of
hard departures, with a real risk of no-deal, and an internal border between NI
and GB. Most experts and commentators
believe this will do real damage to the country and its institutions, with
prolonged trade negotiations afterwards which will run the real risk of
damaging our own businesses and public services further as a result. Workers rights and food safety standards will
be up for negotiation. Equally, it
entrenches division, as many Remain (and some Leave) voters feel a fraud is
being perpetrated.
-
However, the Lib Dem policy of ‘Revoke’ appears
anti-democratic in the extreme, whatever the possible flaws of the 2016
vote. It would also entrench division,
and do little to prevent a later Government from beginning the whole process
again.
-
To minimise the harm to the country of a hard
Brexit, and to attempt to heal divisions if possible, it is clear that a softer
approach to Brexit is required, which minimises the need for unhelpful and
unbalanced future deals and does far less damage to people and the land. And by putting this to a second public vote,
there is a chance, if a slim one, of
reconciling both Leavers and Remainers.
This Labour approach therefore feels correct, whatever the personal vote
and vacillations of Corbyn. Most of the regional
parties also, correctly, support this strategy (albeit with caveats).
Setting aside the high emotions that Brexit generates, I personally believe a more pressing issue is the
desperate need to address the huge damage that has been done in the last ten
years to our public services, and the public realm in general.
-
In this area the proposals from the
Conservatives, as set out in their election manifesto/leaflet, are laughable in
the extreme. They fail to reverse the
cuts to police and the health service, they do not address social care, nor do
they address the rising crisis of housing safety highlighted by Grenfell and other fires. And, to be blunt, their current approach to
Brexit will make all of this worse and entrench austerity - as the real costs of their ultra-hard Brexit have
not been factored into their budget calculations. Finally, rather than address the failures of
the press and wider media (whatever happened to Levenson?) they are instead
proposing measures to control the courts, so they can never again intervene to
prevent them behaving illegally.
-
The Lib Dem proposals are better, but again feel
far too limited. It may be that they are
in denial about the huge harm the policies they supported in the Coalition have
caused to individuals up and down the UK. And
because they aren’t yet ready to recognise the full impact of the austerity in
which they were complicit, they can’t properly address it. Again there is little on the behaviour of the
press and media.
-
Turning to the Labour party, I have a real
concern that their proposals, while highly laudable in this area and nearly
of an appropriate scale, are unfocused.
I would rather, for at least the next five years, that they made the reversing
of the cuts, redressing of unfairness, attention to social justice and the
rebuilding of the welfare state their primary goals. The various nationalisations of natural monopolies (energy, rail,
water, Openreach, etc), while essential, could be moved
into second place. Perhaps even deferred to a second term. This would create greater headroom to rebuild our broken state and begin to unify society.
However, again, and it pains me to say it, I must admit that the third and
final major area of policy is more important than either of these.
I fear that the linked existential risks of climate
collapse and large-scale species extinction must, at the moment, override
everything else. This must provide the main guide to which party to vote for in the coming election.
I fully admit that this is interwoven with the other two
areas. The USA trying to keep climate
change concerns out of proposed future post-Brexit Trade Deal negotiations shows this clearly. However, I think it is possible to use this area
as the core for our decision-making as an electorate.
-
The Green proposals are unsurprisingly the gold
standard in this area. They’ve set the
right targets, and the measures they propose and level of necessary investment to
transition at speed to a net zero carbon economy by 2030 seem essentially correct. They’ve thought about it hard, and for a long
time.
-
The SNP and Plaid Cymru are nearly on the same
page, but they each have problems driving the transition. The former have yet to say how they will
address their dependence on the oil and gas industry, while the latter will
need to find clarity about how their farmers will be supported to make the
needed changes, and how quickly. The SNP also seem to seeing IndyRef2 as at least equally important.
-
The Labour party also clearly understand the problem, and
have proposals which nearly equal those of the Greens. They appear to grasp the problems involved in
transitioning the whole economy, and are proposing investment which should
solve the majority of problems, and may also provide real export opportunities. They have however been mealy-mouthed about
the zero-carbon target, only suggesting delivery by ‘the 2030s’. This needs to be a harder-edged goal.
-
The Lib Dems are yet to realise how urgent this
is. Although they are proposing
investment, and they seem to understand many of the challenges, to aim to fix
the problem by 2045 is far too late.
- Sadly, in this area, and unlike the others, the Conservative
proposals are woeful, and wholly inadequate to the challenge. They have no real concrete plans for the
transition of the economy. Even their
much-touted ban on fracking is only temporary.
Their leader could not even be bothered to attend the Channel 4 debate
on the subject, instead sending the understrapper Gove, who was rightly turned
away. But more than this, they just have
not grasped the critical importance of the issue, as their manifesto and public
pronouncements show.
So there you have it.
On the biggest threat to our country and our lives, the Tories have
nothing to offer. This is truly
frightening. But at least it makes
things clear.
If you care about the lives of your children and
grandchildren, if you care about our country, you cannot vote for the
Conservatives. They are so dangerous to
the UK, to the planet, and to the natural world.
Therefore, whoever leads whichever party, there is one,
simple answer.
Each one of us must vote the best way we can to defeat the local
Tory candidate. Do the research, and lend
your vote to the person who is best placed to beat them in your local constituency.
For the sake of us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment