Three reasons why labour must form the next UK Government

The current government’s plans for the future are alarming, but there is a genuine alternative

Following Theresa Mays’ announcement of a snap election last April, broadcasting regulations have forced British TV stations to give equal airtime to both major parties, and in conjunction with the publication of the Labour Party’s election manifesto this seems to have been a factor in the Conservatives’ huge lead in the polls shrinking to a small margin. However, given the sheer importance of this election for the country’s future, there are still surprisingly many people who will vote for a party which manifestly does not have the nation’s interest at heart – a fact that’s all the more surprising given that the benefits of a future Labour government are so very obvious.

Among the many reasons for this unambiguity there are three factors which highlight the necessity of Jeremy Corbyn’s victory against the background of Britain’s future role in the world.

Let’s start with national security. There have been three substantial terrorist attacks within three months, two of which were committed during the last few weeks before the general election on 8 June. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, has been widely criticised for her policies concerning the security services, first as Home Secretary for six years, then as Prime Minister, culminating in calls for her to resign. David Cameron’s former strategic aide, Steve Hilton, has pointed out the implausibility of Mrs May’s attack on the MI5, considering that she was in command of the same institution for six years. As is the case with every other area of the current government’s actions, security policy should also be viewed as a direct result of their six-year-long programme of extreme austerity; it is thus hardly unexpected that an institution’s ability to act is affected when it is starved of funds. The same is true for the police, whose forces have been reduced by as many as 20,000 officers over the past few years. Despite the May camp’s insistence that what’s crucial for police work is the powers they are given, the fact remains that the fewer police officers are available, the higher the risk of any sort of crime – including terrorism – becomes.

Another key factor in dealing with terrorism is, of course, foreign policy (which I have discussed previously). There is a country which more than anyone is responsible for the spread of dangerous extremist ideas – I think we all know which one it is – and which, nonetheless, is a happy participant in major UK arms deals. In the past few years alone, the Conservative government has sold several billions of pounds’ worth of weapons to a regime which exports its Wahhabi world-view wherever it can throughout the world. It uses those weapons to supply extremist elements in the region and to inundate it with wars, thus further fuelling the flames which inevitably produce the kind of rancour which eventually leads to extremism. The current government consistently evades the ethical questions which arise from such deals and the sociological consequences that result from it; Mr Corbyn has picked up his rival’s announcement of the need for “difficult conversations” to be had about extremism to demand they be held over Saudi Arabia’s role in disseminating such ideas. He furthermore attacked Mrs May for suppressing a Home Office report, commissioned by her predecessor, which is believed to contain evidence of Saudi support for extremist organisations, stating that “we have to get serious about cutting off the funding to these terror networks”. His track record as a Member of Parliament suggests that he would do what he believes in.

As we can see, we have one candidate whose only response to such urgent questions consists of truisms, and one who has demonstrated his understanding of and a willingness to engage with the roots of the problem, and has committed his party to the employment of 10,000 new police officers.

A second reason for the need of a Labour government is public services. Most people would agree that, flawed though they may be, they are a good thing in principle: they enable us to walk on reasonably well-maintained streets, provide safety in many aspects of life and give healthcare to those in need. The underlying concept, however, is not a Tory idea; the National Health Service, for example, was introduced by a Labour government – defying Conservative ideology – and has, despite its uncontested value, been under constant shelling whenever there was a Tory government. Despite their assurances, do not be fooled: The Tories underfund the NHS because they do not believe in traditional Labour ideas – but the institution’s high popularity prevents them from admitting it, so they opt for gradual destruction via privatisation, whilst pretending that one of the world’s richest countries is not in a position to offer health provision to its citizens.

The Labour Party, on the other hand, has pledged to rejuvenate the NHS: if elected, they will spend more than £30 billion pounds on the institution over the next five years and reverse its privatisation, halting the current trend to turn people’s health into yet another business opportunity. Unsurprisingly, the NHS’s creators will ensure its continued existence and functioning.

The third point regards Britain’s upcoming negotiations to leave the European Union. Mrs May’s recent attempts to establish herself as a tough negotiator, promoted by pompous language and a deluded belief in Britain’s ability to call the tune, have come as a somewhat glaring contradiction to her pre-referendum stance; at the same time, her party has tried to portray Mr Corbyn and his team as weak and unqualified potential delegates. This could not be further from the truth: Labour’s chosen chief negotiator, Keir Starmer, is a calm, highly competent politician whose professional background (he is a barrister) means he is well-equipped to work in that capacity; he has strongly criticised the Prime Minister’s combative tone, and has set forth his approach to the negotiations emphasising the need for a measured, flexible, but firm strategy. In circumstances deeply unfavourable to Britain, Mrs May proclaims she will be a “bloody difficult woman to deal with”, whereas Mr Corbyn’s team recognise the necessity for a deal which seeks to limit damage to the country and appreciate the importance of skilled diplomacy. Mrs May’s conduct can only partly be explained by her career’s dependence on an angrily anti-European Tory base; she knows that a failure to reach a – under the circumstances – mutually beneficial deal will render her party’s (already announced) plans to turn the United Kingdom into a Bahamas-style tax haven more realistic.

It would not exactly be a groundbreaking revelation to note that Theresa May’s claims of being the “strong and stable” candidate to lead the negotiations seem slightly ridiculous when viewed in the context of an abysmally incompetent election campaign, defined by lies, clumsily justified u-turns, contradictions and characterised by a sabre-rattling language that would have done Kaiser Wilhelm II proud. Whenever a government has to resort to accusing its opponent of such cheap and vulgar characterisations as “unpatriotic”, its desperate attempt to deceive voters immediately becomes clear. Any candidate who offers anything of substance will simply focus on the issues – as Mr Corbyn does.

Surveys suggest that the Tories will once again win the election, but ask yourself this: with a difference between potential governments this profound, one does not need to be a Labour supporter to recognise that electing the latter is the only attainable way to stop the Conservatives from turning Britain into the anarcho-capitalist wasteland they envisage, as well as the only political force that can limit the future damage inflicted by David Cameron’s decision to call a referendum.

None of this is to say that if Labour wins, it will result in a flawless and infallible government; it will, like every government, inevitably face problems resulting from its own weaknesses and, above all, a degree of hostility from a range of very powerful forces which no previous government has ever had to cope with. But given the uncommonly high stakes entailed by this general election, it is of vital importance that sanity and common sense define the nation’s future at this crucial point in history.

Photo credits: By Rwendland – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52502808