Corbyn talks principles. He’s a radical who talks about
challenging the Establishment and addressing the wealth gap between rich and
poor, thus making Britain
a fairer place for the population as a whole. He talks about the need to change
the system that runs the show in Britain.
The problem with this is that principles are already
entrenched in the minds of the committed righties and lefties, but it isn’t
they who determine the outcome of elections. The floating voters do, and
floating voters are generally not interested in principles however laudable
they might be. Floating voters want to be told that they will be a little more
prosperous, that their children will be able to go to ‘better schools’, and to
be encouraged in their belief that Britain is still a major world power.
May is anything but a radical, and when she talks of
principles they’re the nice comfy sort which fence sitters want to believe in.
So May does the classic, low grade Thatcher thespian act and talks about things
like not increasing taxes, thus appealing to the middle ground who are the ones
who make the difference.
This all paints a picture of Corbyn as a mostly honest and
honourable man who genuinely has the cause of egalitarianism at heart. And such
would be true whether you agree with him or not. May, on the other hand, is the
classic opportunist – the rat in human clothing, the sort who goes for the
easiest target, the type of politician who gets elected by appealing to fence
sitters who fear any wind, good or bad, that might rock the boat.
And that’s why I don’t think Jeremy has much of a chance on
June 8th. I think it’s a shame, but I think it’s true.
* * *
The other big election taking place in Europe
at the moment is the one for the French presidency. I admit to knowing very
little about the French political system, but I was intrigued by something M
Macron said after taking the lead in the first ballot. He said he wanted to
appeal to ‘patriots, not nationalists.’
Although we have to consider the matter of translation here,
the statement still raises an interesting question of semantics. In some
contexts, and to people of a certain mindset, the two concepts are effectively
synonymous. So why did he say it?
I suspect this is another political ploy, although I would
say that it is cleverer and subtler than most political ploys. I should think
that it was intended to defuse far right fervour by placing doubt in the minds
of those of such persuasion. As such, I think it might be described as a kind
of sophistry, but probably an acceptable kind given its evident transparency.
And M Macron’s victory has produced one surprising result:
Marine le Pen has turned her back on her background, which I suspect will
work to her disadvantage. This suggests to me that Mlle le Pen is more desperate
than M Macron, and probably not as clever.
No comments:
Post a Comment