I'm not sure if it's just me but with 38 days to go until the Labour Party elect a new leader it feels a bit like everyone may have peaked too soon.
Last week the Liberal Democrats quietly elected Tim Faron as their leader, giving him 5 years to build his party's policies for the next election.
Labour supporters and consequently the press (and it was that way round; the noise started on Twitter first) have treated the election of a new leader as if it were the General Election itself.
I can see why. Labour has lost its way as a political party and its supporters don't want another Tony Blair, so this choice of leader seems really important.
I'm not a member of the Labour Party (or any party as I'm too anti-social to do parties) but I like to vote for them. I want to vote for a party that cares about the people who can't care for themselves. I didn't vote for them once after hearing someone (I can't remember who) from the Labour Party say that people who don't use the NHS,or something like that, should get a refund from their National Insurance. No matter how loudly I shouted, "It's an insurance policy not a savings scheme," at the radio I could tell that the Labour Party had abandoned all hope of protecting the people who can't in favour of making sure that those who can keep as much money as possible. That is a value many people will have but the Conservative party is already there for them.
Again, I can see how this happened. After the lovely Neil Kinnock (I did like him. In fact, I had a bit of a crush!) lost the 1992 election, which he fought on principals of fairness and equality the Labour Party knew it had a problem. They should have won that election but Margaret Thatcher had changed the mind-set of the country forever. People had learnt to put themselves first and that money was the most important thing; being aspirational was all about having more money. There just weren't enough people left in the Country who didn't believe that. Those of us who felt differently were clearly in the minority. Tony Blair arrived with his 'New Labour' charismatic smile, blue ties and adopted a 'if you can't beat them join them' policy. It worked and Labour won. In the time they were in power they funded the NHS, schools, police and libraries. They introduced a national minimum wage, set up the equality and human rights commission, brought in paternity leave, reduced unemployment and brokered lasting peace talks in Northern Ireland. They started SingUp and made it a free resource for schools and funded a scheme called Wider Ops to get children playing a musical instrument in school. Many schools didn't use this funding properly but it was there and it isn't now.
The Labour supporters on Social Media have become very excited, almost hysterical, about a quiet principled man called Jeremy Corbyn. He is saying everything that those of us who voted (or would have voted) for Kinnock want to hear.
I don't know much about him but I do remember reading that he and his wife divorced because they disagreed on the education their children would receive. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2 He didn't want his children to go to a grammar school and his wife thought that would give them the best chances. He is clearly a man who sticks to his principles but he still lost. I confess, I'm suspicious of him, as a person, because he is unable to joke.
 |
| photo from the BBC |
What about the other candidates?
Andy Burnham is a bit too dull and Northern with sad puppy dog eyes and the other two are just women, one of whom is married to Ed Balls (no one likes Ed Balls) and the other isn't even married and is probably a witch. [This is sarcasm if you don't know me]
I get it now. Given those choices, they have to vote for a man in a beige vest and hysterically hype.
I just wish they'd calm down a bit. Another 38 days of this before we can even see how the man will be as an opposition leader might send me over the edge.
No comments:
Post a Comment