A Theresa May election victory would be a disaster for Britain. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA
The election of Emmanuel Macron was met with relief by liberals and progressives across Britain. Not that they were necessarily in love with all the ex-bankers policies, but it meant that at least France, and Europe, was saved from a hard rightwinger whose election would have sowed division and inflamed tensions.
Given such a stark choice, the idea that some on the French left could have abstained or spoiled their ballot papers was, on this side of the channel, met with some bafflement.
So why do so many of these same liberal or progressive voters not use the same logic when considering their own vote in the forthcoming UK election?
With every passing day its clear we are facing a huge choice on 8 June. Theresa May has channelled her inner Dalek for the past three weeks; strong and stable; strengthen my hand; coalition of chaos. Shes maxed-out on the idea that this election is all about competence, and has virtually nothing to say on how shed actually run the country, or deal with the contradictions brought about by Brexit: access to the single market, the damage to the economy, the Irish border.
In these past few days, though, weve been starting to learn what shed do. Its a powerful reminder why a May election victory would be a disaster for Britain, even if she is obviously not as extreme as Marine Le Pen. She wants to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, even though this would mean cutting off the supply of labour that has helped Britain recover from years of austerity. Where would the nurses, care workers, builders and high-skilled employees come from or the overseas students who bring in so much revenue?
Amid all the crises Britain will face over the next few years, May thinks its time to promise a vote on foxhunting. She wants more grammar schools even though its clear to anyone who considers the evidence that this does nothing for social mobility. The only liberal policy May has on energy pricing is one she nicked from Labour and was trashing only two years ago.
The prime minister says only she can get a good deal from Europe, but shes been making enemies across the Channel. Her scurrilous accusation that the EU is interfering in a British election will win her no friends, and no concessions, in Brussels. She may talk tough, and think it plays well in the UK to be a bloody difficult woman, but in Europe, where it really counts, she has set back Britains cause and could end up with no deal at all.
So why are so many progressives so keen to help her by instead of focusing on all the negatives of a future May government, directing their anger at Jeremy Corbyn?
Yes, hes flawed too; hes not a great performer, and so far the signs of him rescuing the party are patchy, to say the least. But on 8 June we have a simple choice. Itll be either Labour or Conservative. And in terms of policy theres only one of these two parties that any liberal or progressive could want running the country. The party of the rich, of the bankers, of austerity for the many and tax breaks for the few? Really? The party that leaves the NHS on its knees, cuts back on schools and access to universities, bashes the working poor and people with disabilities, demonises the jobless, and fuels fears about migrants?
And all of this in lockstep with its cheerleaders at the Daily Mail, which sees the party as a partner for its vile agenda of scapegoating minorities and taking Britain back to the 1950s.
Forget Corbyns personality and his problems of cut-through. What is it about his policy proposals that progressives can dislike especially now we have the leaked manifesto, with its pledges on rail nationalisation, workers rights and education? Many might prefer a Labour pledge to stay in Europe, but that would be electoral suicide given last years referendum result and where the partys working-class base is right now.
The Liberal Democrats would reverse Brexit which I would love too but a vote for this party, which made no progress in last weeks local elections, would in effect be wasted. The party will have a maximum of 40 MPs after the election (and even that seems unlikely) and will in no way be able to keep a Conservative prime minister in check.
On tax, Labour will not touch the 95% of the workforce earning below 80,000. But by taking money from those high earners, and corporations too, it will give a cash injection to schools and the NHS. It will also build a million new homes, introduce a real living wage, and protect pensioners (most of whom are living on the breadline rather than living in mansions, as the popular stereotype would have you believe). I could go on.
The next four weeks will determine who runs the country for the next five years. We all know its very likely to be Theresa May, but theres still a lot to play for no one can tell how big her majority might be. If its under 40 then an opposition can hold her to account and put pressure to get the worst aspects of her agenda off the statute books.
But if progressives sit on their hands, and spend the next month whingeing about why they want another Labour leader, May could end up with a landslide and her nasty, divisive politics will be embedded into our way of life. No, shes not Le Pen, but five years is a very long time; imagine spending that period having to listen to endless stories of public services being slashed, of the growing numbers on low wages and zero-hours work, of Britains isolation from our closest neighbours, seeing more of May cosying up to Donald Trump (that state visit is still planned for the autumn).
It boils down to what kind of future you want to see for your country. If you think itll be a tough choice on 8 June then just think of France. Really, in truth, its all very simple.
Read this article:
Why Corbyn-bashing liberals must vote Labour on 8 June - The Guardian