Nobody has monopoly over decency; so why do Corbynites wrongly assume that they do? | Chris Rose
As the festive Christmas season has come to an end, with leftover turkey and remaining bottles of Prosecco being included into every meal, we’ve endured family gatherings with the subject Brexit thankfully not popping up. A peaceful, joyous occasion with the annual moaning of the Queen’s Christmas message because Her Majesty mentioned poverty whilst not being filmed in a poverty stricken setting, which apparently isn’t allowed according to social media.
However, Christmas is no excuse for Corbynites to take a break from opportunistic sanctimonious preaching, this would less excruciating if it was done in a moral tone where self reflection is explored, but a sanctimonious manner usually results in being easy on oneself or fellow believers and hard on others.
Whether it’s re writing the Christian message of the birth of Jesus or responding to messages of good will with spam about food banks usage, in a flippant message which insinuates all claimants are in this situation for the exact same reason, which just happens to miraculously be perfectly aligned to the Corbynites narrative, you’ll find them.
This type of behaviour should not surprise to any of us by now, as the general perceived consensus is that only those who unapologetically support Jeremy Corbyn want a better NHS; better public services; better transport; better housing and better education. To them, it couldn’t possibly be true that a huge number of people disagree with his solutions, lack of leadership, or ambiguity on Brexit. The irony is that the supreme leader is now the greatest impediment to a Labour government, or even an effective opposition party for that matter.
No single mainstream political party has monopoly over decency, we all want to make it easier for individuals to prosper in Britain, but with a different set of methods to accomplish those goals. It’s really that simple, however, those who spew venomous hostility at anyone who votes Conservative, attempt to justify it with ludicrous, unproven claims that they voted for austerity to kill hundreds of thousands of people, protecting ones own interests at the expense of decimating public services.
According to WorldBank the GDP on health expenditure has significantly increased annually compared to the pre crash in 2007, as well as the Treasury PESA/ONS showing that the UK public spending on health, per head has increased in real terms to £21,98 in 2017. Employment has also risen at a healthy rate with the UK’s budget deficit now at its lowest since 2002-03, leaving the UK with the biggest surplus since 2001 of £13 billion, excluding net investment, not exactly what myself and millions of other Conservative voters supposedly voted for.
Neoliberalism has helped to reduce global poverty and boost living standards on an unparalleled level. An ideology which has successfully lifted 137,000 people out of poverty, provided 600,000 people with safer water and a supply of electricity, accompanied by gaining 620,000 people online for the first time. I don’t particularly see any shame in supporting this as oppose to another ideology which has never accomplished this, but that’s just me living in the real world.
A noticeable tactic amongst Corbynites is to create a wish list, label those demands on the wish list as a “human right”, propose increasing taxes for everyone, including the poorest in society, to pay for such ideas. If anyone on the political left opposes this wish list then they are classed as “neoliberal”, even if they have opposed neoliberalism their whole life. For Conservatives who oppose such as wish list, the usual terms of “heartless”, “uncompassionate” to “supporters of state manslaughter” are regurgitated. This is certainly not a good example of political discourse, neither is this a constructive method for a case as to why Conservatives are supposedly wrong.
I would never claim that only Conservatives and Brexiteers have monopoly over patriotism or the desire to see a nation that is safe and secure, that would be silly of me, but Corbynistes feel that this method is justified on other topics.
Sadly, the late Paddy Ashdown passed away recently, I had noticed a viral photograph of the late Paddy Ashdown with John Major and Tony Blair displaying how political discourse between 3 different political figures was before it became so toxic and oversimplified. The current leadership in Labour certainly have played a role in the toxic environment, the sinister shadow chancellor John McDonnell declaring that he couldn’t be friends with a Tory, or openly declaring “a situation where no Tory MP…can travel anywhere in the country or show their face anywhere in public without being challenged by direct action”, not exactly the gentler, kinder politics we were promised in 2015.
John McDonnell is a more dangerous figure than Jeremy Corbyn, not because his views are anymore extreme, but because he smarter than Corbyn, smart enough to know that instead of telling us where the money will come from to take over all the industries they want to renationalise, it’s far more effective to his core supporters to create the image of the Conservatives and big businesses being the enemy of anything bad in Britain, which Blairites previously also did to a lesser extent, ironically this very same tactic is now even used on Blairites from Corbynites.
Of course, I know this does speak for all, any some of you will have good relationships with people who have strong differing views on key issues, I strongly hope in 2019 political discourse improves where effective communication has been replaced with a delusional high horse perception. My own feeling is that British politics seeing the back of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell would be a good start.