'This election is, in fact, very important, as it will solidify Tory rule, but it is also devoid of much content. May will be “strong and stable” and Corbyn will have played his part in the revolution that didn’t come'.-The Guardian.
The General Election of 2017 is boring on the face of it but it remains curiously interesting as a sort of detached brain challenging puzzle to be worked out, as might a cryptic crossword or the plot of a detective story or trying to fathom out and break codes. The most interesting part is working out what words and positions really mean.
May just is an intentionally grey cyborg who repeats positions stubbornly over and over again 'strong and stable government' as against 'coalition of chaos' , enlivened with the danger flash word 'Corbyn !'. This reduced the election choice to one of national security because of Brexit and utter fear of the alternative.
May's stubborn cyborg position is calculated to annoy those who would not like her anyway. She has no, of very little, in the way of a discernable or 'authentic' personality beyond being an imperious, grey and icy Gloriana pose designed to indicate that she has a strategy on Brexit, but also that a New Leader must be ruthless and cold.
The reason is that the era of being 'nice and decent', of really believing in schemes for world improvement and the human rights for all everywhere where Britain can act as a beacon, is over. Bureaucratic callousness is to be the new norm-as is 'we don't care'-when coming to trades deals with dictators or immigration.
With business-as-usual with the Gulf States meaning further destabilisation in that region, Britain is being repositioned by May to be a Great Power that regards everything from pure calculations of profit, gain and loss according to the ruthless pursuit of interests as interests alone, national and individual.
Naturally, in the New Global Great Game for bilateral trade ties and securing resources, Britain needs to maintain the moral high ground by pretending it is primarily interested in its brand on 'Democracy Promotion' and rebranding historic role as a liberating force as regards slavery and so on. This is known as 'public diplomacy'.
So despite what many British people claim, they always like to regard themselves as fair and decent, there is a demand for a leader who does strictly what is necessary for national survival in the new emerging world order of the 21st century. May long wanted a British bill of rights. so the 'weakness' of universalism is over.
Britain is set to follow the new model of authoritarian national government and taking back control as the federal project of the EU fragments and disintegrates. Hard borders, surveillance state, national security. May has positioned herself as that sort of functionary while also having authentic Christian values.
May has realised what Machiavelli taught: the people claim to want a leader who embodies decency and morality but secretly want a leader also of steel who is not going to cave in through weakness and the desire only to be liked. Corbyn, of course, is the alternative, the man of warmth who preaches the need for the opposite.
Corbyn is actually quite a determined intellectual with deeply held anger against hypocrisy, though it's unclear whether his good anger at injustice and cruelty does not shade in part towards a moral nihilism that is prevalent within the leading self appointed spokesmen of the risible Stop the War Coalition.
Corbyn is trying on portraying a 'warmer' style of politics as a brand opposed to May's 'heartless' image but it's destined to fail. The reason is obvious: most people don't want it and, even if many of his policies strike a chord and are popular, Corbyn has to ignore Brexit because his party is not united on its approach.
Corbyn as leader is going to be targeted for a systematic and controlled demolition as the elections proceeds and he is focused on with drone and laser like intensity and taken out as national security threat. Blithely naïve, he believes if he appears as decent, he will escape the accusation of being sinister and anti-British.
Corbyn should make a principled last stand, taking on accusations he 'supports Hamas and Hizbollah' by claiming that far more terrorism is generated by Saudi backing for jihadists in the Middle East and emphasising how the 9/11 Wars generated terrible blowback. He won't do this, though, because he is ultimately a weakling.
Corbyn should really have gone for his radical anti-Establishment position, using his anti-war stances as an asset to be deployed to check in advance the forthcoming attacks. But, alas, 24 hours after the Trump missile strikes, he emerged like he'd been hiding, looking tired and trotting out wooden platitudes about peace and political settlement.
It was that moment it was clear Corbyn has no energy or ability to round on those attacking him as a 'Kremlin stooge'. He still thinks he has all the time in the world to slowly build up a platform and policies over the long term and to ignore 'their demonisation' and panto politics to put forth an alternative vision.
He does not have much time left and his fate is entirely sealed.