I wouldn't rush to call right-wing nationalism "has arrived". The reason she will win a landslide is because she's the only credible-seeming candidate. As such, it's hard to equate her winning with an extreme shift in public attitudes. She would likely win without many of the stances we consider extreme, given the current political landscape.
While I won't vote for her, I have to concede that the alternatives do not instil any greater confidence despite being vastly more ethically aligned with my views.
i.e., she just happens to be a horrible person; she isn't winning because of it
This is an important distinction, as we are (in my opinion) still a far cry from the abyss of divisiveness currently entrenched in American politics, and the best way to keep out of that abyss is not to demonise a majority of the country for this coming election's outcome.
"still a far cry from the abyss of divisiveness currently entrenched in American politics"
I think we're in a worse position. Trump will, all being well, go away in 4 years. The results of Brexit will last for decades.
Corbyn is dreadful in many ways, but ultimately I wonder who I could defend voting for to my future grandchildren. An inept and eccentric beardy socialist or a sly operator stoking up right wing nationalism? That choice is easier.
May's "credibility" is hard to pin down. She changes her opinion often and shows herself to be a sly and shrewd political chameleon than someone with real convictions (other than for damaging civil liberties). Even where Corbyn's convictions get kooky, at least he seems to stick with and believe in them.
Note, I did not say that this government will cause less long-term harm than Trump. Only that our political landscape is not as divisive (although it may during Brexit be nearly as divided).
However I think we are on the same road to irreconcilable divisions, just a little less far along. But we should be doing all we can to not get there, and any such efforts are probably harmed by attributing "right-wing nationalism" as the motivation to half the voting populace.
While it may be that there are "right-wing" and "nationalist" tendencies in certain segments of society right now, the composite phrase "right-wing nationalism" is pejorative and evokes Nazism, or neo-Nazism, which clearly isn't going to encourage a rapprochement between voters for Theresa May and those who may otherwise convince them of the problems with some of her policies and politics.
When the public consider all of the competition a joke - however reasonably or not - it's probably good to remember that (especially since most people are not policy wonks, or even readers of much news, let alone unbiased news) this does not mean they strongly endorse any of Theresa May's policies, only that they prefer her over the alternatives.
So it may be better to prepare to convince them to join you in a few years time than label them the enemy today.
> Even where Corbyn's convictions get kooky, at least he seems to stick with and believe in them.
You mean except where he (poorly) pretends to follow Labour policy and claims he will support things against his own beliefs... :p
Brexit is a God Damned mess, but it won't get any better by allowing negotiations to be managed by a weak Government. I can see two likely scenarios right now:
- Non-Tory coalition government, high levels of capitulation and a deal that is worse in every way that our pre brexit relationship.
- Strong Tory government leads to a game of brinksmanship with the EU and eventual no deal hard crash out.
The strategy of repeating "Strong and stable" at every single opportunity actually works.
Theresa may constantly u-turns and contradicts herself, but hey, she's strong and stable so we'll have a strong and stable brexit and become the greatest britain there ever was.
If we somehow manage to get a non-tory coalition, we will very likely negotiation for remaining in the EEA (aka soft brexit) which will be much better than any kind of hard brexit, not to mention much cheaper
Strong refers to strength of majority, I'm making no comment on her quality as a leader (but arguably I'm happy to posit that she's got better credentials at it than the opposition).
>If we somehow manage to get a non-tory coalition, we will very likely negotiation for remaining in the EEA (aka soft brexit) which will be much better than any kind of hard brexit, not to mention much cheaper
Right, I'm not arguing against that - just that it's far far worse than no brexit at all would have been. We will be paying more and getting less on every useful metric. It would also ignore basically all of the core rationales for those who voted Brexit (which Labour has asserted it wishes to respect).
It sounds like you agree with me on the likely outcome of the election results though, so cool?
While I won't vote for her, I have to concede that the alternatives do not instil any greater confidence despite being vastly more ethically aligned with my views.
i.e., she just happens to be a horrible person; she isn't winning because of it
This is an important distinction, as we are (in my opinion) still a far cry from the abyss of divisiveness currently entrenched in American politics, and the best way to keep out of that abyss is not to demonise a majority of the country for this coming election's outcome.