It is that time of the year again. As the Tories rant on for 5 4.8 more years in Westminster, over how much David Cameron wants Great Britain to stay in the EU, surrounded by a package of moderate reform proposals, we are also in deep waters about the position of Labour leaders. But first things first, how much trouble is the government in?
Not much, as authoritative sources consent to making the EU exit clause, on the back of which David Cameron, and his party, came to power, to be a risky venture, pictorially. That it is. Cameron has said that he wants the country to remain in the EU and his first priority is, without powdering it too much, the foreign policy and defence services.
This has obviously been tailored, his intentions, as a means to win support from EU leaders, because he seeks greater balance of demands coming his way, on the EU equilibrium. So, where does this bring the ideal leadership contestant into the picture? The point is that it’s hard to determine who to vote for, when not one of the candidates seem to be one you would like to vote for.
I seem to be stuck in that 18percent of Labour supporters, who do not like any of the candidates, who have stepped forward for election. That is why, I am going to do just, what I believe is the best assessment of the current “little situation” of a conflict-of-interest: I am going to vote for New Labour.
This is not an eccentric discussion, because recent polls in the Evening Standard, have placed Tony Blair as the most-liked “fictional” Labour candidate, ahead of senior figureheads in the party, such as Clement Attlee and Neil Kinnock. It was surprising to learn that people’s perspectives have so diametrically gone in a direction different to the one that was in existence for Blair, a couple of months back.
But this shows how a crisis can bring out the best and the worst in people: Attlee was a beacon of socialism, of a welfare state. Blair is pro-New Labour, he is for market economics, he is pro-modernisation. So, there is a drastic linear difference in the two perspectives. When you think about the future Prime Minister, you think about what you would like to see.
Would you like to see a person, who believes in “equal opportunity for all” or someone who believes in “equality” ? They are two very different things, and one is entitled to their opinions, but is there a right or a wrong here? The truth is that there isn’t any. Equality means revolutionizing the state, something Attlee believed in, whilst having access to the same opportunity, as the individual next to you means that you get to live a better life than before. Why don’t we wait and watch how it unfolds but meanwhile, after so much heckling to try to keep the United Kingdom inside the EU, one political step at a time, would be great for Westminster.