On June 8, Britons will elect a new Parliament. Two politicians could become prime minister: the current prime minister, Theresa May of the Conservative Party (approximately the equivalent GOP), and Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party (analogous to the Democratic Party).
May, as is the prime minister’s prerogative, called this election at this time. With Brexit on the horizon, Corbyn still unable to find his footing, and the Labour Party looking weak and directionless, it’s obvious May and the Conservatives have the upper hand. The Manchester terror attack only exacerbates Corbyn’s weakness and May’s strength, it seems.
This played out Monday night as May and Corbyn held a sort-of debate. Sort of, in that May and Corbyn didn’t actually face off. Instead, they took turns taking questions from a live studio audience and a journalist, Jeremy Paxman. Leading in the polls and reluctant to take risks, May has refused to debate Corbyn face-to-face.
Corbyn was first up. An audience member asked how he would confront Daesh (Islamic State). Instead of using military force, Corbyn said he would restrict Daesh’s access to weapons, funds, and propaganda. It was a weak start. Asked about his plan to raise taxes, Corbyn suggested “taxing more, a bit” was necessary to fund government services. The deficit is not a Corbyn concern.
Back to security issues, Corbyn was asked whether he would ever use nuclear weapons. His response wasn’t exactly compelling: “I want to live in a world that’s free from the danger of a nuclear holocaust.” Pushed on this issue, Corbyn said he would “write the appropriate letters.” Here, the Labour leader was referring to letters directing military commanders to launch nuclear strikes if London is annihilated. It’s a critical issue, but one Corbyn always hedges on.
Sitting down with renowned inquisitor, Jeremy Paxman, Corbyn’s discomfort was more obvious. He refused to clarify his position on Brexit (what he would demand as part of any deal with the European Union). Nor would he commit to a reduction in immigration (a key voter concern due to pressures on housing and health services). Still, with the Manchester attack (one week ago, today) fresh in voter minds, Corbyn’s weakest moment came on counterterrorism. Asked whether he would authorize a drone strike on a terrorist leader plotting U.K. attacks, Corbyn equivocated. Then, amazingly, Corbyn doubled down on his previous descriptions of Osama bin Laden’s killing as “a tragedy”.
Corbyn finished, May entered the stage.
Her first audience question came from a police officer (traditionally, a reliable Conservative voter bloc). The officer wanted to know why May had presided over cuts to police numbers. May’s response was crisp, but she struggled to address cuts to armed police officers since 2010. When asked whether those cuts were a mistake, May failed to do so.
The prime minister was on stronger ground when asked about her plans to reform Britain’s assisted living system. Those reforms will raise costs for some seniors but will reduce taxpayer burdens. May’s justification was simple. “We need to do it and do it in a way that is fairer for younger generations.” Though controversial, May’s leadership here sets her apart from Corbyn in the eyes of many voters. Corbyn is seen as promising infinite cake. May is seen as a leader for tough times.
And May is well aware of her positioning opportunity here. If governing effectively requires being “a difficult woman, then that is exactly what I will be”, she said. Asked about education plans, May argued that school choice reforms and teacher standards are as important as school funding. Britain’s debate on this issue is similar to those in the United States.
Like Corbyn, facing Paxman’s interrogation, May’s performance was mixed. While she was again strong in defending her senior care reforms, May became angry when Paxman pushed her on flip-flops.
May’s commitment to Brexit brought her best moment. She pledged to resist [anti-Brexit campaigners] who seek to “frustrate the will of the British people.” May also reaffirmed that “no deal would be better than a bad deal.” This helps May because Corbyn’s Labour is commonly viewed as uncommitted either to Brexit or to remaining in the EU. May’s Brexit-clarity earns her support from Labour leaning voters in marginal districts.
Ultimately, British voters are aware that this election is unusually important. But in the end, May’s advantage (as rendered by the polls) is quite simple. In an era of terrorism, Brexit, and political doubt, she is seen as a safe pair of hands. Corbyn is not.
Tom Rogan is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
