by KULVEER RANGER
THE final furlong of this sprint election¬†and Brexit still looms large on the¬†political horizon but it is the dark¬†cloud that the horrific events in Manchester¬†have cast that I believe will¬†weigh heavy on the minds of the electorate¬†on June 8th.
Yes, we have seen a battle of leadership¬†styles between May and Corbyn.¬†However the Manchester attack has¬†brought into sharp focus the issue¬†of security and the reasonable question,¬†who do we trust with our¬†national security?
Firstly, on the global stage, it is hard¬†to remember a time where there was so¬†much tension and volatility. The world¬†has a seen the rise of nationalistic leaders¬†that have no qualms to posture and¬†flex their testosterone fuelled rhetoric¬†‚Äď and to be clear we are talking about
Russia, North Korea and the USA.
In this tense environment the United¬†Kingdom has and will continue to¬†have a significant role when it comes to¬†international diplomacy and security.¬†We will need pragmatism, steady
calmness, and a leader who can¬†build bridges.
Mr Corbyn is not this type of leader.¬†It is clear he is bound to a dated ideology¬†that could negate his ability to be¬†both effective, let alone influential. His¬†belief in nuclear disarmament is laudable¬†but not in sync with the world‚Äôs¬†current issues.
He is untried, untested and frankly,¬†with his limited leadership skills, he¬†could easily be seen as the Mr Bean of¬†Britain by other international leaders¬†‚Äď out of touch and out of his depth.
Alternatively, Mrs May has been the¬†longest serving home secretary for over¬†sixty years and as the PM has shown a¬†steady hand when dealing with the ego¬†of President Trump, the early salvos¬†with the president of the European¬†Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker,¬†and even her handling of the recent G7¬†gathering, whilst in the midst of an¬†election and a terror incident.
Whether you like Mrs May or not,¬†she has demonstrated the calmness¬†and authority that is the hallmark of¬†all good leaders.
But there is more. Leaders need¬†support and when it comes to security,¬†a home secretary needs to be able to¬†step up and this is nearly always in¬†times of tension and crisis.¬†At those moments when people are¬†scared and want answers the person¬†entrusted with our national security¬†must be able to deliver the messages¬†that will make people believe that the¬†right decisions, actions and choices¬†are being made for the safety of us, our¬†families and our country.
I do not believe Diane Abbott could¬†be this person. Her track record in politics¬†gives no indication that she could¬†deliver when the chips are down ‚Äď from¬†recently ‚Äúmisspeaking‚ÄĚ when try to explain¬†policies to waffling through¬†serious questions about her¬†and her leader‚Äôs previously¬†held views on the IRA,¬†MI5 and Al-Qaeda.¬†She seemed to align¬†the fluidity of their views¬†to be as significant as¬†changing hair styles. It¬†is hard to argue that she¬†has the credibility or political¬†capital required to¬†lead our police, secure¬†our borders and direct¬†the security¬†services.
On the other¬†hand, the current¬†home secretary,¬†Amber Rudd, despite¬†being a relative¬†novice has been sure footed, competent¬†and has not brought any such¬†baggage to her office.
I appreciate there are weighty arguments¬†for and against individual politicians,¬†their characters, their history,¬†their party‚Äôs policies and even, whether¬†they are just all the same.
But the number one priority of¬†any government is to keep its people¬†safe. To defend its country‚Äôs¬†interests and also to ensure fairness¬†and a sustainable relationship¬†between the state and the citizen.¬†With this in mind I will vote¬†Conservative, not because¬†a ‚Äėstrong and stable‚Äô slogan¬†has attracted my vote,¬†but my desire for¬†a safe and sustainable¬†future.
Views in this column¬†do not necessarily¬†reflect those of¬†the newspaper.