Written by Viktor Marakhovsky; Originally appeared on Politanalitika.ru, translated by AlexD exclusively for SouthFront
Alarming news comes from Great Britain. According to opinion polls, the Conservative party (which has already defeated Labour in 2014) will suffer even more in the local elections to be held in early May. Notably, it is expected that the Conservatives will lose about a hundred seats in London.
This, firstly, will make the British capital completely “red” (the discourse is not about the half-forgotten relationship between Labour and Socialist ideology, but simply a traditional colour division. Labour is red, Conservatives are blue. In the USA, the symbolically “Left-Liberal” Democrats are blue, and the Conservative Republicans are red).
Secondly, this result may become a signal to the British politicians that the remake of the Iron Lady at the head of the Conservative party, despite all efforts, still did not take place. And, it is possible, May as a project will be curtailed in the near future.
As the speaker of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Vyacheslav Volodin noted already at the end of March (with regard with the “Skripal case”), “If only it was exposed then all will become clear that the statement of this politician does not correspond to the truth, that all are led to deceptions, she will be left with nothing except with retirement”.
In this regard, it is worth recalling how Theresa May differs from its truly iron predecessor as Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Recall the original edition of the Iron Lady, coming to power in the late 1970s, in power for twelve years (including the general public’s personal hatred of Thatcher), but invariably delivering crushing victories in parliamentary elections. This was tied with the fact that Thatcher in fact appeared revolutionary. That is, she presented herself as an ultra-left reformer, called with the help of the most unpopular measures to demolish the established but clearly stalling and incapable in many respect to sustain itself system. And she carried out her work as a battering ram and bulldozer.
Miners and poor immigrants from Brixton hated Thatcher (they have staged the famous rebellion against her orders in 1981). Communists hated Thatcher (they still had a position in the Western world) and many foreign and Western governments. She was greatly hated even by her own party members.
However, the Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1979-1990, distinguished herself by the fact that she consistently implemented her own, and not anyone else’s, ideas of excellence. Among the “Thatcherisms”, in first place, usually “I don’t care how much my Ministers talk, as long as they do what I say” is remembered, and “Those of you who are waiting with bated breath, the favourite phrase of the media about the 180-degree turn, I can say only one thing, if you want, you can turn. The lady does not turn”.
In the case of the current remake, that is, the geographer, financier, Deputy, Minister Prime Minister May, we can observe something completely different. She repeatedly had to lead social, political and economic processes against those that she herself has repeatedly represented.
Being conservative by conviction (May is the daughter of an Anglican priest), she, for example, has publicly spoken out against the rights of same-sex couples to adopt. At the same time, being appointed to the post of Minister of Women’s Affairs and Equality (this position is traditionally combined with that of the Minister of Internal Affairs), she was engaged in the implementation of the “Equality Act”, which provides for all the rights of the LGBT community to orphans. Under May, opponents of gay adoptions have only achieved some mitigation, for example, the exemption of Catholic adoption agencies from the Act.
As Interior Minister, May has also been criticised for her prejudice against immigrants and radical Muslims (including the campaign “Go Home or be Arrested”, addressed to illegal immigrants). However, the Muslim population of Great Britain at the time of May’s office assumption was about 2.5 million people, and at the end of her duties, over 4 million (by the way, in the next 30 years, according to researchers quoted by the Telegraph, it is likely to triple and reach 13 million, or about a fifth of the British population).
May had to deal with roughly the same as Prime Minister (that is, attempt to soften the processes that cannot be stopped). Being strongly opposed to Brexit and being one of the participants of the preservation of the unity with the EU, May came to lead the cabinet, whose task was to draw up a divorce with the European Union.
Regardless of how brilliantly it reflects on her, it was written enough in the media. In fact, it is a long, humiliating and costly procedure in which Great Britain, instead of coming out nicely and absconding far away, got stuck in the doors of the EU and is haggling to have as many benefits as possible.
Any PR could not cover this main difference between May and Thatcher. So, to the surprise of the Conservatives who voted almost unanimously to hold early parliamentary elections in 2017, they lost 12 seats, while Labour opponents scored 30 and narrowed the gap.
And so, from the beginning of 2018, it became clear that the party of the “Iron Lady 2” is waiting for a crushing defeat in local elections.
In these circumstances, it seems, it was decided to hastily turn the vague case about the poisoning of the ex-spy Skripal into a master class for May on the international arena. With demonstrations of diplomatic power and mastery of intrigue.
However, the initial PR victory (the expulsion of a hundred and fifty Russian diplomats on the basis of virtually one call from May), as of today, threatens to turn into perhaps the worst defeat even if the British Prime Minister’s appeals were not supported by anyone.
1) Himself poisoned by the deadly, secret, mysterious, murderous, etc. poison, the spy and his daughter not only did not die, but having rested in bed, got better.
2) The laboratory, which was referred to by the British government in the organisation of the “all-Western response to Russian aggression”, suddenly announced that it could not establish the poison’s production place at all; it was a lie. And she cannot assert that it is from Russia.
As a result, May’s prospects are not too bright.
The forecast of the Russian speaker has already come true in its first half, now May in the company of her comic Foreign Minister Boris Johnson are faced with the situation of “revealed lies”. The world is aware that they have lied and, on the basis of these lies, have drawn many countries into a “demonstration of unity”.
It is worth noting that that none of the foreign countries had undertaken anything irrevocable as a result of the devious British plot. All expulsions are presented in fact as rotations, inviting other diplomats to replace those expelled. The expansion of the retorts into the economic sphere and other planes is now clearly out of the question, until we get any real hard evidence.
Which the British Prime Minister clearly does not have.