Star comment: Choice at a pivotal moment

And it is a choice which is being offered to the British people at a pivotal moment in the nation’s history.

Whoever walks through the door of Number 10 after June 8 will have a unique set of challenges. Within days he or she will begin negotiations with the EU about Britain’s departure, for which a majority of voters opted just under a year ago.

When Britain joined the EU, it was to shape the direction of the country for over 40 years. The results of the Brexit negotiations will shape our future the direction of this country for perhaps the next 40 and beyond.

The Conservatives and Labour are agreed that there is no going back on the referendum decision. There are, however, a wide range of paths which Britain might follow. There is hard Brexit, soft Brexit, or perhaps in-between Brexit, whatever any of those labels might mean in practice.

It has probably been said of every general election there has ever been that it is of historic importance by those who were involved at the time. The idea that the current times are supremely important comes through a mixture of arrogance, a sort of discrimination in favour of the present, the times we know and live in, and corresponding ignorance of the past.

Nevertheless, objectively, given the surrounding circumstances, the 2017 general election will be more important than most with clear differences between the party policies and the Brexit backdrop, not to mention the recent terror attacks that have brought security to the very top of the political agenda.

So what are we to make of the two people who are vying to become Prime Minister? Tim Farron is excluded, incidentally, as he makes no pretence of being the next occupant of No 10.

Jeremy Corbyn is our “local boy” having spent his formative years in Shropshire, and cutting his political teeth here.

He has fought an honourable campaign in which he has shown qualities of decency and straightforwardness. He has confounded those who expected him to prove a disastrous liability, and the rise of Labour in the polls – whatever they are worth – is surely down partly to the public warming to him, and partly as a positive response in many quarters to the Labour manifesto which successfully outlined a radically different vision without being swept away by a tide of ridicule, as happened in 1983.

There again, he lacks experience in government office. His track record as a backbench MP was of rebellion, a political outlier who could be safely ignored – and by and large was, except when he was causing outrage by, for instance, hobnobbing with IRA cheerleaders.

For many there also remain nagging doubts about Labour’s ability to exercise economic prudence, a perception not helped by some embarrassing figures-related missteps in the campaign. As PM he would face a steep learning curve. Criticising those in power is one thing. Exercising power is another.

Theresa May, on the other hand, has experience by the bucketload and a profile on the international stage. She has presented herself as the safe pair of hands, the player for the big match, and the person to deliver the Brexit that the British public voted for. Her appearances outside Number 10 have cemented the impression that she is a capable, thoughtful politician particularly at a time of national crisis.

Yet her election campaign has been lacklustre and marked by a perception that her ability to dodge difficult questions exceeds her willingness to answer them. The Conservatives’ manifesto was a broad-brush document short of figures and visions to inspire, while trying to slip under the radar proposals on social care. This gave the impression that the Tories might be taking victory too much for granted.

But the question boils down to this: Who do you trust to lead this country through what promises to be a turbulent, uncertain and challenging time?

Strong and Stable. For The Many, Not The Few.

Beyond the trite slogans, this time round they are not “all the same”. The decision, as they say, is yours.