We're all sick to death of seeing the words 'strong and stable' posted through our letterboxes, plastered on newspapers and repeated on television.
The Tories and right-wing media alike are pushing the fallacy of Theresa May as having 'strong and stable' leadership abilities; that her hands are the safe ones to put our future with Europe in. But in reality, what those 'strong and stable' hands will actually do is dismantle our public services bit-by-bit, further alienate us from our closest allies and strangle all opportunities from the young who aren't fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy background.
This 'strong and stable' leadership has so far done what some are calling one of the biggest U-turns in election history, and has broken a manifesto pledge before the election has even been won. This 'strong and stable' manifesto has even been publicly attacked as 'badly thought through' by the former Chancellor of this very same government.
The 'strong and stable' Theresa May, who insists only she can stand up to both our allies and enemies alike, was the first world leader to meet Donald Trump and be photographed holding his hand, despite his racist and sexist comments. It isn't much of an exaggeration to say that most of Britain collectively shuddered as we watched our leader shamelessly hold hands with a sexual predator and refuse to so much as reprimand his comments and behaviour.
If Theresa May can't stand up to perhaps the most petulant, inexperienced and childish Presidents in history, how on earth can we expect her to lead Brexit negotiations?
If Theresa May were so 'strong and stable', why will she not participate in television debates that democracies worldwide have now adopted as a key feature of any election? After crucial elections such as the US presidential race and the recent presidential contest in France, televised debates have become a crucial factor in helping the public decide whose ideas they like the best, and who they believe is most competent. The right-wing media like to paint Jeremy Corbyn as the one who should be concerned, but he isn't the leader refusing to engage in public, uncensored debate.
Jeremy Corbyn, unlike the 'strong and stable' Theresa May, has been all over the UK meeting real voters and has even breached security procedures to show up at vigils, without any press, for the tragedy in Manchester.
Corbyn, who is apparently weak and unreliable, fared far better in an interview with the formidable Andrew Neil than 'strong and stable' Theresa May did, who still could not answer a question posed to her despite being asked three times.
Corbyn, whose manifesto is apparently going to bring us back to 1980s chaos, is the only leader out of the two main parties to provide a fully-costed manifesto.
Corbyn, who apparently never stood a chance against the 'strong and stable' Theresa May, has cleared what was once a 24-point Conservative lead only a month ago to a mere five-point difference between the two parties now.
You would have thought that the 'strong and stable' Theresa May, who had previously denied that she would call a snap election multiple times on television, wouldn't have taken such a risk. Or perhaps her arrogance and political opportunism - something that we do not need in a leader right now - led her to believe this snap election would be more of a coronation than an election.
Despite the full force of the majority of the British media behind her and the Conservatives, it seems like Theresa May's 'strong and stable' certainly of winning this election is slipping through their fingers day-by-day, as Corbyn rises up to the challenge.
By the end of this article, I assume you're sick of hearing the words 'strong and stable'. So am I, and so are most people. It's condescending, pandering and untrue. Instead of falling for the tedious sound-bite, we should show the Tories, their friends in the media and their 'strong and stable' mantra where the door is on June 8th.Suggest a correction