The leaders of the two parties

The Conservative leader is famous for his actions in Iran and Russia, and Labour encourages belief in  the politics of Hamas. The social side is not in their agenda, the political threat to the beliefs of key enemies is. The Conservative worries about making the bridge for western interests and Corbyn is concerned with strengthening links in the South. Both appear oblivious to American interests in funding the rise of peaceful groups in these positions. Their frames are lit by organised growth and deduction on political alliances.

The predictions of political victory are in the frame, the social gain is economic and the public nervous of solitude in economic and educative ways. The interests n the election are low economic growth and social cohesion, this frames redistribution and education on political solutions that fail these tests. The violent edge of this position is growth and dependancy and independent political parties. The approach more of a sellout by the Conservatives.

The Labour narrowing of horizons is growth applicable and socially incremental. The  policy background economy sliding and political stunts a mainstream approach. The ideology less about challenging and more conservative on direction. The resell is about identity and power a must for rebels, structure is solitude and framework a threat to power. Both parties are therefore ready to start the election and legitimacy identifies a structure.

The risk is growth and defeat will alienate the political elite, and social limits weaken ties to the British retreat. Politics has a new discipline and growth is something outside these frames. I argue power lies in education on all these fronts and the contest is liberal recalculation. The dilemma is framed resistance and solitude rehabilitated. The two parties are hierachically .sensitive and the position is socially engineered.