I am a lifelong Labour voter who agrees with many of Corbyn's basic ideas, but thinks he has done a terrible job as leader and that the party is now basically tearing itself apart.
By contrast, Theresa May looks competent and collected and so I understand why the OP might feel as she does. I believe May is genuine in her belief that she can address inequalities and that her canny occupation of traditional Labour territory (being the party of workers, standing up to inequality, etc.,) is not entirely calculated on her part, even if it also works well as a political ploy.
That said, I think her policies will profoundly hurt the nation and are founded on a rose-tinted view of the 50s that doesn't account for the structural oppression that is required for that kind of society to work.
The grammar school issue is illuminating in this regard. I suspect May genuinely believes this is the best way to offer intelligent children from poorer backgrounds a superior education, thus assisting with social mobility. Unlike, for instance, our Etonian friend Dave Cameron, I do not suspect that she is hiding a class-based prejudice. But Mrs May and I fundamentally disagree on what the outcome will be.
Grammars were reduced in number and eventually prevented from opening in large part because they were seen as entrenching class divisions, and none of Mrs May's vague reassurances that new Grammars will be "different" have explained how or why that will not happen again. Ultimately parents able to afford tutoring will be disproportionately likely to have their children pass the 11+, while those who cannot will be disproportionately likely to fail. Obviously there are class and area-based issues around education currently that no government has so far succeeded in entirely addressing, and likely Mrs May and I simply disagree on which approach is the lesser of evils.
But my point here is mainly that I don't unthinkingly hate her because she's a Tory, nor do I think she is necessarily trying to cause harm or benefit at others' expense. I do feel that her political views and policy positions are fundamentally at odds with mine, and are likely to be fundamentally at odds with many lifelong Labour voters, even if she's good at making speeches that make it seem otherwise.
The British exceptionalism at the heart of the pro-Brexit attitude she is trying to promote, is seductive because it sells confidence and patriotism, but it's also (increasingly less) subtly evocative of Empire, or a view of the 50s that celebrates employment rates and hard work and wholesome neighbours, without also taking an honest look at the racism and sexism of the day.
"British jobs for British workers!" is a slogan that could have been stolen from UKIP if not the BNP. Now, clearly, having just defended May against accusations of defacto evilness, I'm not suggesting the Tory party are extremist to that degree. I don't think they are. But the similarity in the messaging is cause for concern because it says something about the direction of national discourse and what kind of language has been normalised.
May acts as though she is being magnanimous for "letting" the doctors stay until we have trained more of our own, presuming that we will train enough, or that they will find increasingly difficult NHS contracts acceptable and not run off to Australia or a European country with better pay and a less isolationist view. As she says this, she is insulting the enormous number of foreign-born NHS staff that literally keep us alive every day.
The goal of training more citizens as doctors, and working on making sure that staying in Britain to practice is an attractive option, is laudible. It is commendable on its own merits. It is when it is specifically promoted as a way to keep out foreigners that it becomes an ugly, ungrateful proposition. We are biting the hand that feeds us.
What effect will publishing lists of "foreign" workers have on businesses? Will it "shame" them into hiring only British citizens? Do we imagine this will not lead to assumptions that people of non-white ethnicity will not be targeted by this even if they are as British as any other citizen? Or people with accents? Do we condemn the enormous number of foreign nationals who are here living with their British families to poor jobs and poverty? Do we hire a British person based on their nationality rather than their ability to do the job? That might not be such a big deal - for society - if we're talking about an entry level position. If it were the criteria for hiring my surgeon, though, I might be more concerned.
My mother is an immigrant. She worked for 30 years, paid high rates of tax and did voluntary work. She made her home here. If immigration law now had existed in the 1980s, she would never have been allowed in. My father couldn't have afforded the sponsorship costs. Five years ago, she finally applied for British citizenship at exorbitant cost, because she was due to retire, and, she said, concerned that they might try to kick her out once she was no longer economically useful. At the time, I thought she was being paranoid. Now I see that I still have a lot to learn from her.
If this had happened when I was a child, I would have been terrified someone was going to send my mum away. Or that she'd lose her job and we'd have nothing to eat and nowhere to live.
My best friend is married to an EU citizen. He works a full-time job, but working a full-time job at above minimum wage isn't actually enough to sponsor his spouse to stay with him, even though they claim nothing in public subsistence, and would not be eligible to do so even if she were out of work. This is thanks to laws that May herself instituted during her time as Home Secretary.
There's a reason why voters' concern about immigration is highest in the area where immigration is, in fact, lowest. A little like the demographic trend showing older people predominantly voted for Brexit, with the future of younger generations a key motivator, while those younger generations mostly wanted to stay.
I apologise that this has gotten so long.
What I'm trying to say is that I understand - Theresa May is very good at seeming safe and competent. Theresa May is competent. Her higher order ideals of equality and fairness aren't so different from most people's I expect. There are positive aspects to her premiership such as acknowledging that the government will have to underwrite a rocky economic climate and build some damn houses, regardless of balancing the books. Or making big corporations pay taxes. That would also be good.
But - if we look at her actual policies, rather than her motivational speeches (which, I grant, are very good speeches), and if we look at her actions in other positions - I'm not convinced that on the substance of the right/left divide, she is willing to cede much ground.
For instance, she'll acknowledge the Financial Crisis hit the poorest workers hardest, and will promise to chase taxes from corporations, but she won't actually put the brakes on the disasterous Universal Credit programme which independent reports suggest is likely to drive more children into poverty and has left pilot applicants visiting food banks and threatened with eviction.
But she's not setting herself on fire and destroying her own party from within, the way the opposition is.
So at the very least, OP, I'll say YANBU to think she comes out of this looking like the more sane option, even if I personally feel otherwise.
I don't think YABU, even, to say that you find her speeches promising. I just think you're likely to be disappointed by her actions.