We heard an awful lot last year about the significance of the re-election of George W. Bush and the Liberals in Australia in the context of the “Coalition of the Willing”. In one of the European countries most closely identified with the Iraq War, Spain, voters chose very differently. The British election will soon be called. There will be many other issues but for a large number of voters who opposed Blair’s decision to join the War, there are big dilemmas, as suzoz points out at personal political:
A British election is approaching. Voting is non-compulsory there and winners are decided on a first-past-the-post basis - not preferential voting as in Australia.
This presents leftwing voters with a dilemma. Do you register a protest vote against Tony Blair, especially over the Iraq deception? Do you protest by not voting? Or do you vote for someone like the Lib Dems who might have a faint hope of winning if enough people turn against Labour?
Tariq Ali has one answer - voters should tactically support anti-War MPs. Tactical voting has a long history in Britain - in a first past the post system, Labour voters will often vote for a Lib Dem candidate in a seat where that party has a better chance of beating the Tories, and vice versa. Labour of course has to maximise not only its own vote but also the turnout. Hence, while the Tories take a leaf out of the Howardians’ 2001 playbook and run scare campaigns based on fear of the Other Labour has to argue that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Tories. It will be interesting to see if this position gains much purchase in the election, or if the “lesser of two evils/Tories will kill your aged Grandmother by cutting services” argument so common in the days of relative conservatism among the major parties fails this time.
Note: The title of the post is a small tribute to former Split Enz drummer Paul Hester.
The faint hope of winning is what they’d need to assess. Those more notably to the left can lack a grounding in reality when assessing where the status quo lies and what might be needed to tip it on its head. Greens in Oz for example posture proudly on positions that will not get up in this country, taking shots at labor but giving no clues as to how a party takes a strong left wing stance while simultaneously trying to remove from power a leader like Howard with a socially conservative electorate.
The lib dems come across as more organised and rational than the Greens or Democrats here, but like the latter they struggle a bit with identity. After all they contain a lot of ex Tories who wouldnt’ go to Labor. Given Labor occupies rather centrist ground, what does that say?
The title made me think of the stones’ street fighting man, but the thought counts.
That apostrophe was a slip!
When the Conservatives were in power, the idea of voting tactically for the SDLP in a particular seat was always viewed as an outrageous and treacherous idea, by deep Labourites. I think things have changed drastically in Britain in the past couple of years. A lot of people are extremely sceptical, in fact angry, about Labour and Blair, but they know how awful the Conservatives can be. The Lib Dems’ leader Charles Kennedy is seen as honest and has a high profile. It will be very interesting to see what happens.
Personally, unless my local Labour MP was stoutly anti-war, I would not vote for Blair’s administration (or the conservatives!) if I lived in Britain. I just don’t think I could bring myself to do either.
Martin, the Lib Dems have had major success in breaking into a very unfriendly electoral system - with over 50 seats in the Commons in both the last elections. A lot of their vote comes from dissillusioned Tory voters and most of the seats they hold are traditional Tory territory so they face a fairly delicate balancing act themselves. THey also face the difficulty third parties such as the Australian Democrats also face in a highly adversarial system that polarises Government and Opposition of articulating a positive programme rather than just being a parking spot for the “plague on both your houses” vote.
I should have also perhaps added that in suzoz’ post, she went on to point out that it’s not just left wing voters who may be concerned - a large number of British voters generally are very concerned with Blair’s character and the decision to align the UK so closely with the US and Blair has recognised this is the major obstacle to Labour’s reelection.
From memory, as well, Chris Sheil and I and others talked about this at BP when the by-election to replace Mandelson happened last year and agreed with that if we were UK citizens, we’d be voting Lib Dem. It’s a bit hard to follow it from a distance, but generally I like what I read about them.
Or, people could ignore the whole war thing and vote on issues that actually matter? I mean seriously, the fact that Blair chose to go to the war in Iraq (a decision that I support, but thats irrlevant), is just one of the many MANY issues to be considered by voters. If you just vote on one issue then you arent being an intelligent or informed voter IMO. So, not voting for an otherwise good party because it did one thing you dont like is absolutely ridiculous.
But Nic, two points. We’re constantly told - by Blair, Howard and Bush that the only way we can hold them accountable is to throw them out of office! Isn’t going to war the most serious decision a government can take? The dilemma we’re talking about is people who are deeply opposed to Blairite policies not wanting to elect a Tory government but still wanting to make their feelings known.
In any case, I’d have thought Blair’s foreign policy orientation is a good guide to his political style anyway - right wing, egotistical (”It’s my conscience”), crusading, unconsultative.
I was talking to a friend in London last night and mentioned the Tariq Ali article. She said vehemently that she will not be voting Labour - but she is not sure who to vote for. She said another friend had written a letter to their (black woman leftwing) Labour MP telling her she would not be voting for her - she did not get a reply.
Apart from Iraq, my friend is furious about the loss of civil liberties. Labour has pushed through ‘anti-terrorism’ laws which are quite draconian. And the sight of Hilary Benn carousing with Paul Wolfowitz this week was too much for her! So it’s not just a one-issue protest, not at all.