The Guardian is advising its (British) readers to vote Labour on Thursday.
Their argument seems to be that apart from the war, new Labour is doing many good things for the country and that a vote for the Lib Dems risks letting the Tories in.
On the first argument, I don't just oppose Labour because of the war - I oppose them for ASBOs (i.e. jailing people for being irritating), ID cards, detention without trial of foreigners, expanding selective education, pandering to xenophobia and racism and a bunch of other policies that mark them down as urbanised, modernised, Tories.
On the second argument, they claim that in only a "tiny handful of seats " can one vote Lib Dem without risking a Tory being elected. They point at this list showing marginal seats that can swing between the 3 parties. I'm sorry, but their list is bogus. My former home in NE Hampshire isn't on their list. It's a fairly safe Tory seat with a majority over 50% - so if the Tories stayed where they were and everyone else voted Lib Dem, or Labour, they would still win. If, as is possible, a bunch of Tories voted Lib Dem as well as protesting Labour voters, then the seat *could* go Lib Dem. It isn't going Labour - not ever. What will probably happen is that it will stay Tory - my Liberal vote will at least go to swell the national total, and if they make some inroads into the Tory majority it will help build a platform for next time.
I don't see any reason to vote for a right-wing party that I fundamentally disagree with in order to avoid an even more right-wing party being elected. To suggest otherwise is dishonest, and doesn't reflect any credit on the Guardian.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment