On April 07, 2005 11:35 AM,  Eddie said...

Sounds like a plan. Hain's an utterly horrible man, an appalling liar and a disgraceful turncoat.

We've all got to do our bit to remind people that tactical voting will work and it will play a part in removing people like him from our lives. We can't let his message get home.  

On April 07, 2005 12:09 PM,  Anonymous said...

Even the Guardian's Seamus Milne seems to buy the 'back door' argument, after a fashion.  

On April 07, 2005 9:00 PM,  BB said...

Tactical voting will work, will it? Hope you're still smiling on May 6.  

On April 08, 2005 8:52 AM,  Eddie said...

Looks like somebody's shitting their pants. Slim majority in Hove, Andy?

I suggest you have a play with the swingometers and remind yourself of the fact that the Tories have absolutely no chance of winning the election. The bookies aren't stupid.  

On April 08, 2005 11:34 AM,  Aidan Boustred said...

Good idea. I would also like to keep track of the number of times that Hain says that they 'acted in good faith' over Iraq. The fact that it is so obviously not true has not stopped him from repeating it a number of times already.  

On April 08, 2005 8:22 PM,  BB said...

Everyone knows Hove has a small-ish majority. I also know that 'swing' is a great simplification of the voting process and therefore won't be taking the swingometer too seriously.

What really annoys me about the tactical voters is (a) the belief they can really 'adjust' the size of a majority, (b) that a smaller Labour majority guarantees anything at all, and (c) that it's OK to dump worthy candidates in favour of inferior ones from a party you don't really believe in.

In fact there are lots of things I don't like about the current band of tactical voters. Completely unprincipled people who trivialise the democratic process and cancel out the votes of people who are voting for a good reason.

PS. The bookie isn't a fortune-teller, he just wants your money.

PPS. By your reckoning I acted in "good faith" when I opposed the war from the comfort of my own armchair back in 2003 to allow Saddam to remain in power for a bit longer. How comforting it is to have principles!  

On April 08, 2005 8:53 PM,  Justin said...

BB, You say say you don't like tactical voters but - hand on heart - if Hove were Tory and a Lib Dem vote would see the buggers off, would you seriously vote New Labour?

It's like New Labour sticking to their guns in Michael Howard's constituency - if only they'd swallow their pig-headedness, vote Lib Dem and decapitate the Tory Party.

If you think the current crop of tactical voters are an unprincipled bunch then I'm disappointed - these campaigns are borne out of a deep sense of disgust that political hacks like Hain are in denial about. The sooner his career ends in ignominy the better. His foetid "political journey" is complete.

A New Labour majority of less than 60 or even a hung Parliament guarantees two things - Blair fucks off to pay his mortgage on the lecture circuit and the next man has to work harder and not treat Parliament as a contemptible rubber stamp.

And I'll tell you another thing - I bet when Blair goes the party membership will rocket. I fantasise long and hard about that day - I'd join the Party and help sweep up the mess.  

On April 09, 2005 8:47 AM,  Eddie said...

It sounds like the Labour party wants to classify what are morally "good" votes and morally "bad" votes now.

There are many ways in which people are motivated to vote. Millions of votes across the country are cast in ignorance. There are people who will vote Labour till they die, thinking that they are still voting for a genuinely socialist party. Are these people who are voting for a "good reason"?

If the electorate, in Hove, decide that they just cannot vote Labour any more and decide to vote Lib Dem, then who are the Labour party to tell them that their vote is a waste?

If it is a "waste" it is only because Labour haven't changed the electoral system despite the golden opportunity to do so.  

On April 09, 2005 1:27 PM,  BB said...

Tactical voting may be necessary at times, but the principle can't be right. Execrable as Howard is, Labour voters in Folkestone shouldn't give the Lib Dems a boost just to get rid of him. Besides there are plenty more dangerous Tories spread around the country, and in darkened rooms.

If 'tactical' means 'the extent of my political beliefs is the kicking out of Mr/Mrs. X' or 'I don't believe in party Y but I'll vote for them just to get rid of Mr/Mrs. X', that's not good. That may not be the case for you people, but it will be for others.

I'm working on behalf of the LP, not under their instruction, so nothing I say should be taken (necessarily) to be a LP position.

Eddie, is that a 'false consciousness' argument? Surely it's more democratic to say 'you oughtn't to have voted that way' than 'you only voted that way out of ignorance'? Voters can see the party programmes and vote because they were treated well in the past, like the current policies, or hope that the party moves 'their way' in the future. I'm sure most do, and aren't being duped.

I didn't say anything about 'wasted' votes. You can blame the electoral system for that, one which I think should be changed. The Tories are the one party that would never ditch FPP - it's been central to their success.  

Post a Comment

Create a Link

Home