Just how bad do Labour need to get before the whispers of tactical Anti-Labour voting become a deafening roar? It seems stunning to me that it’s something people are only willing to discuss with me in private, but so far, in public? Nothing.
So hey, let’s start a debate.
For a party that’s won many, many seats as an Anti-Tory vote in the post, even contemplating the idea of an informal tactical voting pact that might benefit the Tories isn’t just difficult – it’s practically heresy. Admitting that you might prefer any Tory Government to this Labour Government is … well it’s taboo (dontcha know they eat babies??), and risks the heretic losing all credibility.
Old hatreds are the most stubborn, and within parties – where second guessing what everyone else might be thinking and second guessing what you think you think you should be thinking…. *breathe* …makes thinking for yourself something of a challenge. As I’ve discovered, challenging the orthodoxy is not a fast track to popularity and fills one with feelings of guilt and alienation. If I wasn’t so obstinate and a chronic anti-authoritarian I’d probably have given this up long ago.
Yet I still believe this is a party that wants to find the right balance between Liberty and Equality. We might argue about what the correct balance is – and I argue that the correct balance is 100%-0% obviously - although I find it hard to believe that any Lib Dem would believe that Labour’s too far in the ‘Liberty’ direction. Equality as the ‘End’ means Authoritarianism as the ‘means’. That’s why it’s a trade-off and why you can’t ever have both. This is Lib Dem 101 stuff. We all know it. And we all know that Labour’s Authoritarianism has gone too far.
If our party is serious about getting this balance right, never mind what I think is the right balance, it must be willing to stand up and say so when the balance goes too far towards “Equality.”
If we’re not just secret socialists, if there’s more to our party than a bunch of social democrats who happen to hate Labour, then we need to be willing to say “time for more Liberty,” and be unafraid of doing so. Prove we mean it by recognising that the balance is, currently, skewed too far towards Authoritarianism and help the country put Labour back into the Wilderness labelled, “where people who can’t be trusted to run the country go to learn valuable lessons”.
I’ll take Tories on best behaviour over a vindicated 4th Term Labour Party any day – unless of course the Lib Dems can pluck victory from the jaws of defeat this time, naturally. I know the Tories are barely better. I know that to expect anything other than a slowing down of the bad is undue optimism. But if Labour are forgiven by the electorate for everything they’ve done so far… well, there’s no words for how frightened that makes me feel.
UPDATE: According to John at ‘Liberal Revolution’ the answer to the question “How far should the Lib Dems keep away from Labour?” is “as far away as Saturn is from the Earth“. He’s been doing actual canvassing.
Andrew Hickey said...
14 Apr 09 at 9:18 pm
To be honest, I don’t think the Tories would be any better. I have a hard time seeing them as being any worse, either, but I don’t believe that the Tories support liberty at all (and nor, for that matter, do I believe that Labour support equality. If I believed either party supported either, I’d have joined them instead…)
I actually think we should be pushing harder against the Tories precisely *because* they’re going to win so hugely. We’ll win hugely in Lib/Lab marginals, because nobody in their right mind will be voting Labour, but I suspect if we don’t fight against the Tories, then we’ll lose a good number of the seats we won off them in *their* marginals.
What we should *really* be going for is the “they’re both as bad as each other” set…
Stu said...
14 Apr 09 at 9:20 pm
I have no real party affiliation, but the answer to your ‘how far’ question is ‘as far as you can throw them’.
Gordon Brown’s Labour are poison. That’s not to say that Labour always will be (but they’ll always be socialist and authoritarian) but anyone with any sense ought to be as distant from Labour as possible. In fact I’d go further – if I were Tom Harris or Frank Field right now, I’d be considering going independent, just to distance myself from Gordon Brown.
Bunny Smedley said...
14 Apr 09 at 9:29 pm
Charlotte, that’s a fascinating post – and as a Tory, I’ve probably got very little right to comment here.
Still – well, you’re an intelligent, perceptive woman. Can you really, hand on heart, tell me that when you look at David Cameron, or indeed George Osborne, you truly believe that what these men are saying is what, in practice, they’ll deliver? And if not, are you truly sure that a value-free, triumphalist Tory party with a significant electoral majority behind it is actually going to be preferable to a struggling, defensive Labour government when it comes to achieving any of the ends you desire?
This may seem a bizarrely perverse post; at some level, it is, which is why I’ve already deleted versions of it, twice.
But, honestly – do consider what’s to be gained from being totally clear about what, in practice, you expect from the Liberals – and then voting for them. Amongst people who aren’t entirely stupid, votes count for more than polling data ever does, which is the sense in which no vote is ever ‘lost’. All of which is a long way of saying that although I’ll hold my nose and vote Tory next time around, I’ll be slightly shocked if you do.*
*And not just because that nice Mr Clegg of yours is so admirably sound on Fischer-Dieskau’s recordings of Schuberts’s songs, either, although admittedly, that almost turned my head.
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Apr 09 at 9:42 pm
I couldn’t say that even with my fingers crossed.
I suppose, for my sins, the only end I really want delivered by them is Labour being kicked out of power.
It’s not a struggling and defensive Labour Government I fear. It’s one where the Government, having ridden roughshod over civil liberties, discover that the voters simply don’t care about any of that, don’t care about the debt piling up, don’t care about any of it – that’s what scares me.
Oh see, see what fear does? :S
I wouldn’t… couldn’t. How could I run a blog under a lib dem banner and do otherwise? There are some parts of being a party member that one does not dismiss so lightly!
I have a shameful history when it comes to Mr Clegg. I couldn’t possibly comment.
Bunny Smedley said...
14 Apr 09 at 10:07 pm
shameful history
Truth be told, I almost certainly canvassed Clegg – in the Conservative interest – when he and I were both undergraduates, although perhaps I should add for the sake of clarification, in light of some subsequent comments, that he did not, at the time, reveal to me the full glory of his enthusiasm for Fischer-Dieskau’s earlier lieder recordings, all of which limited my own personal ‘shameful history’ credentials.
More to the point, though, your replies reveal a very level-headed appraisal of Dave & Co., so I shall retire, marginally relieved.
First, though – what really scares me? Something slightly different. It’s that a hatred and distrust of all politicians will lead to a world where the power becomes the plaything of non-elected people – where contempt for the police becomes a mandate for a world in which the monopoly of coercive force lacks a democratic stop-gear – and where dismissal of capitalism as ‘failed’ leads to corporatism, autarky and worse. And yes, I know all the Liberty Fund type arguments for how lovely anarchy might be in practice. But as someone who’s read as much history as theory, I remain unconvinced. Seriously, Charlotte, if you ever want to borrow a book or two about Mussolini’s Italy – not a really first-rank nightmare evil regime, just a really really bad one, put in place because at the time all the alternatives seemed so much worse – do let me know.
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Apr 09 at 10:43 pm
Hmm I share you fears. I would love to be able to vote positively for something better, I really would. Sadly I don’t think any of us have that option, which is why I get so wound up by the policy convergence of the Big 3 – and want to see politicians restore their credibility with reform of expenses and a change in the way they communicate with the public. A combination of the anti-police of the left and the anti-politician of the libertarians would be quite toxic really. For society to function it needs an accountable and trusted Government controlling accountable and trusted police, doesn’t it?
I’ve just seen Dave on television saying how his priority is the NHS, and how that’s everyone else’s priority too. I can’t quite believe what I’m hearing. NHS is a perfectly worthy priority, I’m sure, but it smells of Focus groups, deceit and telling people he’s been told they want to hear.
I couldn’t borrow books from you Bunny although I appreciate the offer! Do you have specific recommendations though? I’m currently seizing the opportunity while I actually have real disposable income to allow my book collection to grow for the first time in.. well, too long. I’ve bought more books this year than I did in the last 5 put together.
Roger Thornhill said...
14 Apr 09 at 11:51 pm
It is a very difficult dilemma and sometimes one is faced with something that, in truth, is not a false dichotomy, but a very real one indeed.
Bunny Smedley said...
15 Apr 09 at 8:56 am
My literary top tip of the week is Blair Worden’s new ‘English Civil Wars’ – a brilliant short survey of the subject, where considerable subtlety of argument doesn’t preclude some extremely readable, likeable prose. I can’t think of a better introduction to a topic that still raises some very pertinent issues.
As for Dave’s priority of the hour, he’s at his most reprehensibly Blairite when he makes that sort of absolutely meaningless pronouncement: telling us that the NHS is his ‘priority’ tells us absolutely nothing about what he sees as wrong with the NHS, or what he proposes to do about it – probably because he has no more idea how to sort out that expensive mess (so vastly more expensive than all those MPs’ perks, but so much less interesting to the media) than the present Labour government does.
Which is why I keep coming back to Mussolini. This is politics with all the policy bit stripped out – politics of sentiment and personality and teleology, all very entertaining, but ultimately hiding something very nasty where the actual policy choices really ought to be.
Jock said...
15 Apr 09 at 9:17 am
I wouldn’t vote Tory here. Apart from the fact that I like our PPC and we are friends from my council days, he is the closest to booting out Andrew Smith by some margin. I hope if there is any tactical voting to oust Labour wherever either party can hope to achieve that, the Tories will assist by voting Lib Dem in Oxford East.
But I shall be very disappointed, to say the least, if the Lib Dems facilitate another Labour government either by act or omission in dealing with any hung parliament situation.
But to be honest, for the Euros and the Counties this June I am getting very tempted to spoil my ballot with something along the lines of “Do not assume that my abstention means I consent to be governed by whoever wins” and to encourage some of the 60%+ of people who wouldn’t otherwise be voting to do likewise!
Roger Thornhill said...
15 Apr 09 at 11:32 am
I agree with Jock.
It is important to ATTEND and if no choice exists, write “none of the above’ or spoil it. This means that they cannot hide behind Silence = Consent.
Spoilt ballots are counted and reported. In the Mayoral Elections, Ken Livingstone got 850,000 and 400,000 were spoilt ballots.
Tristan said...
15 Apr 09 at 12:58 pm
The prospect of a Tory government is only good in so far as they are not Labour and they are out of practice at being the boss party so they may be a bit incompetent for a bit.
Aside from that, expect more of the same, just with some different words and different perversions of liberal themes (Labour has ‘freedom’ meaning being monitored and spied upon, the Tories have ‘free markets’ meaning regulated in their interests for example).
Painfully Liberal said...
15 Apr 09 at 3:27 pm
My concern with the prospect of a Tory Government is that in the absense anything resembling a manifesto or clear statement of policy of philosophy, we’re reduced to a sort of Conservative party Kremlinology to try to guess which of the varies factions of the party are likely to hold sway in different areas (what the hell are we supposed to make of Domenic Grieve as shadow Home Secretary and Chris Grayling in Justice for example). There are significant sections of the Conservative party who hold some pretty repugnant views and it’s hard to imagine that Cameron will be able to avoid at least a fox hunting ban style nod to his activist base.
That said, we do know what to expect from a Labour Govenment and that’s quite enough for me to want them out. Actions and misdeeds must have consequences.
Jock said...
15 Apr 09 at 3:48 pm
To be fair, I’m not sure that we do know what to expect from a Labour government. Will the Prime Minister stay for a full term like he promised last time? Will they or won’t they increase top-up fees? Did they tell us they were likely to make 3000+ new criminal offences in 1997? Or tell us it would take them a whole term and then some to pass age of consent equality and to lose section 28? We know they did tell us to expect them to have eradicated (or was it halved?) child poverty by next year, so I guess we ought to have concluded that they would fail! And so on and so forth.
pfft – you can’t trust a politician these days even when he does have a “program” he can articulate!
Painfully Liberal said...
15 Apr 09 at 3:57 pm
Oh you certainly can’t predict a future Labour Government based on what they say, but you can see what they’ve done during their time in Government and assume that they’ll continue to do more of that. I don’t necessarily recommend that you do though, it’s certainly not a pleasant mental exercise.
Joe Otten said...
15 Apr 09 at 5:33 pm
The awfulness of Labour says nothing about the Conservatives. Being far from Labour does not mean being close to the Conservatives.
I think Labour have abandoned equality anyway – except as a soundbite.
They represent a complex, shifting group of special interests, few or none of whom are among the worst off; while celebrating authoritarianism. And exactly the same can be said of the Conservatives.
The Great Simpleton said...
16 Apr 09 at 10:11 pm
Roger,
“I agree with Jock.
It is important to ATTEND and if no choice exists, write “none of the above’ or spoil it. This means that they cannot hide behind Silence = Consent.
Spoilt ballots are counted and reported.”
Are you sure about that? I did that at the last EU elections and looked out for spoiled ballots and can assure you they weren’t reported in my area.
The Great Simpleton said...
16 Apr 09 at 10:16 pm
Charlotte,
When you talk about “the right balance between Liberty and Equality” do you mean equality of opportunity of equality of outcome?
Equality of outcome is the pernicious aim of Gordon Brown and his (New) Labour party. Equality of opportunity is surely something that every liberal/libertarian should aim for?
Jock said...
17 Apr 09 at 12:04 am
The Great Simpleton,
Yes, they are reported, at least at the count to the candidates and their agents. But they are usually a very small number (in the single figures even in a council ward) and are not usually reported any further than that. But if there were a significant number of spoiled papers in the context of the election concerned (such as if we could get 400 of our 900+ student residents in one ward to do it where they would not normally even bother voting at all) then it would be picked up and reported on more widely.
I imagine a fair number of the London ones Roger cited though were not so much spoiled as “ambiguous” – for example people putting two crosses rather than a first and second preference numbered.
If we had a formula though, and a campaign to get people who don’t normally vote to go along (or even to get a postal vote so they don’t have to worry about it on the day) and make it clear that they have some kind of a problem with the state of democracy in this country it would be taken much more seriously.
Jock
Charlotte Gore said...
17 Apr 09 at 12:56 am
I mean 0% equality of outcome, of course.
MatGB said...
22 Apr 09 at 11:39 pm
Reading through the archives, IIRC the 400,ooo rejected ballots in the London were 2nd preference transfers that had nowhere to go. The number of actually spoilt ballots was negligible (I had a complete copy of the results spreadsheet, but it’s on the other, virus strewn and hopefully being fixed, PC).