Same old story
For weeks now tactical voting campaigners have been bombarded from every direction with the faintly ludicrous accusation that if you vote LibDem on the 5th May, you'll wake up to a Tory government the day after. This New Labour mantra has come from former MPs such as Tom Watson and Peter Hain, and from the left-wing media in the shape of the Guardian and such journalists as Poly Toynbee. We've been told to put down the chardonnay, close the websites and get behind the Labour Party, lest Michael Howard become the next resident of No. 10 Downing St.
In spite of all these comments, sites such as BackingBlair.co.uk, Strategic Voter and So Who Do We Vote For Now have continued to push tactical voting as the only realistic means of delivery a meaningful rebuke to Tony Blair for Iraq and other excesses.
Today we have a change of tune. Over at the Guardian the message is no longerVote LibDem, Get Tory , but instead Vote Blair, Get Brown .
There are two reasons to distrust this new message. Firstly consider Tony Blair. Given all the dissembling over WMDs, the sheer scale of his betrayal of our trust, taking this into account, what guarantee do we have that he will indeed stand down? None. And when will he stand down? Possibly ometime in the next 5 years, but it all comes down to trust, a commodity which Blair is sadly lacking. Now possibly, just possibly, if Blair were to publish a binding statement in all the national newspapers, on television and radio, comfirming that he will stand down as Prime Minister and Labour Party Leader on such-and-such a day, then I might believe it.
Which brings us to the second point. If it really is a case of Vote Blair, Get Brown then let the election be conducted on that basis. Let Tony Blair stand aside now and give Gordon Brown the opportunity of becoming Prime Minister as a consequence of the democratic process, rather than through some dodgy deal done behind closed doors.
At the end of the day, the motivation behind both messages is the same, get off your backsides and vote Labour. If they can't scare you with the thought of a Conservative victory, then they'll try to bribe you with Gordon Brown instead. And if you're feeling tempted by the new tune, remember the broken manifesto promises and think of this, you might have to endure another 5 years of Blair before he stands down. Because, given the failure of the PLP to remove him, given the inability of the Labour Party Conference to unseat their leader, given Gordon Brown's lack of action in spite of his frustrations, the only way you can guarantee Blair's removal is through your vote.
Even though New Labour is incapable of changing its message, BackingBlair.co.uk can. Our original strategy was to vote for the candidate from the party most likely to defeat Labour. Quite a simple strategy, and one that has had us branded both Tory sympathisers, champagne socialists and old Trots.
We're already relaxing our stance, and updates to the constituency pages will show the following lucky Labour candidates receiving our support:
Now you may be asking why we're prepared to relax our position and give our support to these candidates. The message we want to send to Tony Blair is that we find the direction his policies have taken to be opposed to all that Labour used to stand for. So we looked at some of the worse policies, including Iraq, ID Cards, Anti-Terror Laws, Trial Without Jury, Top-up Fees and House of Lords Reform, and identified the relevant Parliamentary divisions and the Government line on those divisions. We then matched the record of each and every Labour MP against an ideal Labour MP and picked out those MPs who disagreed with the Government on more than 75% of the 71 divisions (for a list of division, see the Backing Blair Dream MP at The Public Whip). What we ended up with was a - depressingly short - list of Labour MPs who put their beliefs before Party policy on key issues.
But we can do better than just supporting 13 anti-Blairite Labour candidates. We're also updating our advice to give support to LibDem candidates who have a significantly good chance of taking seats from the Tories:
And there's more. Four constituencies will be updated to reflect our support for the LibDems as third placed party in 2001. In these constituencies the LibDems have a chance to overtake the Conservatives and beat the Labour candidate:
And we haven't finished yet. There are some constituencies where the LibDems are under pressure from the Tories. Our advice is being updated to emphasise the need to get out and support the LibDems (and a couple of SNP MPs as well, marked ****) in these seats:
And if that wasn't enough, here are four constituencies where Labour are pressing hard, and we're asking voters to get out and give extra support to the party that currently holds the seat:
(Though Wyre Forest looks safe, it is probably one of the most volatile constituencies around.)
So there you have it. Some people listen, some people are prepared to be flexible, to be realistic, to accept change. It's just a shame that political parties and some elements of the media aren't.
In spite of all these comments, sites such as BackingBlair.co.uk, Strategic Voter and So Who Do We Vote For Now have continued to push tactical voting as the only realistic means of delivery a meaningful rebuke to Tony Blair for Iraq and other excesses.
Today we have a change of tune. Over at the Guardian the message is no longer
There are two reasons to distrust this new message. Firstly consider Tony Blair. Given all the dissembling over WMDs, the sheer scale of his betrayal of our trust, taking this into account, what guarantee do we have that he will indeed stand down? None. And when will he stand down? Possibly ometime in the next 5 years, but it all comes down to trust, a commodity which Blair is sadly lacking. Now possibly, just possibly, if Blair were to publish a binding statement in all the national newspapers, on television and radio, comfirming that he will stand down as Prime Minister and Labour Party Leader on such-and-such a day, then I might believe it.
Which brings us to the second point. If it really is a case of Vote Blair, Get Brown then let the election be conducted on that basis. Let Tony Blair stand aside now and give Gordon Brown the opportunity of becoming Prime Minister as a consequence of the democratic process, rather than through some dodgy deal done behind closed doors.
At the end of the day, the motivation behind both messages is the same, get off your backsides and vote Labour. If they can't scare you with the thought of a Conservative victory, then they'll try to bribe you with Gordon Brown instead. And if you're feeling tempted by the new tune, remember the broken manifesto promises and think of this, you might have to endure another 5 years of Blair before he stands down. Because, given the failure of the PLP to remove him, given the inability of the Labour Party Conference to unseat their leader, given Gordon Brown's lack of action in spite of his frustrations, the only way you can guarantee Blair's removal is through your vote.
Even though New Labour is incapable of changing its message, BackingBlair.co.uk can. Our original strategy was to vote for the candidate from the party most likely to defeat Labour. Quite a simple strategy, and one that has had us branded both Tory sympathisers, champagne socialists and old Trots.
We're already relaxing our stance, and updates to the constituency pages will show the following lucky Labour candidates receiving our support:
| Candidate | Constituency |
| ========= | ============ |
| Mike Wood | Batley & Spen |
| Kate Hoey | Vauxhall |
| Rt Hon Clare Short | Birmingham, Ladywood |
| Mark Fisher | Stoke on Trent Central |
| Glenda Jackson | Hampstead & Highgate |
| Kelvin Hopkins | Luton North |
| Diane Abbott | Hackney North & Stoke Newington |
| Robert Wareing | Liverpool, West Derby |
| Lynne Jones | Birmingham, Selly Oak |
| Alan Simpson | Nottingham South |
| Jeremy Corbyn | Islington North |
| John McDonnell | Hayes & Harlington |
| Robert Marshall-Andrews | Medway |
Now you may be asking why we're prepared to relax our position and give our support to these candidates. The message we want to send to Tony Blair is that we find the direction his policies have taken to be opposed to all that Labour used to stand for. So we looked at some of the worse policies, including Iraq, ID Cards, Anti-Terror Laws, Trial Without Jury, Top-up Fees and House of Lords Reform, and identified the relevant Parliamentary divisions and the Government line on those divisions. We then matched the record of each and every Labour MP against an ideal Labour MP and picked out those MPs who disagreed with the Government on more than 75% of the 71 divisions (for a list of division, see the Backing Blair Dream MP at The Public Whip). What we ended up with was a - depressingly short - list of Labour MPs who put their beliefs before Party policy on key issues.
But we can do better than just supporting 13 anti-Blairite Labour candidates. We're also updating our advice to give support to LibDem candidates who have a significantly good chance of taking seats from the Tories:
| Target | Constituency | 2001 Maj | Sitting MP |
| ====== | ================= | =========== | ============== |
| 1 | Taunton | 235 0.4% | |
| 2 | Orpington | 269 0.5% | |
| 3 | Surrey South West | 861 1.7% | |
| 6 | Dorset West | 1,414 2.9% | Oliver Letwin |
| 7 | Haltemprice & Howden | 1,903 4.3% | David Davis |
| 8 | Isle of Wight | 2,826 4.5% | |
| 9 | Eastbourne | 2,154 4.8% | |
| 10 | Wells | 2,796 5.4% | |
| 13 | Westmoreland & Lonsdale | 3,147 6.6% | Tim Collins |
| 14 | Totnes | 3,597 7.3% | |
| 15 | Wiltshire North | 3,878 7.3% | |
| 16 | Maidenhead | 3,284 7.6% | Theresa May |
| 17 | Dorset North | 3,797 7.9% | |
| 20 | New Forest East | 3,829 9.1% | |
| 22 | Bournemouth East | 3,434 9.6% | |
| 23 | Harborough | 5,252 11.3% | |
| 25 | Folkestone & Hythe | 5,907 12.9% | Michael Howard |
And there's more. Four constituencies will be updated to reflect our support for the LibDems as third placed party in 2001. In these constituencies the LibDems have a chance to overtake the Conservatives and beat the Labour candidate:
| Constituency | 2001 Maj |
| ================= | =========== |
| Leeds North West | 6,363 15.0% |
| Dumfries, Clydesdale | 6,560 15.1% |
| Falmouth & Camborne | 7,079 15.1% |
| Colne Valley | 7,273 15.5% |
And we haven't finished yet. There are some constituencies where the LibDems are under pressure from the Tories. Our advice is being updated to emphasise the need to get out and support the LibDems (and a couple of SNP MPs as well, marked ****) in these seats:
| Constituency | 2001 Maj |
| ================= | =========== |
| Cheadle | 33 0.1% |
| Weston-super-Mare | 338 0.7% |
| Norfolk North | 483 0.9% |
| Dorset Mid & Poole North | 384 0.9% |
| Guildford | 538 1.1% |
| Somerton & Frome | 668 1.3% |
| Angus | 532 1.5% **** |
| Brecon & Radnorshire | 751 2.0% |
| Devon West & Torridge | 1,194 2.1% |
| Hereford | 968 2.2% |
| Ludlow | 1,630 3.8% |
| Newbury | 2,415 4.8% |
| Romsey | 2,370 4.9% |
| Teignbridge | 3,011 5.1% |
| Devon North | 2,984 6.1% |
| Eastleigh | 3,058 6.4% |
| Moray | 2,374 6.5% **** |
| Southport | 3,007 7.3% |
| Yeovil | 3,928 8.2% |
| Argyll & Bute | 3,832 9.2% |
And if that wasn't enough, here are four constituencies where Labour are pressing hard, and we're asking voters to get out and give extra support to the party that currently holds the seat:
| Constituency | 2001 Maj | Held by |
| ================= | =========== | ============== |
| Basingstoke | 880 1.8% | Conservative |
| Brent East | 1,118 5.3% | LibDem |
| Leicester South | 1,654 5.6% | LibDem |
| Wyre Forest | 17,630 35.9% | Independant |
(Though Wyre Forest looks safe, it is probably one of the most volatile constituencies around.)
So there you have it. Some people listen, some people are prepared to be flexible, to be realistic, to accept change. It's just a shame that political parties and some elements of the media aren't.
15 Comments:
BackingBlair are backing the SNP
http://scottish-independence.blogspot.com/2005/04/backingblair-are-backing-snp.html
Excerpt: "... Independence blog has been unconvinced by the various tactical voting websites (I list them under my General Election 2005 links section - left-hand sidebar). Strategic Voter and I exchanged private correspondence recently regarding some inaccurate statistics on their website, relating to Moray constituency. On 16 April Keith adopted the Independence blog Scottish Poll of Polls as the basis for... "
Thanks
Russell (Southport Lib Dem)
I'm not convinced about your addition of LeedsNW as a possible Libdem gain from Labour this time. Why? Because although the Libdems are claiming this as a winnable seat, they came 3rd in 2001 - and also claimed they could win then.
In 2001 they ran the same line as this election, basically they were in 3rd place and tried showing percentage differences/increases in votes. Libdemwatch illustrated this with the usual "spun" bar-chart from Libdem literature,
Apart from all of that - the retiring Labour MP, Harold Best, was one of the Iraq vote rebels as well as other similar issues.
He has (from what I know) been involved in nominating his successor who has made her anti-war position clear. I've met Harold Best a couple of times at public meetings and events around the area and he comes across as a genuine, principled man. I very much doubt he would endorse (he has on the laest campaign literature) a successor if he didn't believe they would be equally as good. Let's face it - for the last parliamentary term he's been having a ball being a rebel, looking forward to retirement. If he didn't rate Judith Blake, he wouldn't endorse her.
From googling the Labour PPC (Judith Blake), and Iraq, I found a statement laying out her anti-war position - which seems the same as Harold Best's, who voted AGAINST the war.
The Libdems are trying to pin the "Blair candidate" label on Judith Blake. I've heard from friends that the Libdems are running push-polling (both by phone and on the doorstep) trying to push the line that (paraphrasing, 2nd hand here!), "If Harold Best was standing again - I wouldn't stand again because I respect him.".
So to try and summarise my (admittedly slightly rambling!) post - I'm going to vote for Judith Blake in LeedsNW:
a) Judith Blake seems to be cut from the same cloth, i.e. anti-war, as the retiring (good) MP
b) because the Libdems are running a dirty campaign from what I've seen/heard
c) it's a 2-way fight between Labour and the Tories - and LeedsNW is the kind of constituency they need to win back to form any kind of majority...
Harold Best's opinion of the Labour PPC is a good pointer for me.
If Harold wasn't retiring - would he be one of your "13 good Labour MPs"...?
(I live in the constituency, am registered to vote here, and voted here in 2001 as well)
Northern guy - it's hard to tell whether or not Harold would have earned our support or not. Of the 71 divisions, he matched our Dream MP on 19, disagreed on 9, but didn't vote on 43. So a tough call.
As for LibDem or Tory, in 2001, the difference between the two parties was only 1127 votes. If you look at the movement from 1997, Labour were +2.0%, Tory -2.5% and LibDem +3.3%. And in the 2003 council elections, the split was LibDem 39%, Tory 34% and Lab 22%. Then take into account potential movement from disillusioned Labour supporters to the LibDems.
Thanks for your opinion BackingBlair.
I'd be interested to see who your "dream MP" is? On a strange aside, if you ever see a side profile of Harold Best, he bears a striking resemblence to a bust of Lenin :-)
If you take into account your maths of "potential movement from disillusioned Labour supporters to the LibDems" - then I could end up in a constituency of Tory (1st), Libdem/Labour battling for 2nd/3rd. I can't see the Tory vote going anywhere in LeedsNW - so if people switch from Lab to Libdem, then the Labour vote goes down, the Tories win by default. A HUGE (000s) number of voters would have to switch here to Libdems for them to win.
Not my 'dream option' it has to be said. (Having a Tory MP in my constituency.)
The Libdems used the local election vote prior to 2001's general election as an indicator that their vote was on the up. It is usually the case that people vote differently in general, local and European elections. Else - why would the Tories have done pretty well in 1999's Euro elections - then crashed in 2001?
The margin of 1127 votes separating second place Tories and 3rd place Libdems in 2001 is still a larger majority than a number of parliamentary constituencies.
Plus the turnout in 2001 was depressed (sadly) already - so the 5,000+ Labour majority is fairly high compared to a large number of other 'marginals' (whatever that means these days...).
The BBC doesn't have LeedsNW in it's list of the 80 most vulnerable Labour seats.
Still not convinced.
Cheers.
I think that is an improvement, but personally I'd still rather gouge my eyes out than vote Tory, especially with the scaremongering campaign they are running.
Steveip,
Sorry... what's an improvement?
With you on gouging your eyes out rather than vote Tory though :-)
Did think it was amusing that the Tories quietly dropped the "vote Blair, get Brown" slogan when it looked like it was MORE appealing to Labour voters... ;-)
Northern_guy,
It's an improvement in that Backing Blair now admits that voting against all Labour candidates, whether good or bad, isn't always the sensible thing to do, and voting for an even more reactionary party because you disapprove of Tony Blair being reactionary isn't always sensible either.
Thanks as well!
Rachel (Orpington).
Thanks for the clarification StevieP.
There seems to be a lot of dogma out in the blogosphere... I guess they'll be even more now that Ratzinger has been 'elected' Pope.
Hey! We've got politics and religion going... anyone want to bring up the 3rd no-go topic?! :-)
Thought you'd like to know, Austin Mitchell campaigning in Grimby has described Iraq as "irrelevant", saying that bringing Iraq into this election is "unnecessary":
http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=151905&command=displayContent&sourceNode=151583&contentPK=12262140
Mr Mitchell, fighting his eighth campaign, said the controversial war was irrelevant compared with the Government's record. He said: "It's not worth not voting for Labour or abstaining on Iraq because it's unimportant compared to the future of the Government."
Voice1: Austin Mitchell's comments show that he's missed the point. The conduct and behaviour of the government, and in particular Tony Blair, is relevant to the election campaign. If we're to judge whether or not Labour deserves a third term then one factor must be whether or not they are trustworthy. Simple as that. So say that Iraq is irrelevant is to say that all the dissembling that went on after Blair agreed to go to war with Bush in April 2002 matters not one jot. But it bloody well does.
Quite. Iraq is relevant because it was the biggest of many lies and occasions on which he broke promises. If you can't believe a PM, he is unfit.
Mitchell is unwise to major on the record. Apart from the Bank of England (so they aren't responsible for the low inflation and interst rates now, the bank is) and the minimum wage (which will go wrong if it rises above inflation) there's Foot and mouth, top up fees, MRSA, IRAQ, early release of terrorists, ID cards, BLUNKETT, mandy, Ecclestone, etc etc. No, they don't want to run on their record .... like Oasis, they haven't made a good one since 1997.
Beachhutman,
I'm intrigued - are you saying giving the Bank of England the independence to set interest rates was a good or a bad policy for the 'national interest' of the UK? If it was a good thing then Labour should be able to take credit, just as if it had f***ed up, they should take the blame. Same with the minimum wage, people on the left argue that it isn't enough, people on the right argued that introducing it would cause widespread economic doom and gloom!
I'm with you on Oasis, though I WAS listening to "Don't look back in anger" recently... :-)
If you don't mind me asking - what's your current and past affiliation? Mine's pretty obvious :-)
When will the constituency pages be updated to reflect these new recommendations? There's not much time left now.
Post a Comment
<< Home