[Peace-discuss] strategic voting

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Tariq Ali, who was at UIUC recently, writing about the upcoming British
election, but making points that are applicable to our situation.  The
Liberal Democrats are a middle-of-the-road British party that recently has
taken positions to the left of Labour on many issues, notably the war.
--CGE]

	For one day only, I'm a Lib Dem
	We must take the politics of the 
	anti-war front into the electoral arena
	Tariq Ali Saturday March 26, 2005
	Guardian

The crucial events that led to the occupation of Iraq by the US and
Britain are now classified, proven and documented. Tony Blair and his New
Labour cohorts, backed by their Conservative allies, lied without shame to
drag a reluctant country to war. A dung-heap of "facts" was manufactured
by Alastair Campbell and hurled at television and the print media. Those
who questioned them were traduced and harassed. The million and a half who
marched to try to prevent the war were ignored. Iraq was occupied. Despite
the rushed and half-baked elections, a savage chaos still grips the
country. The Archbishop of Canterbury remains silent. After the 2001
election, but well before 9/11, Rowan Williams offered the following
advice to the nation: "Without the perspective of religion our whole
politics is likely to be in deep trouble."

The cost of the Iraqi adventure was heavy. According to a team of medical
investigators sent by Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, more than
100,000 Iraqi civilians died. Torture, encouraged from above, became a
fact of life. Perhaps some good liberal apologist for Blair will soon
explain how democratic torture is much nicer than authoritarian torture.
Perhaps the belligerati could take this further. Ian McEwan's next novel
could sensitively depict dilemmas of a liberal torturer faced with the
barbaric Orient. Why not? We live, after all, in a world where illusions
are sacred and truth profane.

Meanwhile, as some (non-Labour) MPs contemplate impeaching Blair for lying
and other misdemeanours, a general election draws near in Britain. What
are we going to do? If Blair wins this election (as appears likely), he
will claim, like Bush, that the country supports him in these difficult
times. It is for this reason that those who opposed the war must think
carefully before they cast their votes. Abstention is not a serious
option. The aim should be to return an anti-war majority to the House of
Commons. This requires tactical/intelligent voting in every constituency.

Normally, people vote to assert their political sympathies. But this is
not a normal general election. It will be the first opportunity to punish
the warmongers and, given the undemocratic voting system, the votes cast
for the Greens, Respect and others will have no impact, with a possible
exception in Bethnal Green and Bow, east London, where George Galloway
confronts the warmonger Oona King. It is possible that in some
constituencies the Green/Respect vote could ensure the return of a
warmonger, as we have seen in the odd byelection. So why not treat this
election as special and take the politics of the broad anti-war front to
the electoral arena? If the result is a hung parliament or a tiny Blair
majority, it will be seen as a victory for our side.

Blair has led this country into more wars than Thatcher and Major
combined. He is responsible for more deaths than his Tory predecessors and
with fewer popular votes to back him. In 1992, the year Neil Kinnock was
defeated by John Major, the Labour vote was 11.5 million. In 2001, New
Labour's indecent majority was based on a popular vote of 10.7 million.
Turnout dropped from 71% in 1997 to 59% in 2001. The rival claimant to the
throne, Gordon Brown, provided a hallucinatory explanation: people were so
relaxed and happy under New Labour that they couldn't be bothered to vote.
Psephology beckons, Gordon. In reality, it was the collapse of the Tories
that distorted the results. New Labour's massive majorities have been
based on mass abstentions and a blatantly undemocratic electoral system.

The assault on civil liberties mounted by Blair and Blunkett is far more
serious than the appalling internment without trial that Edward Heath
instituted during the Troubles. The tribal notion that New Labour is
somehow qualitatively better than the Tories is pure sentimentality. It is
not supported by the facts. With the abandonment of anything resembling
traditional social democracy, New Labour has concentrated on intrigue,
treachery and infamy. How else can one characterise the long Blair-Brown
struggle for mastery of No 10?

Despite the fact that politics has evaporated inside New Labour, the
demonstration had its impact. A total of 139 Labour MPs voted against the
war. Robin Cook resigned from the cabinet. Clare Short was pushed out.
George Galloway, the most consistent opponent in parliament, was expelled
from the Labour party. The Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists and
Plaid Cymru voted against as well. In constituencies where there are MPs
belonging to the anti-war faction, one should vote for them despite
disagreements on many other issues. In the warmonger constituencies we
should vote tactically. In my north London constituency, the MP is Barbara
Roche: pro-war and pro everything else this wretched government has done.
I don't simply want to vote against her. I want her to be defeated. That
is why I will vote Liberal Democrat.

· A version of this article appears in the April issue of Red Pepper

	tariq.ali3 at btinternet.com
	Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005