Is our job really to keep the Tories out at all costs?
Because that’s what some seem to think.
I get the impression that many LibDems think we should vote for Ken Livingstone so we can keep Boris, and by extension, the Tories out of power.
If I was in politics to keep the Tories out of power I’d have joined the Labour Party. That is not my aim however, my aim to to promote liberalism and freedom for the individual. The party I judge to be best positioned to work towards this is the Liberal Democrats.
Frankly, I find the Tories, in general, slightly less odious than the current Labour Party, although I’ll grant you that in some areas the Tories are worse (in my home town they’re both equally despicable and I couldn’t vote for either) and they leave a massive amount to be desired.
True, there are the old Tory snobs and a fair smattering of idiots, but at least their snobbery and idiocy is out there for all to see. The Labour party contains its fair share of such people, but they hide behind being ‘progressive’ and ‘left wing’ which supposedly makes it all okay.
When it comes to the mayoral elections - I believe Brian Paddick would genuinely make the best Mayor - and that’s not just party loyalty speaking. After that however I see the twin horrors of Ken and Boris. Out of the two, I find Boris less objectionable. He at least has some liberal bones in his body unlike Ken who is an enemy of all things liberal and free.
I also rather like inefficient politicians, they’re less likely to get things done, encouraging us to depend less on government and more on individual and community efforts.
Frankly, if the London Mayor has so much power that he could destroy London then he has too much power unfortunately the only way to drive this home would be for someone to abuse that power, perhaps then we can start acting to reducing the power of politicians.
Acknowledging the fact that Brian Paddick is very unlikely to win, I’d rather have Boris with an Assembly which will oppose him than anything else. For me, Boris is just the lesser of two evils.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Hear, hear.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
That’s a fine rational behind your voting decision up to a point, Tristan; but I think your argument falls down a bit when applied to the reality of who is actually the candidate rather than the ideology they claim to espouse.
The Mayoralty is very different from parliament; you really are picking the person to lead as well as their philosophy. Now, don’t get me wrong I find Ken Livingstone odious but his record suggests that he’s not going to ‘break’ London. In fact, he’s picked up many of his policies from the Lib Dem GLA team.
Boris, for all his professed liberalism (and I’m not as confident as you as to how liberal he is; think Bullingdon Club and the Darius Guppy affair), is going to struggle to deliver any of it because he’s never actually had to deliver anything. He’s a smart guy but you need experience as well. So, that’s the incompetence argument: whatever you might think of what Boris says he’s going to do, you have to temper it with the realisation that he’s more likely to make mistakes and not deliver.
As for keeping the Tories out at all costs; it’s not so much about that as it is about understanding that the dynamic for us, the Liberal Democrats, will be different depending on who wins the Mayor. Obviously, it goes without saying that the best thing for London and the Liberal Democrats would be for Brian to win; and he will be getting my first preference. However, the point of having another vote is that you can look beyond that.
If Boris wins there will be a terrific momentum for the Tories and the scale of a GE win could be far greater that it would if he doesn’t win. We can say good-bye to any thoughts about a hung parliament and electoral & constitutional reform. Where we have seats that are vulnerable, they tend to vulnerable to Tories and a great upsurge in Tory support could mean that we would lose a number of seats.
If Ken wins, then I don’t think it will have a similar ‘fillip’ for the Labour Party. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Labour are going to win more seats than they did last time and we need to make sure that the seats they lose go to us instead of the Tories. Easier to do if the Tories don’t have a London Mayor
So, it’s not about ‘anything but the Tories’. It’s about looking at the dynamics to understand where we, the Liberal Democrats are vulnerable and the impact on the number of MPs that we have on the next general election; who wins the London Mayor could have a big impact on that!
I know you made this point on one of my postings but it is easier for me to comment on a non ‘blogger.com’ from the office; I will post this response on my own blog when I get home to make sense of the discussion in both places.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I think you make a very strong argument here Tristan.
One of the biggest problems Lib Dems face is the sort of lazy political analysis which sees the Tories as being on the right, Labour as being on the left, and the Lib Dems as floating around indecisively somewhere in the middle. That’s the sort of flawed view which prompts journalists to ask us which way we’re going to go when pushed, and those questions do us a lot of damage.
The challenge is to make it clear to people that liberalism is a distinct political ideology, separate from both of the others … to convince people that rather than the political parties lying along a sort of right-left axis, it’s actually more like a three-spoked wheel.
An attitude of “beat the Tories at all costs” makes it so much harder to achieve that, and is unbelievably counter-productive.
I’m still not sure I could stomach voting for Boris, but you’re right to point out that there’s no great reason to see him as being any more or less objectionable than Ken. I guess we’re stuck between the red devil and the deep blue sea …
April 14th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Given our many local alliances in council chambers with the conservatives, I think its pretty clear that the party doesn’t think that way as a whole. Perhaps it seems more that way in the south?
Really, the policy platforms of the two are not so different, and neither shows any liberalism- not that I think Paddick is running on a very liberal platform either, if I am frank. I think the powers given to the mayor make it difficult to advance the liberal case.
Personally I would prefer Livingstons petty corruption to Boris’s casual racist slurs, especially considering the coverage coming up in the 2012 games. The assembly is too weak to moderate anything.
A giant FPTP election such as this is really a disaster for third party politics, however, and I don’t see any advance for liberalism coming out of it. I hope the party will consider calling for its replacement in the future.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I really think you should take a long hard look at Boris and consider what a wasteland the man could make of London during his term as mayor. Paddick is not a particularly good candidate who cannot win and if his ten percent lets Boris in you will rue the day. Best hold your nose and vote tactically.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Norman, with the SV system, you don’t have to vote tactically … this argument is really more about who Lib Dem supporters should give their second preference vote to. (ie the vote that will actually count in the Boris v Ken battle, when Brian Paddick gets eliminated.)
PS don’t quote me on that last bit, Brian’s actually going to win by a landslide!
April 15th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Firstly I won’t be casting a second preference - Boris is an idiot who would fail London miserably. Ken and his cronies have lost the plot.
People should remember the voting system, if they back Brian they should vote for Brian, and give their second preference to the other candidate they find least odious.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Although I agree with the thrust and conclusions of this article I’m a bit alarmed at the scale of your anti government bias. If you want to limit government then go the route of the philadelphia lawyers. The idea that bad/incompetent Government will promote a smaller stae if fine , until you are one of the people hurt by the vacuum thats left.