Backing Backing Blair?
A couple of months ago I wrote a post about my disbelief at Tim Ireland’s plans for bloggerheads to back blair. It later became apparent that this was a wind-up, and a few days ago we found out what it was really all about with the launch of Backing Blair. This is a campaign aiming to inflict upon Blair the comeuppance that he has hitherto avoided for his deceptions over Iraq and his right-wing leanings, in the form of a large anti-labour protest vote at the general election. And it seems to have the labour campaign worried.
But it’s not as simple as all that. In order to really make all those Blair appeasing Labour MPs quake in their boots, they want people to vote for whichever candidate is most likely to beat the Labour candidate, regardless of petty considerations such as, well, anything else. This might mean voting for a bigoted, pro-war tory, rather than an anti-war, anti-Blair labour MP. Here’s the justification:
Labour candidates need to know what Blair’s ongoing leadership has/will/may cost them. We want survivors of the protest vote to come away determined to unseat Blair.
And we couldn’t give a toss about the performance of an MP regarding their service to the local community. The invasion of a country that presents no threat to us on the basis of thin and politically-influenced intelligence sets a dangerous precedent that threatens us all. The same goes for detaining people without trial. Domestic issues pale into insignificance next to such things, I’m afraid.
So, “do I agree?”, I ask myself (because nobody else knows or cares what I think). Well, here’s the way I see it:
- The prime minister has lied to the electorate in order to go to war against a country that wasn’t a threat, without UN approval, leading to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Legally speaking, Tony Blair has commited the war-crime of aggression. Morally speaking, he is a dangerous, delusional, self-righteous, manipulative git. (When I look at that old New Labour, New Danger ad now it seems eerily prescient). I cannot vote for a Labour party headed by Blair under any circumstances.
- The possibility of the Tories winning this election is negligible
- The first past the post electoral system is undemocratic. A vote for a left-wing anti-war party in my constituency will increase the chance of a party even more pro-war and even more right-wing than labour (the conservatives) representing me in the commons.
- Rather than trying to change it, Labour are actually exploiting the undemocratic nature of the system to their advantage, with their “vote Lib Dem, wake up with a Tory” message. If Labour are going to encourage tactical voting, I should vote tactically in order to combat them.
- A reduced Labour majority, even at the expense of more tory MPs, will make any politician think twice about abusing the trust of the british people in the future. It will also actually hand more power to the liberal democrats, and in the best case scenario could result in a hung parliament with the liberals (the largest anti-war party) holding the balance of power.
So it seems that I think people should be prepared to vote lib dem, green, respect, or whatever in labour/conservative marginals, and accept the possibility of a tories winning some of those seats in exchange for a more powerful Liberal Democrat party (who, incidentally, are also committed to democratic reforms that will make this sort of decision unnecessary in the future) and the chance to give the labour party a good kicking for its support/appeasement of Blair.
But then why not take that argument to its logical conclusion? The simple mathematics of the system means that voting conservative in these constituencies has double the effect of voting for an anti-war party, if the aim is to punish labour and reward the lib dems.
I’ll have to think a bit more about anti-war, anti-blair labour MPs, and tory constituencies in which the lib dems or other non-labour parties are challenging, but I think I might just have talked myself into backing Backing Blair.
Sheesh, this democracy lark isn’t easy.
February 21st, 2005 at 11:22
Backing Blair is not just about the war on Iraq. The London Underground Song, which is still not back online, does not mention Iraq. It is a reminder that under Labour, the unions will always have the upper hand.
Download it here:
http://www.union.ic.ac.uk/medic/fitness/tracks/London%20Underground.mp3
Here’s the lyric:
Tubes on strike
Greedy bastards want extra pay
For sitting on they’re arse all day
Even though they earn 30k
They’re all lazy fucking useless cunts
They’re all greedy cunts, I want to shoot them all with a rifle
They’re all wankers, they’re all wankers
There are plenty of other reason not to vote Labour. Do you believe they will protect our borders better than the Conservatives?
February 21st, 2005 at 11:23
When I said it was not back online, I was referring to the version with Backing Blair graphics
February 21st, 2005 at 12:34
“Backing Blair is not just about the war on Iraq.”
Errr, yes it is!
From the faq:
Domestic issues like the London Underground, I should think. I can’t speak for the Backing Blair team, but I’m fairly sure that the London Underground flash movie was just there to attract some hits.
February 21st, 2005 at 14:13
The London Underground Song, is not there just to get some hits from anti-Trade Unionists. I’m sure Backing Blair, would not go off the anti-war message by accident. They understand that the war is the Blair’s weakest point, but that there are plenty of other reasons not to vote Labour. Trade Unionism is all the London Underground Song is about and Backing Blair knows that Labour’s Union links are a popular reason not to vote Blair.
February 21st, 2005 at 15:07
‘Jim’…
You are wrong. Actually, you are beyond wrong. You are pretending to be wrong as part of an attempt to discredit the BB campaign.
That’s why I’m deleting your desperate, repeated trackback pings to my site and why (just in case you’re interested) you are now barred from making comments on Bloggerheads, too.
February 21st, 2005 at 20:43
PS
U: Do excuse me for letting this spill over into your wonderful weblog.
:O)
February 22nd, 2005 at 04:37
Bad Tim Ireland! Naughty Tim Ireland!
Actually, even though I am thoroughly inebriated (though, thankfully I recouped £6 due to winning a pub quiz through superior ZX Spectrum games knowledge), I totally agree with Mr. Underblog and therefore by proxy Mr. Tim Ireland.
A reduced Labour majority would indeed be in the best interests of this nation. The thing is, at the moment, there are NO differences between Labour and Conservatives. Everything that we hated about the Tories in the past, we hate about the Labour government now. The sleaze and corruption is still there.
I’m actually glad though that there is a semblance of choice in this country, unlike America; so as you say, it’d be in the best interests of this country to ensure a reduced Labour majority with a stronger Liberal party providing a balance.
Yes. Well pointed out, sirs.
February 24th, 2005 at 14:47
The thing I’m worried about is the Tories getting in. I want Labour, proper Labour. But I want to get rid of Tony and get Gordon in there. If the Tories win this election then we are truly fucked. At least if Labour’s in *then* we can put the pressure on Tony…
I don’t understand the idea behind voting for *anyone* other than the Labour candidate. Surely it should be more focussed than that… I still think a Labour voter in a safe Labour seat swapping votes with a Lib Dem in a safe Tory seat is the best plan… Both would still know that their votes would be going for the party of their choice just not in the area they live in. And it’s leaving the Tories out of it completely. Which is good cos they are massive twats.
February 24th, 2005 at 14:49
Oh and there is one thing missing from Labour that the Tories had. Satsumas… there’s just not enough perverted sex scandals. They really are failing horribly, aren’t they?
February 24th, 2005 at 19:10
Blair-appeasing labour MPs like mine are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis. To me it’s that simple. A case can be made for trying Blair as a war criminal. The “New Deal” and increased investment in education can only justify so much, especially when progressive steps are equalled by right-wing New Labour policies like PPP, foundation hospitals and top-up fees.
Perhaps I have a different perspective because I only really became politically aware towards the very end of the last period of tory rule (I was 14 in 1997), but Labour’s “At least we aren’t the tories” line doesn’t really work for me. Yes, the tories are even worse than labour, but my vote for them is strategic, not ideological.
If, closer to the election, pollsters and pundits (not Tony Blair) are saying that there is a real danger of a tory government, of course I will rethink my strategy. But I would still have grave misgivings about voting for possible war-criminals; perhaps I could just about reconcile myself to a vote-swap.
As for satsumas and perverted sex scandals, what people get up to consensually in their spare time is no business of mine, unless they’re telling me what I can and can’t get up to in my spare time. It’s a pity that Milligan didn’t feel able to share his fetish with a partner. If someone else had been present the tragic death would not have occurred.
Errr, I feel I should point out that, despite my liberal attitude and desire not to judge or ridicule, auto-erotic asphyxiation is not my bag.
April 27th, 2005 at 17:13
Have a look at this -
http://www.biggerthanblair.org
Any comments,criticisms, ideas etc etc gratefully received.
You can reach us at contact@biggerthanblair.org
Cheers,
Luke.
April 28th, 2005 at 19:51
is anyone else broad of this campaign? This is the third general election I have been bothered about, and all the negativity given by the parties is really getting to me. I’ve know who I was gonig to vote for before this started, but no one seems to be trying to get my vote… its all what bad things will happen if the others guys (and gals) get into number 10.
In the past, Blair actually rose to the occasion and told us what he would do and there didn’t seem too much bad stuff towards the Tories and Libs. Now, its just BAD BAD BAD!
Anyhow, not voting Blair, want him to get in for third term, show us what he is capable of, but with a much reduced majority to make him sit up and think… maybe even encourage him to stand down - surely his heart must need a rest soon!