first quoting me:
>I personally am in favour of pluralist democracy and not being tied to any
>one political party.
>
>I agree with your friend that the Liberal Democrats are to the left of
>Labour. More important than making voting gestures which feel morally good
>is using votes to change things. IMO the most important reason for
>supporting the LibDems is their commitment to proportional representation
>constitutionally and politically, their commitment to European integration.
>
>But tactical voting is on the rise despite the continuation of Britain's
>first-past-the-post system for our main elections, since 1992. There is a
>strong desire to vote against the Conservatives even now.
>
>
>
> http://www.tacticalvoter.net/
>
>
>gives information about the best chances of beating the Conservative
>candidate. For people who do not want to vote against their party they can
>be paired with someone who will vote for their party where it has a the
>best chance of beating the Conservative candidate.
>
>
>Perhaps people could pass this on to other potential British voters.
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London
>
>
>-Hmmmm.....seems to be very similar to the dilemma faced by the US left.
>-Support the lesser evil (Democrats) or engaging in third parties building
>-while risking to help the right to win the elections. However, from what
>-I know from relatively limited sources, the New Labour and the Democratic
>-party in the USA are not too different from their right wing counterparts,
>-so, in the case of UK, where the risk of a conservative victory is too
>-small, it would be better to fight for left wing alternatives to Labour,
>-instead of tactical votes. Do you think a left wing party (like the
>-Alliance in New Zealand for instance) could achieve 10-15% of the national
>-votes?
>
> Alexandre
I am not sure it is like this dilemma. As people can see from the web-site I gave, there are a number of first-past-the-post seats where the Conservatives can be beaten if Liberal Democrat and Labour supporters vote tactically. From the point of view of really radical politics they are all "lesser evils"
I understand that in the last election in the US swaps of Nader votes and Democratic votes were not very successful, but it has happened in some constituencies in Britain already.
The Observer gives prominence to it this Sunday.
Watch for the results in Dorset where the Conservatives could lose three marginal seats with good tactical voting.
As for the Socialist Alliance type of option, their politics taken in abstract are much more attractive, but as a tactic in an election dominated by the first-past-the-post system I am doubtful at this stage whether much is gained in trying to get them 10% of the vote in even a few constituencies. The message about increasing income tax would come over better by voting Liberal Democrat.
Remember in evaluating the Socialist Alliance as a tactic and a strategy in Britain in this election, that part of the momentum for Socialist Alliance comes from smaller marxist organisations that really put energy into it, not because it is the best way of building a progressive united front against capitalism now, but because it may help them recruit to their vanguard organisations.
Is that unfair? Comments from that standpoint welcomed.
Chris Burford