-
>
>-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
-I don´t know, it´s difficult to evaluate if it is unfair. I agree with you that voting Labour or Lib Dem is the best strategy to defeat the conservatives, however, there are some arguments against it: 1-It seems (to me, maybe I´m wrong) that New Labour politics are not very different from conservative ones.Here in Brazil both the left and the right agree on this specific topic (however, as I´ve said, we may be wrong). 2-The Brazilian left in the 80´s supported centrist and "left center" burgeoise paries, in order to help the return of democracy (this tatic was strongly under taken by the Communist Party). Eventually those parties reached power (1985- 2001) and made sucessive coalitions with the conservative parties just to execute a large liberalization program. Fortunately, people in the left who disagreed with this policy built the Worker´s Party, which increased from 1% to 15% of the national vote in the 1982-2000 period. The Worker´s Party is not a marxist party, but a broad left wing party, including from center left to ultraleftist groups, making a (possibly flawed) analogy with your country, it would be a good opportunity to promote this kind of party, but the first- past-the-post system establish that there is not much to gain with this tatic. In Brazil we have a proportional system, that is quite rewarding for small parties. 3-Once the elections are finished, how to assure the turn to left in Britain withouth a left party properly? (The fact that LibDems are left to Labour proves that the New Labour is hopeless from a socialist point of view, isn´t it?)
Alexandre Fenelon