I would not see this article as a main reason for not voting Labour. I am not in favour of either tailing behind a particular party or of casting a vote just as a protest. As we do not have proportional representation in Britain for our main elections, unlike Germany, the question is more complicated.
However up to 40% of the electorate say they would consider voting tactically, and most of them are Liberal Democrats or Labour supporters who would vote against the Conservatives.
But the piece I wrote below was an attempt to analyse the Times editorial, which is mainly reacting to events much as it would like to appear to be shaping them.
The Times editorial endorsing Labour is much more difficult to explain than that of the FT.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,56-2001191308,00.html
It is written for two constituencies which take a lot of squaring, even before it can be evaluated as a commentary on the actual balance of forces.
The more important constituency for understanding its position, is that of its owner, Murdoch. It seems highly probable that it and the Sun have been given background briefings from the highest level in Labour signalling that they will have everything to play for in a referendum. They will be in a stronger position to influence the result if the Sun does not oppose an inevitable Labour victory now.
Its internal briefing must be clever enough to have been acceptable to Murdoch. Murdoch has got much of his profits globally by anticipating and taking advantage of government policies on the media. He probably prefers weak global government as this allows him more opportunities. But he may be much more pragmatic about Britain's entry into the Euro than the middle sized capitalists who support Little England. By comparison with access to the market for Chinese media this is relatively unimportant.
>We think, and have argued during this campaign, that for practical and
>political reasons a referendum is unlikely to be possible in the next
>Parliament. Even if we are wrong, we believe that the process of economic
>assessment set down by the Chancellor will allow for a reasonable period
>of time to pass between the election and a referendum. We also note that
>national sentiment on the single currency has changed substantially since
>1997 and we are confident that the euro can be defeated in any plebiscite.
>If a referendum on the euro takes place, our voice against it will be
>vigorous and loud.
>
>We hope that Mr Blair has the wisdom to concentrate on the series of
>challenges that he has set out at home and to avoid a reckless continental
>adventure that could destroy both his premiership and his reputation. On
>that basis, and for the first time in its history, The Times offers a
>cautious but clear endorsement of the Labour Party in this election.
The more complex consituency is that of the Conservative party. This editorial is a demonstrably intellectually learned rehearsal of famous landmarks of Conservative thinking, such as Disraeli, Asquith and Churchill. It positions the paper in a sophisticated stance ahead of the recriminations that are likely to hit the Conservative Party.
It appears to argue that the party should accept a significant social democratic element to the political settlement, and that Thatcher was a corrective phenomenon. It hopes for other reforms from New Labour of a pragmatic nature (probably bringing private enterprise in the management of the land and fabric of hospitals and schools more fully into education and health).
Overall it is a signal of a sense that Hague is not just too young and lightweight but has not got a grasp of a wide enough set of constituencies to provide a sound leader of a modern government. It suggests that the Labour Government's total social management (as I call it) is a safer option for capitalism at this stage.
>For all that, we feel comfortable, as never before, with the case for
>Labour. Mr Blair, either out of conviction or out of fear that his
>proposed expenditure increases will be inadequate, is likely to blend
>Thatcherite means with social democratic ends in a manner which will
>benefit public services. The electors would be best advised to let him
>continue what he has begun.
Who is fooling whom most, remains to be seen, but the editorial is not good news for the plucky Mr Hague. It also implies an assessment from a eurosceptic focus within the Conservative Party that it will have a long route to follow before it restabilises after the election.
At its most coherent it appears to want opinion to emerge in the Conservative Party in favour of a mixed economy and a pragmatic approach to Europe.
Chris Burford
London