Greater Surbiton

The perfect is the enemy of the good

Does AV give extremists more votes than moderates ?

In my recent post criticising the ‘Alternative Vote’ (AV) system, I explained why the system is unfair, and why it effectively privileges voters for fringe parties over those voting for mainstream parties. I argued also that AV effectively gives them more votes. Defenders of AV such as Norm Geras and Alex Massie deny that this is true. However, the pro-AV camp appears to be making two, contradictory arguments in defence of the system: 1) that it does not give those voting for extremist parties more votes than moderates; and 2) that it does, but that this is a good thing.

Hence, The Independent newspaper defends AV on the grounds that

‘the curse of the first-past-the-post system – the argument that a vote for a smaller party is “wasted” – would be eliminated at a stroke, because the second preference votes of lower-placed candidates would be reallocated if the first count failed to produce a clear winner. The public will be able to vote for the person they want to represent them (as their first preference) without having to agonise about whether they are effectively disenfranchising themselves if they choose a candidate representing a smaller party.’

Under the present First-Past-The-Post system, each voter has one vote and a choice over how to cast it: either they can express their unhappiness with mainstream politics by voting for a fringe party, in the knowledge that the fringe candidate has no chance of winning, or they can vote for a mainstream candidate whom they may or may not actually like but who does have a chance of winning. Because they only have one vote, they cannot do both. Under AV, however, they can have their cake and eat it.

Thus, a BNP supporter wishing to express his disgust at what he feels is the failure of mainstream politicians to keep the hordes of job-stealing, council-house-queue-jumping foreigners out and the pesky, halal-munching, integration-avoiding Muslims downs, but who when push comes to shove would generally vote for the Tories since they’re at least a bit tougher on immigration than Labour, could now do both: he could cast his vote for the BNP candidate and thereby boost the BNP’s share of the vote nationally, in order to send out a clear message to the decadent, unpatriotic liberal elite running the country that the silent majority is angry with the way things are, AND could then have his vote transferred to the Tory candidate; a vote that will then count just as much as a first-preference Tory vote from an actual Tory supporter.

I call that having two votes instead of one. Someone voting with their first-preference vote for Labour or another mainstream party, by contrast, has done just one of those things. The Labour voter has voted for a party with a chance of winning; the BNP voter has voted for a party with a chance of winning AND boosted the votes of another, fringe party that has no chance of winning, but that will undoubtedly claim greater legitimacy and make political capital the more votes it gets. So AV would provide a definite incentive to vote for a fringe party while putting a mainstream party as your second choice, so as to make the most of your vote.

Responding to my last post, which used an example to show how supporters of the fringe party would receive an unfair advantage over the supporters of the mainstream party because the system redistributes their votes first, Norm has given a counter-example of what he suggests is an equally unfair result under the existing system:

‘In Lower Zogby by the Fen 35 people vote Tory first, 33 vote Labour first, and 32 vote LibDem first. But the Labour voters would prefer the LibDem to the Tory, and the LibDem voters would prefer the Labour candidate to the Tory. As is, with first-past-the-post, the preferences of 67 out of 100 people to have a candidate elected other than the Tory are nullified, where with AV Labour would win.’

Certainly, there are unfair aspects of the existing system, and unfair results possible under it. I’m not convinced that the example Norm cites is particularly unfair, since it involves, after all, the candidate who won the most votes winning. But if one concedes that it is unfair, then it is unfair in practice; in that particular instance, the LibDem and Labour candidates have split the left/liberal vote and allowed the Tory to win. In another instance, it might be an anti-Labour majority that is split between the Tories and the LibDems. The AV system, however, privileges the voters for fringe parties in principle, since if you are a fringe-party supporter, the system will always work in your favour – or at the very worst, will never work against you. The First-Past-The-Post system is fair in principle but unfair in practice; the AV system is unfair in principle.

Having said that, Norm’s example points to a genuine pragmatic argument for voting for AV, one that has been made by Timothy Garton Ash, Polly Toynbee and others: the fact that under the existing system, the liberal portion of the British electorate is split between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, bestowing a structural advantage on the Conservatives, and that the way to end disproportionate Conservative success at the polls is to abolish First Past the Post. This argument appears much weaker after last year’s general election: the Conservatives failed to win under First Past the Post, but were rescued by the Liberal Democrats; instead of joining with Labour to form a centre-left government representing Britain’s ‘natural liberal majority’, the LibDems gave the non-victorious Conservatives a parliamentary majority to implement a radical Thatcherite programme for which they had no popular mandate. AV would make more such Con-Dem coalitions likely.

My solution for the electoral split in the centre-left, is for the LibDems to experience electoral meltdown at the next general election and effectively to disappear as a significant party. Instead of which, AV would breathe life into the discredited and moribund LibDems, empowering future Nick Cleggs to play kingmaker between Labour and the Conservatives after future elections. AV would exacerbate the split in the centre-left, not make it go away.

Visit the ‘No to AV‘ campaign site.

Advertisements

Saturday, 2 April 2011 Posted by | Britain, Marko Attila Hoare | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Alternative Vote system – a ‘Cunning Plan’

On 5 May, British voters will vote in a referendum on whether to replace our existing ‘First Past the Post’ voting system for parliamentary elections with the ‘Alternative Vote’ (AV) system. I had not previously examined the implications of AV and had no prior ideological bias for or against it. But having now had a chance to look at how AV would work, I am literally dumbfounded that our great democracy is under threat of being lumbered with this cruel joke of a voting system.

Under AV, voters would not just give one vote to one candidate, but would list candidates in order of preference – putting ‘1’ for their first-choice candidate, ‘2’ for their second choice, etc. In the likely event that no candidate received an absolute majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest such votes would be eliminated from the contest, and their voters’ second-choice votes would then be added to the total votes of the other candidates. If there were still no candidate with an absolute majority, the candidate who now had fewest votes would then be eliminated and their votes redistributed, and so on until one candidate had achieved over 50% of the votes.

This system would increase the voting power of voters who vote for fringe parties such as the BNP or Respect, and disadvantage those voting for moderate, mainstream parties. Those voting for the fringe extremists would be likely to have their votes redistributed to their second, third or further choice; those voting for the mainstream parties would be much less likely to. Effectively, supporters of unpopular extremist parties would be given more votes than supporters of popular moderate parties.

To illustrate this, imagine a hypothetical constituency with 100 voters, being contested by four candidates from the following parties: Labour, the Conservatives (Tories), the Liberal Democrats (LibDems) and the British National Party (BNP). To win, a candidate would ultimately have to achieve 51 votes [NB I am aware, of course, that real constituencies have more than 100 voters, and that the distribution of votes is likely to be more complicated than what follows; this is a simplified but representative model of how AV would work].

In the first round of voting, the outcome is as follows:

Labour: 40 votes – second-choice votes to LibDems

Tory: 29 votes – second-choice votes to LibDems

LibDem: 16 votes – second-choice votes to Tories

BNP: 15 votes – second-choice votes to Tories

The BNP candidate, as the lowest-ranking, is therefore eliminated and their votes transferred to their voters’ second choice – in this case, the Tory candidate, whose votes would therefore increase to 29 + 15 = 44 votes. Since still no candidate has a majority, the next lowest candidate – the LibDem – is eliminated and their votes transferred to their voters’ second choice – again the Tory. The Tory candidate thus has 44 + 16 = 60 votes, therefore an absolute majority, and wins the election.

The system is grossly unfair at every level:

1) It is the lowest-ranking candidate alone whose votes are redistributed. It privileges those voting for the lowest-ranking candidates, and penalises those voting for the more popular candidates.

Why shouldn’t it be the highest-ranking candidate whose votes are redistributed ? In the example above, this would mean the Labour candidate is eliminated, and their 40 votes transferred to the LibDem, who would then have 16 + 40 = 56 and would win the election. The Labour voters, who actually voted for the candidate with the most first-preference votes, would therefore at least have their second-choice candidate win. Yet under AV, the BNP voters – not the Labour voters – would have their second choice win.

Why should this be so ? I have not yet heard any attempt at justification from the pro-AV camp.

2) AV pretends that a candidate who might not even have a plurality under the First-Past-The-Post system, actually has an absolute majority. It’s a con-trick.

In the example above, the Tory candidate who won only 29 out of 100 votes, therefore 11 fewer than the Labour candidate and 22 short of an absolute majority, is given a ‘majority’ through the second-preference votes of the BNP and LibDem voters. This ‘majority’ is gained because only the second-choice votes of the BNP and LibDem voters count. If everyone’s second-choice votes counted, the result would be as follows:

Labour: 40 first-preference votes and 0 second-preference votes = 40

Tory: 29 first-preference votes and 31 second-preference votes = 60

LibDem: 16 first-preference votes and 69 second-preference votes = 85

BNP: 15 first-preference votes and 0 second-preference votes = 15

Under AV, the Tory candidate wins because they receive the second-preference votes of the BNP and LibDem voters, but the LibDem candidate doesn’t receive any second-preference votes, even though they received many more of them than the Tory. Were all second-preference votes to be treated as equal, the LibDem would win. Of course, the LibDem candidate only has 85 out of 200 total first- and second-preference votes – not an absolute majority. But this is more than the Tory candidate, who has 60 out of 200. The latter is a smaller percentage than the Labour candidate received of the first-preference votes. Yet the pro-AV camp would have us believe that the Tory candidate actually has an absolute majority of 60 out of 100 !

There is simple justice to the existing system: the candidate with the most votes wins. Under AV, a candidate who comes second or third might win, just because the votes are redistributed in an arbitrary and unequal way. In the example above, the Tory would win, even though 71 out of 100 voters preferred another candidate.

If, under the existing voting system, the British people don’t already feel politically disillusioned and disempowered, replacing it with AV would make sure that they do.

And all this is leaving aside the still more important reason for voting against AV – the overriding need to kick Nick Clegg. I’m not joking. We’re only voting on AV because of the back-room deal that Clegg struck with the Tories to enter government, at the price of ditching his pre-election promises and betraying his voters. And Clegg only wants AV because it would boost his party’s share of the parliamentary seats. It beggars belief that we are actually in danger of having our voting system ruined, just so an unprincipled politician can receive his pay-off. And this despite the fact that even Clegg described AV as a ‘miserable little compromise’ !

Visit the ‘No to AV’ campaign site.

Thursday, 31 March 2011 Posted by | Britain, Marko Attila Hoare | , , , | Leave a comment

Trotsky ‘massively regrets’ breaking pre-revolution pledge to give power to the proletariat

Following last week’s violent suppression of the Kronstadt Uprising, Leon Trotsky, Commissar for War in the government of Soviet Russia, has come under fire for abandoning his pre-revolution pledge that he would preside over the transfer of power to the proletariat. Opinion polls suggest that public approval in him and other former Mensheviks who joined the Bolsheviks in 1917 has fallen from 25% at the time of the October Revolution to just 9% today, and that Trotsky himself is the most loathed and distrusted Russian politician since Ivan the Terrible, possibly since the Mongol overlords of the Middle Ages. Half their former voters now say they will vote for the left Socialist Revolutionaries at elections for the next All-Russian Congress of Soviets.

‘I’ve been very clear that of course I regret – I massively regret – in politics, as in life, saying that you’re going to do something and then finding that you can’t, and I’ve sought to explain how that came about’, Mr Trotsky said in an interview with the Soviet Broadcasting Corporation today.

‘But Comrade Trotsky’, said the interviewer, ‘in 1917 you toured the factories and garrisons of Red Petrograd, and had yourself photographed carrying a placard saying “All power to the Soviets !” Yet since the revolution you have presided over the transformation of the soviets into passive and bureaucratised instruments of rule by the commissars, suppressed the factory committees in favour of one-man-management, concentrated all power in the hands of the Bolshevik party politburo and ordered the Red Army to slaughter the Kronstadt sailors – the vanguard of the proletariat – the most loyal sons of the revolution ! How can you square this with your pre-revolution claim that you would break with the practices of the old order and restore people’s faith in Russian politics ?’

Mr Trotsky tried to assure his audience that ‘the reason of course is very, very simple: we were really relying on the revolution spreading to the advanced capitalist West, and we didn’t appreciate the scale of the social and economic problems and the sheer extent of Russian backwardness left behind by the Provisional Government.’ Yet critics are suggesting that Mr Trotsky’s U-turn will further damage popular confidence in Russian politicians. They point out that he came to power promising ‘Peace, Bread, Land’, yet presided over the establishment of a dictatorship that sparked a civil war that killed millions, forcibly confiscated grain from starving peasants, reduced the Russian population to such levels of hunger that cannibalism became widespread, and persecuted and silenced the Bolsheviks’ political opponents through the use of the secret police.

Members of the Menshevik opposition argue that back in 1904, Mr Trotsky had made a trenchant critique of the authoritarian implications of the politics of Bolshevik leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, but since entering into coalition with Mr Lenin, he had become pretty much indistinguishable from him politically. Yet Mr Trotsky has been at pains to stress what he calls the ‘progressive’ character of his plan for the militarisation of labour, claiming that ‘the poorest 25% of workers will actually be better off than under the previous system.’ In an effort to quell disillusionment among his supporters, Mr Trotsky has apparently obtained from his government partners a promise that the poorest 25% of workers would receive an extra bag of grain per week.

Greater Surbiton News Service

Tuesday, 14 December 2010 Posted by | Britain | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

David Cameron and William Hague look set to help South East Europe

William Hague, the new British foreign secretary

‘Compared with a decade ago, this country is more open at home and more compassionate abroad and that is something we should all be grateful for…’. So said Britain’s new prime minister David Cameron, paying tribute to the outgoing Labour government. Britain is embarking on a new political era, and it is sad to see so many self-proclaimed ‘progressives’ still stuck in the same ideological trenches they inhabited in the 1980s, unable to view ‘progressive politics’ in anything other than anti-Tory terms, and damning the Liberal Democrats for their supposed ‘betrayal’. Cameron presented Britain with a historic opportunity to reconstitute our mainstream party of the right as a party of the centre. Had he failed to form a government, the Conservative Party could quite possibly have moved back towards the right. I have been critical of the Liberal Democrats in the past, but Nick Clegg’s decision to form a coalition with Cameron was a supremely responsible act, rescuing Cameron’s ‘progressive Conservative’ project and moderating any right-wing tendencies that a straight Conservative government would have had. The new British government enjoys greater legitimacy than any other combination arising from the election would have done; as much as is possible, it broadly represents what the nation wants, which is a change of government but not a move to the right. The Labour Party will benefit from a rest after thirteen years in office. Those who see British politics purely through anti-Conservative or anti-Labour lenses are still living in the twentieth century; the formation of a Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition shows that old distinctions between ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ parties no longer apply.

Crucially, the foreign and defence portfolios in the new government are in the hands of Conservatives. Of course, Britain’s last Conservative government under John Major had a disgraceful record in world affairs – either failing to halt or actively aiding and abetting genocide in Iraq, Bosnia and Rwanda, while undermining our alliance with the US. But not all Conservative politicians are the same – Winston Churchill was not Neville Chamberlain and Margaret Thatcher was not Edward Heath. There is cause for concern at the continued influence in the party of elements complicit with Major’s disastrous policies, such as Malcolm Rifkind and Pauline Neville-Jones. But the signals coming from Cameron and from the new foreign secretary, William Hague, are promising.

There is absolutely no reason why the Conservative commitment to greater British sovereignty within the EU is ‘anti-European’; on the contrary, it is the Franco-German-dominated Euro-federalist bloc that is anti-European, as it seeks to divide Europe between the ‘ins’ and the ‘outs’, and to exclude countries like Turkey and Ukraine from the European family. In his recently leaked memo, Hague has made it clear that his government will be ‘firm supporters of enlargement’ and ‘favour an outward looking Europe’.

Hague has also said that his government will ‘want to see a more muscular EU approach in Bosnia’. He has consistently spoken up for Bosnia; last year, he criticised the ‘weak and confused’ EU response to the ‘pressure to fragment the country’ and said: ‘It is moving slowly in the wrong direction and – despite all the efforts and all the bloodshed and all the sacrifices there – it’s moving in the wrong direction without alarm bells sounding in most European capitals.’ He warned that the crisis in Bosnia threatened to derail efforts to expand the EU to include Serbia, Croatia and Turkey, and promised: ‘People think the Balkans are what we debated in the 1990s and now we can forget about it. In fact, it’s a crucial area in foreign policy in the next five to 10 years and will get a lot of emphasis in the next Conservative administration.’ Earlier this year, Hague wrote to his predecessor, Foreign Secretary David Miliband, to express his concern at Britain’s arrest of Bosnia’s former vice-president Ejup Ganic.

Cameron, too, has spoken out for the rights of the vulnerable nations of South East Europe. As early as 2003, before he became Conservative leader, Cameron wrote a stirring defence of Macedonia; ‘the country – and I am determined to call it Macedonia – has a perfect right to exist. The population is overwhelmingly Macedonian, with a distinctive language, culture and history.’ Criticising ‘Greek pettiness’ toward Macedonia, Cameron called for an active policy to support it and the former Yugoslavia generally: ‘Let Macedonia into Nato and guarantee its borders. Ensure there is a speedy framework for getting the former Yugoslav republics into the EU so they can benefit from free trade and structural funds. Recognise the fact that Macedonia paid a substantial price for looking after Albanian refugees from Kosovo during the war – and pay aid in respect of it. Above all, stay involved to give the region the stability that it needs so badly.’

When Russia attacked Georgia in August 2008, Cameron was quicker to react than Gordon Brown and more forthright; he flew to Tbilisi to stand shoulder to shoulder with Georgia’s leaders, and to state that ‘I think it’s important that the world’s oldest democracy must stand with one of the newest when it’s been illegally invaded by another country… We wanted to come to express the strongest possible support of the British people, British government and British opposition for Georgia, its independence and integrity.’ He later drew the parallel between Russia and 1930s Germany: ‘Russia’s pretext — that it has a right to step in militarily to protect its citizens — has chilling echoes from Czech history, and dangerous implications if it is now the basis of Russian policy. Such a doctrine cannot be allowed to stand.’ Far from being ‘anti-European’, Cameron defended Georgia from a pro-European perspective: ‘We should not accept that while the Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltic States are in Nato and the EU, with their full measure of independence and liberty, other countries on Russia’s periphery that have not yet become members are somehow condemned to exist in a political no-man’s-land.’

Cameron’s audacious move to form an alliance with the Liberal Democrats, outflanking the right wing of the Conservative Party and reshaping British politics, indicates that he may be a bold world leader in the years ahead. Let us hope so. The US and EU have dithered over the worsening crisis in Bosnia – as did the UK under Brown. A British government committed to a broader, more outward-looking Europe, committed to supporting and defending the states of East and South East Europe, is exactly what Europe needs.

Thursday, 13 May 2010 Posted by | Balkans, Bosnia, Britain, Caucasus, European Union, Former Soviet Union, Former Yugoslavia, Georgia, Greece, Macedonia, Marko Attila Hoare, NATO, Russia | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vote Conservative or Labour

Let’s face it, whatever the results of tomorrow’s British general election, the world isn’t going to end. Not since the 1970s has so little divided the principal British political parties. Watching the three televised debates between Labour’s Gordon Brown, the Conservatives’ David Cameron and the Liberal Democrats’ Nick Clegg, the striking thing was how similar were their political visions. Where one of the party leaders stood out from the consensus – as Cameron did over Europe, or Clegg over Trident – he was attacked by his opponents in moderate, civilised terms. This is as it should be: the great ideological conflicts of our age have been resolved in the domestic sphere, and the choice is principally over who will best manage the existing order. In this sense, we are a step ahead of the US, where such battles are still being fought out.

Cameron and Clegg have placed a lot of emphasis on the appeal for ‘change’. This is highly ironic, given that the British people do not want real ‘change’. If they did, there would be real electoral benefit to be had for politicians in adopting radical policies. The fact that all three principal British parties adopt such moderate policies shows their awareness of the fundamentally conservative (with a small ‘c’) inclinations of the British electorate; to threaten real ‘change’ would be electoral suicide. Cameron’s and Clegg’s talk of ‘change’ is simply an attempt to play up to our spoilt, cry-baby, navel-gazing culture of political commentary. Some countries face real problems; here we have the MPs’ expenses scandal – for all the whining that it provoked, you’d think we were the victims of a veritable genocide. A year ago, on the way to the airport, I met a young man who had served as a soldier in Afghanistan; after spending time there, he told me, he found it ridiculous how much we Britons like to complain about so little. This explains the relentless media hounding of our current prime minister; unexciting and undistinguished as he is, Brown has been reasonably competent at his job; he certainly does not deserve such vicious treatment.

Of course, there are things wrong with our country; top of the list, I would put the atrocious quality of our schools, and the consequent deleterious effect that poor education has on the morals of our youth. But distressingly, education barely featured in the three leadership debates. It was sad to hear all three party leaders pander to the moronic anti-immigration consensus; Clegg at least had the courage to advocate an amnesty for long-term illegal residents of the UK. Mass immigration is economically necessary and culturally beneficial for any thriving, dynamic modern society; the only way drastically to curb immigration would be to have an economy so poor that nobody much wanted to come and work here.

Instead of educating our population about immigration’s benefits, our politicians find it easier to pander to tabloid-driven popular xenophobia. I am, however, reassured that their talk of curbing immigration is just in order to placate the masses; as Clegg pointed out in the third leadership debate, the Conservatives’ talk of an annual ‘cap’ on immigration makes no sense if most immigrants come from the EU and can’t be prevented from coming. Yes, Mr Cameron/Brown, of course you’ll curb immigration if you win the election, nudge nudge, wink wink. If it keeps the less sophisticated part of our electorate from voting for the fascist parties, I’m happy for you to pretend. But really, it would be better if you challenged popular prejudice instead of playing up to it.

This does not mean the election is irrelevant. The first big question is, if Cameron wins, whether he will prove to be a Conservative Tony Blair, and firmly cement his party in government, as in opposition, as a forward-looking party of the centre. Or whether he will prove a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and the Conservatives will ape their divisive predecessors of the 1930s and 80s. I am cautiously optimistic that the first scenario is more likely.

The second big question is, of course, whether we will get a hung parliament and, consequently, electoral reform. The existing electoral system cannot really be justified on democratic ground, but I cannot honestly pretend to be heartbroken that the little parties – the BNP, UKIP, Greens, Respect, etc. – are effectively excluded from parliament – God forbid that any of them should exercise influence over our foreign policy, or that any of them except the Greens should exercise influence over our domestic policy.

A system of proportional representation that resulted in a three-party system might be more democratic than the current two-party system, but it would also be more rigid; at present, elections offer the chance of real change of government in response to public dissatisfaction; a three-party system could condemn us to a succession of similar coalitions. A case could be made that this is the price we must pay for something less arbitrary and unfair than the present first-past-the-post system, with so many votes wasted and so many voters denied a real choice. But it is not a simple question.

The main parties’ differences over foreign policy are greater than their differences over domestic policy, and it is here that the Liberal Democrats’ talk of change is ominous. A party whose leader puts the word ‘illegal’ in front of ‘war in Iraq’ should not be in government: it is one thing to oppose the war in Iraq for honourable reasons; quite another to adopt the ideological jargon of the deeply reactionary ‘anti-war’ movement. Being opposed to ‘illegal’ wars translates as only favouring military intervention abroad when it is authorised by the UN Security Council; in other words, when it is supported by Russia and China. Clegg complains that the Conservative Party is allied with homophobes and climate-change deniers in the European Parliament, yet he seems to feel that our military intervention abroad should be contingent on the approval of two of the world’s most brutal and dangerous regimes.

What is more objectionable: the Conservatives forming a new European Parliamentary grouping with a Latvian party, some of whose elderly members commemorate the SS, and with a Polish party hostile to homosexuality ? Or the Liberal Democrats upholding the sanctity of a UN Security Council whose Russian member uses weapons of mass destruction against its own Chechen citizens, ethnically cleanses Georgians from South Ossetia, racially persecutes Caucasians, murders human rights activists and carries out terrorist bombings against its own population ? To say nothing of its Chinese member… Let us not forget: the reason that there are any ethnic Albanians left in Kosovo today is because NATO waged an ‘illegal’ war in 1999 to halt Slobodan Milosevic’s genocidal campaign against them. 

When David Cameron courageously spoke out in defence of Georgia from Russian aggression in 2008, Liberal Democrat shadow foreign-secretary Ed Davey shamefully condemned him for ‘macho talk’. Davey believes in the need to ‘talk to Tehran’, to avoid ‘antagonising the Russians’, to ‘engage Russia and China’, to ‘fully back the UN’. A foreign policy decided by the Liberal Democrats would ensure that, were another Bosnia- or Darfur-style genocide to occur, Britain would avoid doing anything ‘macho’ that might actually stop it, but would work through the UN, in partnership with Russia and China, to ensure that absolutely nothing meaningful would be done. Davey is my local MP here in Kingston and Surbiton, and as the electoral race here is a two-horse one between the Liberals and Conservatives, with Labour running a distant third, I am going to vote Conservative.

For Labour and the Conservatives are the only two credible parties of government. Labour has pursued a reasonably sound foreign policy, correctly both pro-European and pro-American, though since the uninspired Brown replaced the brilliant Tony Blair, Britain has been punching beneath its weight in world affairs.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, have taken a courageous stand to break with the federalist-conservative Sarkozy-Merkel bloc in the European Parliament; to strike a blow against an inward-looking fortress Europe. As I have written elsewhere, the accusation that the Conservatives in the European Parliament are allied to extreme reactionaries is a red herring, given that both the Sarkozy-Merkel federalist bloc in the European Parliament and the Labour Party’s allies in the Council of Europe include some equally reactionary elements – Russian anti-Semites, Turkish genocide-deniers and Italian ‘post-fascists’. The question is whether the Conservatives in office will build an alliance for a broader, non-federalist model of Europe – as I hope they will – or retreat into the narrow-minded national realism that characterised John Major’s government.

I greatly admire the record of the Labour government since 1997, and am glad I voted Labour in the last election. I am hopeful, if not quite confident, that a Cameron government would be a worthy successor. If you feel optimistic, give the Conservatives a chance. If you want to play it safe, vote Labour.

Wednesday, 5 May 2010 Posted by | Britain, Marko Attila Hoare | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment