Strong and stable poodleship

Boris is in the news! What joy! What blustering fol-de-rol does he have for us now?

Well, a lot of the press seem to be going with his choice of words—“mutton-headed old mugwump”—to describe Jeremy Corbyn, which is a shame. This is hardly a prime insult from the man who has referred to Commonwealth citizens—presumably Africans—as “piccaninnies.”

But this is irrelevant, really, just run-of-the mill nonsense from the fluster-haired gobdaw (see! I can do the combination of playground childishness and esoteric vocabulary too!) and really shouldn’t distract from the far, far more important thing he said on the Today programme:

Boris Johnson: I think it would be very difficult if the United States has a proposal to have some sort of action in response to a chemical weapons attack, and if they come to use and ask for our support, whether it is with submarine-based cruise missiles in the Med or whatever it happens to be, as was the case back in 2013, John, in my view, and I know this is also the view of the prime minister, it would be very difficult for us to say no.

John Humphries: But you would have to go to the Commons?

BJ: Er, I think that needs to be tested.

JH: You are not sure about that?

BJ: I think it would be very difficult for us to say no.

JH: So, going to the Commons is an absolutely necessary precondition?

BJ: As I say, I think it would be very difficult for us to say no. How exactly we were able to implement would be for the government and the prime minister to decide. But if the Americans were once again to be forced by the actions of the Assad regime—and, don’t forget, it was Assad who unleashed murder upon his own citizens, weapons that were banned almost 100 years ago—if the Americans choose to act again, and they ask us to help, I think it will be very difficult to say no.

So much for strong leadership! So much for Britain making its own decisions! So much for parliamentary oversight! (Though, given the High Court Article 50 debacle and the proposed authority for ministers to rewrite primary legislation in the “Great Repeal Bill,” I think we know where this government stand on that issue anyway.)

Here we have the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom openly stating—and asserting this is the view of the Prime Minister too—that Britain will make war, will kill people, will involve itself in the civil conflict of a sovereign state because we are told to by America. By DONALD FUCKING TRUMP.

This is the reality of Great Global Brexit Britain: isolated, largely friendless in the progressive world; reaching out to sell weapons to a medieval, human rights abusing state and a neo-dictatorship; and waging war on command from the most unhinged and dangerous man to ever inhabit the White House.

Theresa May’s vision does not offer strong and stable leadership; except internally where all opposition will be quashed and saboteurs crushed. But internationally, it offers nothing but fawning obsequiousness to the belligerent, the vile, and the downright crazy.

  1. Yeah. Boris Johnson is Foreign Secretary. Still have to pinch myself over that one.

On tactical voting

This is a politics post that is neither a rant not a funny. It’s something I feel extremely strongly about, so much so that I’m not even going to indulge in my usual rhetoric and hyperbole. It’s a simple proposition I have—directed at readers in UK, especially England and Wales—and it is the following: in the election on 7 May please, whichever party you support, vote for that party. Please do not tactically vote. Please never again tactically vote. Tactical voting is the curse of our political system and, as long as you tactically vote, you are supporting an unrepresentative pseudo-democratic system.

I currently (for a few more days) live in Oxford West and Abingdon, which gives me one of the most powerful votes in the country. I decry this situation, where one voter’s choice has more influence than another’s, but that is post for another day. Oxford West and Abingdon is a very marginal constituency: in 2010 the Conservatives beat Dr Evan Harris, the incumbent Liberal Democrat by 176 votes, and then only after a rather despicable and slanderous campaign in which pamphlets were circulated branding Harris “Dr Death” and claiming he had a “enthusiasm for euthanasia” due to his support for assisted dying. This Conservative seat is therefore ripe for over-turning. Not only that but, in an election where it is almost certain that there will be a hung parliament, and that Labour and Conservative will be seeking to form formal coalitions or confidence and supply arrangements with smaller parties, every MP matters to them.

Conventional electioneering will tell me that—though I am one of those who voted Liberal Democrat in the last election, felt myself entirely betrayed by their subsequent actions, and therefore have totally removed my support from them—I should hold my nose, and vote Liberal Democrat. Anything else, I will be told is a “wasted vote”; not only that, but if I vote anything but Liberal Democrat then I am effectively voting for the Conservative government that I dearly wish to see ejected from power. If I were in Oxford East, with its safe Labour majority, I would be allowed, according to this view, my “protest vote.” But here in Oxford West and Abingdon I must, apparently, vote Liberal Democrat.

I will have none of this, and I urge you not to either. I shall vote Green: my reasons for supporting the Green party are not relevant to this post, but what is important is that they are the party whose manifesto most closely reflects my political position and so I shall vote for them even though I do so knowing that my vote may well substantially contribute to a Conservative MP being returned for my constituency, and even though a single MP may make the difference between whether Labour or Conservative form the next government.

In every election of my life—and for many elections prior to that—the country had a choice between a Conservative or a Labour government; and this is, ultimately, the case in this election too. As a result, both parties have focussed their policies and campaigning on the “centrists,” the voters whose views fall somewhere between the two with the consequence that—especially under Blair’s Labour, though less so under Miliband—the differences between the two parties have all but evaporated. The UK, in the next parliament, will be represented by a government committed to monetarist, minimally-regulated free market economics. The UK, in the next parliament, will be represented by a government committed to scapegoating immigrants for the financial crisis caused by said economic policy. Privatization; free schools; negligible movement on renewable energy; in all of these and many other issues the country simply has no choice.

You may well approve of some, or all, of these policies, and as far as this post is concerned you are welcome to (though see me after); but I hope you will nevertheless agree that the absence of any real choice is not only not good for democracy, it is quite simply not democracy at all. Electoral reform, of some kind or another, is necessary to achieve better representation of the wide ranges of views within the UK electorate, but my argument is that as long as governments are formed within the context of tactical voting in a first past the post system, no incoming or incumbent government will have any interest in introducing any level of proportionality into the electoral representation, because every incoming or incumbent government will have achieved their position precisely because of tactical voting.

Not only this, but it is a myth that in the interim, having voted for Green, I will not only have elected a Tory but have wasted my vote. In 2010, the Green vote in my constituency was 1,184, and it is safe to presume that if everyone who had wished to vote Green but did not do so because of the tactical voting demands that dominate our election analyses actually does vote Green then this vote could be substantially larger; let us say maybe 2,000. Now, I may well end up returning a Tory MP; but if that Tory MP is returned against a larger Green vote in this election then that MP—and all other candidates—will realise that Green issues matter here and, in preparation for the next election, will be more likely to support ecological motions in the Commons in this Parliament; and other parties in my constituency will be more likely to select candidates with environmental credentials in the next election. That is, the triangulation and centrism that currently only happens at the level of the party and the country will start to happen at the level of the constituency. If the Conservative Nicola Blackwood is returned by a narrow margin again this election, and if the vast majority of the other votes are Liberal Democrat, she will have no knowledge of why people voted against her other than the fact that they wanted her out. Whereas, should she be returned on the same narrow margin but with a substantially increased Green vote, she will realise that, to gain those votes for a more secure win in the next election, she would do well to support environmentalism. She is more likely to go against her party whip on these issues than if she had an opaque, entirely Liberal Democrat voting opposition in this constituency. Voting for your chosen minority party, instead of tactically voting, will therefore have an immediate effect: your MP—whether of your desired party or not—is far more likely to be a good representative of you if he or she can see not only that they were opposed, but the issues on which they were opposed.

A tactical vote is a vote against democracy; it is a vote against local representation; it is a vote for a status quo in which the only foreseeable government for the foreseeable future will be one of two largely indistinguishable and centrally-controlled parties.

Vote democratically, vote for representation, vote for what you believe in, and do not, not, not tactically vote.