Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

What's the alternative to voting New Labour at the general election?

Page: 1 2(3)

14:18 / 07.03.05

Heh. Bit of a Freudian slap above. I meant I refuse to be scare-mongered into voting Labour.

14:28 / 07.03.05

And, Nobody's Girl, what the good bugger are you talking about? Has anyone said they'll be voting Tory? You can vote tactically, and/or vote to send a message without voting for the bloody Conservatives, you know.

Also, you're clearly in different situation to many of us. The fact of the matter is that we English have to live with either the Conservatives or Labour at the moment. You can't be coerced because you have different choices to make. We, on the other hand, are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

14:29 / 07.03.05

Ah, now I see.

14:39 / 07.03.05

Second point still stands.

17:05 / 07.03.05

Boboss, do you honestly think there's much chance of a Labour defeat though ? They're still at least a few points ahead in the opinion polls with only eight weeks to go, and this in spite of Blair's fairly demonstrable record of mendacity and/or incompetence with regard to Iraq, PFI, Foot and Mouth, asylum seekers and so on, and so on... It suits him and it suits Howard to pretend otherwise, but the idea that the Conservatives have a cat's prayer in hell of finding their way into Number Ten come May 5 is, unless Gordon Brown's caught fellating a sheep on the Strand at midnight or some such, just spin, surely ? Nu Labour are pretty clearly terrified of 'the project' going down in flames in a hung parliament, with all Mr T's good work being undone by the opposition, ie his own backbenchers, the unions etc, so you can see why they're worried, but according to most predictions they're on course at the moment to sail back in with the same old depressing majority, and it's a bit worrying to think of anyone, still, falling for anything Central Party Office has to say about anything, let alone this paper-thin wank about the Tory menace, which really doesn't exist.

I'd go so far as to say that if Michael Howard's the next Prime Minister, I will personally fellate a sheep on the Strand at midnight and sell the story to The News Of The World, and interweb pictures of the whole terrible scene to my friends and family, and if that's not an election promise, I don't know what is.

19:18 / 07.03.05

Boboss, do you honestly think there's much chance of a Labour defeat though ?

No I don't, although I can't help worrying. The emotive nature of the subject doesn't encourage rational thought in me.

Thanks for the injection of reality.

Tryphena Absent

09:14 / 08.03.05

I'm not saying that you have to vote Labour, I don't have a problem with a protest vote if you agree with the party you're voting for. But I think where there's a two party choice it's pretty obvious that you should still vote and vote for the better party even if they've done 101 bad things. I don't think there's any reason to spoil your ballot in this country and that's what I'm really arguing against- the refusal to exercise choice rather than the choice to vote for a party that you want to go for. We're not living in South Africa at the height of apartheid, we're living in England and there are clear reasons to vote.

Personally I think that, say you live in a house with three other people, you should sit down, talk about the elections, agree that one of you will vote Labour and the others will register their vote with whoever they want to. I know a lot of people differ politically but if there's some kind of agreement it strikes me as a good thing to do.

09:33 / 08.03.05

there's another article on this in the druagnia today. why is the lefty press (cept the independent, whose front page is a work of art almost every day) such a bunch of bitch? they really see some decency and justice in that red flag flying behind tony? they're actually worried about the labour grip slipping? more fucking fool them.

loving the terror bill stuff at the moment, throwing fatty clarke to the wolves* just so tone can say to the other benches 'ooh, soft on terror, look at them' - begging for a bomb before may: my attitude to tony and pals trying to get me reeeeal scared of howard, aside from just pissing me off with its mendacity (mandellsity), is that the flawed winner-takes-all democracy we have is only really effective when the ruling party has a small majority that it requires some effort to defend. labour has become the beast it has because even if they did have an effective opposition it wouldn't matter, they'd still be able to walk any motion they wanted through the house (the fact he sometimes struggles or fails to motivate his backbenchers is a true sign of what a bag of fuck and shit he is).

the right is split worse than ever before. centre-right is happy enough to go libdem, mad right will go ukip or vanitas. tony gets his final four years with a house balanced almost equally between the three parties. that near-extinct beast 'effective parliamentary debate' comes crawling up from the gee fawkes catacomb, sanity draws another breath. (that last bit's somewhat simplo-idealistic obviously.)

*don't start me on those lazy orange fucks who couldn't even be arsed to turn up and vote last monday. they wanted the bill to succeed so there'd be no chance of 'ooh soft on terror' accusations: nothing more pathetic than a libdem trying to look hard, except maybe a labourman trying to look honest, or a tory who claims to want what's best for everyone.

12:32 / 08.03.05

loving the terror bill stuff at the moment, throwing fatty clarke to the wolves* just so tone can say to the other benches 'ooh, soft on terror, look at them'

Well, if that's the case then it's a very demoralising state of affairs. It suggests that the population of this country sees the debate in the simplist of terms.

lord henry strikes back

13:24 / 08.03.05

Boboss, you're right that this is a very sad state of affairs, but it is the one in which we find ourselves. As regards the whole control orders thingy, the main points that really need looking at (the fact that we are one of only two nations in Europe to not allow the use of phone tap evidence and the fact that, whoever authorises it, detention without trial should never be indefinite) are simply not on the mainstream radar.

The media want sound bites, bullet points, banner headlines, and so this is what the parties give them. The result of this process of reduction is that a highly complex issue such as this is reduced to political posing and one up-manship because that is the only message that can get across.

13:36 / 08.03.05

it's certainly how the scary-tories saw the debate: reason they tried that sunset-clause u-turn a week ago was because labour was spinning them as being against necessary measures in TWAT. they were slipping in the polls and needed to be seen to be getting their dracon on. it's so elections at the moment - the tories probably wouldn't have objected to the bill at all this time last year. in the current climate them and the government were glad for a bill they could pretend to disagree on, until howard (he's so frightening - glad tony's here to protect me) realised mondeo man and the rest can't wait to hand over their freedom to whichever asshole's in the home office.

13:50 / 08.03.05

Yes, but you can engineer banner headlines without treading all over our civil liberties in the process.

13:50 / 08.03.05

I fail to understand: if there are hundreds of terrorists known to be plotting outrages on the streets of Britain, why are they not arrested and charged?

13:58 / 08.03.05

Well, as has already been said, certain kinds of evidence just won't cut it in the courts. For example, I can imagine a scenario where M16 has gathered intel from a bunch of phone taps. The phone taps make it pretty clear that the "baddies" are up to no good, but the "baddies" can't be arrested because phone taps aren't admissable in court.

14:14 / 08.03.05

As I understand - Labour is moving to allowing phone tap evidence in court, and this seems to be a logical move.

So why then the need to put people under definite house arrest?

14:22 / 08.03.05

*indefinite* house arrest, even...

14:37 / 08.03.05

The phone tap example was the most obvious, I'm sure I could think of others if I could be bothered. The fact is, it is possible for the security services to have a good idea that someone is planning badness, but not have the necessary evidence to actually arrest them.

As for house arrest, I assume the motivation has something to do with not being able to deport them. A lot of potential terrorists come from countries that are likely to torture and kill them were they ever to return home.

14:48 / 08.03.05

The phone tap example was the most obvious,

Like I say, they look set to do that independently of anything else.

I'm sure I could think of others if I could be bothered.

...Such as?

The fact is, it is possible for the security services to have a good idea that someone is planning badness, but not have the necessary evidence to actually arrest them.

It is possible for them to have an idea of anything, but the point is that unless that information comes before a court of law, one simply has no means of assessing whether their idea is 'good', or not.

As for house arrest, I assume the motivation has something to do with not being able to deport them.
They don't need to deport them. They need to arrest them, which they can easily do if they have sufficient evidence.

15:34 / 08.03.05

Sorry, I'm not trying to make a case for the government, I'm just trying to explain their thinking. Assuming their thinking goes beyond "it will make a good headline" which I (possibly need to) assume it does.

It is possible for them to have an idea of anything, but the point is that unless that information comes before a court of law, one simply has no means of assessing whether their idea is 'good', or not.

Is judicial assessment necessary - practical even - when national security is at stake, or is it slow, unwieldy and longwinded? Surely that's the question as far as the government is concerned, IMO.
The fact is that Labour isn't proposing that judges shouldn't be involved, just that they should be involved after the fact - in an attempt to get round the aforementioned problems pertaining to our legal process.

Also, are you really trying to argue that you can't have a good idea that someone is up to nastiness without evidence that would be admissable in a court of law? I think that's a bit of a stretch bearing in mind the differences between legal evidence and other kinds of evidence, but then you might know more about the subject than I do.

15:37 / 08.03.05

On the phone tap thing, are you sure? Last I heard (the other week) Clarke had rejected plans to make phone taps admissable.

I'm probably working with out of date info, however.

lord henry strikes back

16:16 / 08.03.05

I don't think that it is really a question of whether or not you can have a good idea as to someones intentions, or on what you base that assumption. The real point is that we have systems of legal practices in place and they are there for a reason, namely to protect our rights. One of the central elements of that system is the belief that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. There are several reasons why this is so important, the foremost is as a protection against the arbitrary use of political power.

I accept that some of these cases will be difficult to investigate but that is no reason to give up such a fundamental safegaurd. I would be able to accept a situation in which investigators could petition a judge to have a suspect held for an extended period, say three months, whilst evidence was gathered, provided that this could only be used once per individual and would result in either a trial or release.

We already have legislation on the books in this area: conspiring to commit a terrorist act, associating with terrorist organisations etc. so we are not in the position where our hands are tied until they've already killed people. These cases can all be dealt with within our legal system, there is no need to undermine it.

17:45 / 08.03.05

Oh, fercryeye...

To be clear, I am *TOTALLY OPPOSED* to the government's house arrest plans, for all the reasons given, and more besides. I was just attempting to articulate the government's position in response to Goldfish's intial question.

Again, assuming they're in this for more than headlines and votes.

lord henry strikes back

19:24 / 08.03.05

Sorry to preach, as I mentioned above, I can get very worked up over this issue.

My worry is that this isn't just about headlines and votes. If that is the case then we have a government that genuinely believes that giving up our liberties is an acceptable price to pay in certain circumstances. If this is not just a pre-election attention grabber then we have to expect a continuous erosion of our liberties, and that, IMO, should be a major concern for everyone.

21:11 / 08.03.05

It's a pretty unpleasant, if necessary, exercise to sit about speculating on what New Labour are exactly up to here. They seem to be prepared to thuh-row away generations of civil rights that far better people than the likes of Gordon or Tone are even capable of imagining, however much champers they've downed at No 10, purely on the basis that this pathetic behaviour is going to play with the tabs.

Civilised society is a long and difficult struggle towards something that occasionally seems like the light, fer sure, but the problems involved don't, for a second, excuse the shameful arrogance of the B regime with regard to 'uncool' issues like a fair trial, justice, and all that.

It's a question of whether these characters are 'Real-Politik' or if they're just a disaster.

I'm too ineffectual to be all that violent, I s'pose, but if I *knew* I could get away with it, I dare say I'd happily murder the entire Labour front bench without a second's thought.

Tryphena Absent

09:10 / 09.03.05

The fact is, it is possible for the security services to have a good idea that someone is planning badness, but not have the necessary evidence to actually arrest them.

It's so absurd that they won't change the law so that there's some kind of conspiracy to terrorism charge, so that they can accept evidence and pick juries. To me it still makes more sense than locking people up indefinitely and eroding so many fundamental rights.

15:09 / 09.03.05

Henry, I see your point about the government's motivations. Thinking about it, I would rather they were just after headlines.

Isn't that an awful thing to say.

It's so absurd that they won't change the law so that there's some kind of conspiracy to terrorism charge

Weirdly, this actually gives me hope that the government are in it for media attention. I mean, what's more headline grabbing, what's *tougher*, some new legislation or a plan to put people under house arrest at the whim of the Home Secretary?

Tryphena Absent

15:39 / 09.03.05

Yes but a government shouldn't play with the power that they wield in this way. I would rather have people convicted and the law changed than this type of game.

16:03 / 09.03.05

If I wasn't clear, I'm not at all happy about media games leading to policy decisions, especially when those policies look set to infringe upon some pretty fundamental civil liberties.

14:02 / 19.04.05

George Monbiot puts the case more eloquently than I could as to why smaller parties are a better option than LibDem.

“By choosing the Liberal Democrats, you are sending an equivocal signal. Are you voting for them because you think Blair is too right-wing, or because you fear Old Labour might resurface? Are you choosing them because you are a liberal Tory who detests Michael Howard, or is it because you can’t make up your mind, and they represent the middle position? There are, in other words, too many reasons for voting LibDem. Your voice is lost in the noise of conflicting intentions, and your decision becomes unintelligible. Whoever takes power after the next election cannot be sure why the votes fell the way they did.

If, on the other hand, you were to vote Green, Plaid Cymru, Respect or Scottish Socialist, you would send an unequivocal signal about the kind of politics you are rejecting and the kind of politics you are embracing. The reason is that these parties, as far as Westminster is concerned, inhabit the political margins. It is precisely because none has the slightest chance of running the country that a vote for them is interpreted as a clear expression of intent: your choice must be ideological, rather than tactical. Paradoxically, a vote for a minor party can thus be far more powerful than a vote for a party with an eye on government.

All four of them are solidly to the left of Labour. They have been consistently anti-war, anti-privatisation, pro-distribution and pro-environment. No one who has read their manifestos can doubt that a vote for one of them is a vote against the current deference to wealth and rank.”

Full article here.

Page: 1 2(3)