Comments on: Cheap talk

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:00:36 +0000

I suppose something like failure to hold an election, a growing insurgency with mass support, increased influence of al qaeda in the saudi government, collapse of the arab-isreali peace process, and the conversion of 4 or 5 countries from democracies to dictatorships.

“Any war that does not make an already awful situation infinitely worse is justified.”

Wow. That was breathtaking.

By: Harry

Harry — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:30:52 +0000

dave’s right, with one qualification: they are simultaneously trying to collapse the Labour vote in those Tory constituencies, as that is a promising way to win Tory seats. They’re (entirely wrong in my view) policy on tuition fees plays well with both camps.

By: soru

soru — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:16:16 +0000

—I’d ask a Popperian question – what would it take to convince you that it was the wrong thing? The honest answer to that question is “nothing ever could”.—
I suppose something like failure to hold an election, a growing insurgency with mass support, increased influence of al qaeda in the saudi government, collapse of the arab-isreali peace process, and the conversion of 4 or 5 countries from democracies to dictatorships.

Failure was a definite possibility. But, it didn’t happen.

Could I turn the question back to you? Because really I think that looking at any honest ppicture of recent middle east events, it is your side that needs to be seriously pondering that question.

soru

By: Charlie B.

Charlie B. — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:13:18 +0000

If this is really intended to be a demonstration of the value of talk, it is a feeble effort. Indeed, it is not within the bounds of rational political decision-making – it consists of ventilation of emotion and prejudice (albeit the emotions and prejudices that politically engaged intellectuals have). There is no point trying to decide who might or might not win when you are only assessing visceral attitudes. What determines the votes of all who have commented here is intense self-obsession: an exaggerated sense of their own significance; anger and resentment at lacking influence in proportion to their self-importance. It’s all about how it will make them feel – and not really that, but how telling people how they have voted and why will make them feel. That’s fine – but why should anyone else care a toss? Least of all, why take any notice at all of anyone who (a) dismisses the Conservatives without feeling any need to explain that; (b) sctually considers voting for George Galloway’s candidates.

It doesn’t take tomes to make sharp political points about real electoral politics. Two nice little pieces appear today:
Camilla Cavendish in the Times (on the NHS bureaucracy)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1578275,00.html

James Blitz in the FT on Labour’s tactics
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/97a37074-b202-11d9-8c61-00000e2511c8.html

Strangely, neither worries about their own prescious conscience!

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:50:27 +0000

“the Lib Dems can offer the voters they wish to seduce (Labour’s base)…” er, not really. The seats they’re targeting are mostly Tory ones. They’re trying to pick up Tories who are uneasy about Howard & Crosby. Or Crosby & Howard, rather.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:59:49 +0000

Well, Michael, if these unnamed “mindless” anti-Americans had any wit they’d back GWB to the hilt – he’s done more to ruin American power than they ever could. And it is chutzpah to describe opposition to the war as ‘indefensible’ and ‘hypocritical’ when the case for war rested on wilful ignorance at best and brazen lies at worst.

I might concede Blair’s stand was principled if he’d had the honesty to fall on his sword when it became clear the war was predicated on lies that he’d repeated. I wonder if that pious Christian sleeps well at night?

By: Michael Burgess

Michael Burgess — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:06:50 +0000

I wasn’t suggesting that KB was anti-American although the previous leader was when Labor adopted its indefensible and morally hypocritical stance. The power brokers in OZ Labor are pandering to anti-American sentiment of significant sections of the community. At least, Blair was willing to take a principled stance in the face of even greater opposition.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:44:36 +0000

Don’t come the raw prawn, Michael – Kim Beazley has his faults, but “mindless anti-Americanism” ain’t one of them. As for “Blair clearly doing the right thing etc”, I’d ask a Popperian question – what would it take to convince you that it was the wrong thing? The honest answer to that question is “nothing ever could”.

But enough of that – if UK Labour is 20/1 On in a two horse race, where can I put my money on the Tories? Elections – especially first-past-the-post with voluntary voting – are inherently more uncertain than that.

By: Michael Burgess

Michael Burgess — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:58:46 +0000

Many of the comments in this thread are a good example of the type of lunacy that has made the left a sick joke. Blair clearly did the right thing getting rid of SH, and with Jack Straw has been the most articulate political voice in support of intervention. You are fortunate to have him. In Australia, it is the conservative parties doing the right thing and labour pandering to mindless anti-Americanism. Blair’s stance almost makes me wish I was back in the UK putting up with bad weather, food, beer and appalling sporting teams.

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:24:17 +0000

It’s also worth noting that if people don’t vote for a party with policies to the left of the current incarnation of the Labour party then it’s unlikely that any move back from a ‘centre’ that is now significantly further right than for a very long while will happen.

I don’t doubt that there were people in the early 1920s warning us not to vote Labour as the Liberal party were the only party with a chance of beating the Tories.

I think we all know that if the Blair government does win this election with a significant majority then this will be trumpeted by Blair loyalists as a vindication of the policies of the past few years and as an affirmation of Blair’s leadership. That cannot be allowed to happen.

By: ionfish

ionfish — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:36:28 +0000

Of course, the Lib Dems offering (as you so eloquently put it, Chris) “a portfolio of policies that are straight out of Guardian-reader central” means that votes for the Lib Dems send a clear message: we want policies straight out of Guardian-reader central. This is a message that I, at least, would like to send. Of course, the fact that the only real alternative in my constituency is the Tories makes it very easy for me to choose to vote Lib Dem; I appreciate that not everyone has it so easy, especially those who have been around longer than I have and hence have an emotional attachment to what the Labour party used to be (and occasionally, still is).

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:41:59 +0000

It is unthinkable to vote Labour after the Iraq war – this has nothing to do with giving Blair a bloody nose. It’s the approximate equivalent of another generation being unable to vote CP after Kronstadt/Molotov-Ribbentrop/Hungary/Prague/you-name-it. How you then chose to vote (if at all) should surely be based upon your sympathy with their policies. But to paraphrase Norman Tebbitt – ‘No-one with a conscience votes Labour’.

By: Mark Kalderon

Mark Kalderon — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:36:05 +0000

Since not all philosophers in their 40s read the Guardian, maybe the free beer idea is not so bad…

By: Cruella

Cruella — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:03:59 +0000

If Labour are going to win anyway you might as well not vote. On the other hand if you do vote, and do vote Lib Dem, then it might increase their share of the vote so much that next time around another load of people who “do actually believe that stuff but just don’t see the point of voting for it” might actually get up and go vote too.

No UK general election, as far as I know, has ever been decided on a single vote. So I could stay home every time without impacting results. Now go explain that to two relatively stupid Labour voters and convince them they don’t need to bother voting. Thus you will triple the value of your vote!

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:14:05 +0000

Given that none of the main political parties really accords with my own personal political views—which are rather further to the left on a number of issues but also quite ‘hawkish’ on individual liberties—it’s always a choice of ‘least-bad’ alternative. Not least because the prospect of there ever being a party that satisfies a substantial set of my desired policies and has the slightest chance of election is remote.

However, I simply could not vote for the current Labour administration because their position vis a vis a number of crucial, for me, civil liberties is simply intolerable. Indeed, until they substantial change their law and order and asylum and immigration policies it’s unlikely the Labour party will ever receive my vote again.

Voting against Labour isn’t just about giving a bloody nose to the party—it’s about not supporting utterly reprehensible policies.