Sunday, April 10, 2005
Strategic voting in the British election
One of my UK friends is facing a dilemma at the coming election (for more, see my yesterday's post):
|
"As a life-long Labour voter it was a great surprise to find myself last year rooting first for John Howard and then for George W Bush. But 9-11 has changed the politics of the world, and opened up new divides within both right and left. What we desperately need here in Britain now is for smart right of centre opinion to come to the aid of the third great ally in this all-important war. Pro-war Tories living in marginal Labour-Liberal seats [where Tories can't win] must hold their noses and vote for Blair. These seats could decide the election. It would help if sensible Tories like former leader Iain Duncan Smith [who actually gets it and is clearly unhappy with Howard's opportunism] dropped a few hints on such 'tactical voting'.All I can say is, on behalf of Americans and Australians - thank God we only have two major parties/Coalitions each, giving a reasonably clear cut alternative on Iraq and other issues.
"Thanks to our strange system, my own tactical position is even more weird. Labour can't win where I live, so I could vote Tory to punish the horribly appeasing Liberals, who actually hold my seat, but if I do that then I might help Howard thrown Blair out of number 10, at great cost to the war on terror. So I may -- bizarrely -- end up voting for the Liberals, who I've come to despise, in order to help Tony Blair. Advice please."
|
