Question for British Dopers: Have we a duty to vote Tory?

Great Debates
1

I was reading the (rabidly conservative) Daily Mail yesterday and I saw something which bothered me somewhat

In the last general election Labour swept to victory with a majority of 179. The seating arrangememts in the House of Commons after the last election were as follows

Labour - 419 seats
Conservative - 165 seats
Lib Dem - 46
Other - 29

If the poll I outlined above turns out to be accurate then we can expect something like this:

Labour - 468
Tories - 106
Lib Dems - 57
Other - 28

My question is, if this turns out to be the reality then we are going to have an even less effective opposition than we do now. It seems pretty clear now that the Tories haven’t got a hope of winning (or even coming reasonably close) and if they lose in the manner predicted above, effectively it will render Labour unstoppable. The role of the Opposition is a critical one and I believe that as a country we have suffered due to a weak opposition during the last four years. Disagreeing voices were simply not being heard as much as they were when Blairs Labour were in opposition. Basically at the moment Conservative opposition to Labour is a complete farce. An utter joke. If the ICM survey turns out to be in any way accurate (bearing in mind that it “invariably gives the Tories a better rating than the other polls”) what is to become of our system of government? The Tories might as well pack up and go home for all the good it will do them in the Commons.

Given this rather worrying prediction. Do you think it may be in the best interests of the country in general to vote Tory just for the sake of supporting the existance of an opposition?

2

Not a British Doper, but I closely follow British politics. My view is this.

In a parliamentary system, the opposition really has no legal power, so the number of seats the opposition holds is pretty irrelevant. What is important in the opposition is the effectiveness of their message and their efforts in calling the ruling party to account for their policies and actions.

Over the past four years, the Tories have been pretty pathetic. However, I think their low numbers in the current Parliament, and their expected lower numbers in the next Parliament are a result of, not the cause of, their patheticnicity (I just love making up words ;)).

So, if a bunch of Brits decided to vote Tory and gave them more seats in the next Parliament, it wouldn’t change the fact that the Tories right now have a hopelessly confused message, is riven with internal divisions, etc., and it wouldn’t make them a more effective opposition.

So no, you don’t have a duty to vote Tory.

Sua

3

You could make the argument that if you wanted a more co-operative parliament you should vote Lib-Dem, on the basis that they at least support proportional representation and would undoubtedly pressure Blair about the issue again.

Then again, Blair would probably do what he did last time; say he was going to introduce it then backtrack.

4

A DUTY TO VOTE…::splutter::

You must be joking.

The trouble with this, of course, is that if we all decided that this was so then the Tories would get every seat in the house!

And why not “duty to vote LibDem”?

Anyway, backbenchers can be a pretty effective “opposition” even when they are affiliated to the party in power you know. Especially when they feel that the large majority gives them more freedom to vote with their conscience.

In any event, we have the duty to vote for the candidate that we feel most represents our views. To do any more or less would be to miss the point of democracy.

pan

5

What kabbes said.

The Tories do not oppose Labour out of principle or a desire to do the best for the country, but because we have a bipolar system which destroys any attempt at long-term politics. Every party seeks to undo the work of the other and to make its mark, regardless of “what’s best”.

We have a duty to vote for any party that promises electoral reform to remove this state of affairs. That was the Lib-Dems, but I don’t know what they pledge on that now. Failing that, voting Tory feeds Hague’s appalling lowest-common-denominator style of politics. Blair’s not exactly principled, but Hague will say anything and do anything to get elected, no matter how offensive or impractical.

6

Unless you’re voting for someone like Martin Bell, I think most people would agree that the candidate’s voting pattern - to some extent irrespective of his views - is determined by his party, especially on important issues. That’s what the whips are for.

I have to say that with the greatest respect I find the notion that we live in a democracy a bit naive. To all intents and purposes, we are told by both major parties’ manifestos what they would do in about 150-200 policy areas, then told to press the red or blue switch once every 4/5 years. Yes, we have some input, but it’s precious little, frankly.

Given this, I do not believe we have a duty to vote. I quite like the Australian voting system where (if I understand it correctly) you must vote or face a fine, BUT you will be given a ‘none of the above’ on the ballot paper. I suspect the none-of-the-above party would do rather well. They’d certainly get my support.

(Just seen mattk’s reponse while writing this)…

I agree; vote for any party which promises real electoral reform. I think the Lib-Dems come nearest, and the fact that we have some degree of PR in the Euro elections means that there are more and more arguments for the UK parliament to change. I disagree that Blair is any better than Hague - he’s just as two-faced and the fact that he promised Ashdown PR before the '97 election and reneged after it pretty much says it all. Power at all costs.

I wouldn’t trust a politician as far as I could throw him.

7

Sorry to lower the tone of Great Debates, but this is a very coffee-splutter-over -keyboard question. Really.
First, I am happily entertained at the O.P. - the notion of the Voice of Reason reading the Daily Mail is quite fun!

A duty to vote Tory???

OK, facetiousness apart, I do see the point of the O.P., but …

Well, barring sudden changes, I know for which party I will vote: however, I could give serious consideration to whether I have a duty to vote for the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Green Party or the Scottish Socialist Alliance.

The question of having a “duty to vote Tory” had not, thus far, entered my head. It now having done so, the answer is no.

In terms of the Westminster Parliament, of course, I live in a Tory-free zone - yes - one has to consider carefully the most effective way to vote in order to achieve some kind of credible opposition, and I shall do so, but if the Conservative Party is the answer, it has to be an extremely strange question.

8

Dear God no. It would be an unmitigated disaster. As pointed out it could get taken too far, with the (too horrible to contemplate) result of actually electing the desparate loons.
But, more importantly, the size of the opposition is a measure of the levels of national support for their policies. If Labour got a sniff of the idea that there was widespread support for smallminded jingoism and unsupportable tax bribes (er cuts), then those are the policies that we would see them espousing. Consider how they got themselves elected last time.
Although we do need a credible opposition. Best shot, the Lib-Dems, but it’d take a lot of work.
And I agree. Compulsory voting is the way to go.

9

The greater the number of seats held by opposition parties (i.e. the smaller the Government’s majority), the fewer Government rebels are required to bring about a Government defeat in the House of Commons. Hence, Major had far less room for maneuver and suffered many more defeats than Blair and, on occasion, he had to rely on the support of other parties (mostly the Unionists) to get his policies through.

Assuming that the scale of the rebellions was not to some extent a function of the size of the majority (and I know that’s not an entirely safe assumption), Blair would have been defeated on several occasions in the last Parliament if he had had a majority of, say, 50-70.

However, it doesn’t matter which party holds the opposition seats, only that they are not held by the Government; so a vote for the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru or the SNP is as good as a Tory vote for the purposes of TVOR’s argument.

I wouldn’t call the present system “bipolar”; we have a centre-right government with a far-right opposition and a centre-left third party. Rather than undoing their work, the Blair Government seems to have pursued the same policies as its Tory predecessors, just with a different kind of presentational style and rhetoric.

10

Maybe a few years in opposition will do the Tories some good. They seem to be accepting another defeat but still hold hope of winning and so jump on any bandwagon that catches the headlines. William Hague to me brings himself across as a far more likeable fellow than Blair but at the end of the day its policies that count and no matter how much Hague throws himself his policies they are seemingly unsupportable and too easily twisted by Labour and the Lib-Dems to their advantage. It would be better if they spent a few years sorting themselves out like the Labour party did.

11

[hijack]
There is no “None of the above” option in Australian elections Maybe you’ve been watching “Brewsters Millions” :slight_smile:

Voting is compulsory at all levels of government here, but technically it’s your attendance at a polling station that’s compulsory. Once you have your name marked off the electoral roll you can lodge a blank voting paper, take artistic license and deface it or add a “None of the above” etc. In any case, the incorrect ballot is classed as informal. Typically informal votes run around 3-4%
[/hijack]

12

I’ve buggered up the link in the previous post. It should be:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-arch/O1998-Oct-8/http://vcepolitics.com/vote/informal.htm
My apologies

13

Ok, before I continue I know that this wasn’t a realistic question. I don’t think anybody is going to vote a party they might disagree with just because the party they do agree with might get too much support. However, the question does remain, how effective can our government be without an effctive Opposition? Sua’s point about the internal disarray of the Tories is well taken but the more representation a party has in the Commons the more likely it is that they will be able to rebuild themselves into a successful opposition.

At the moment Hague is campaigning on ridiculous premises, making outlandish promises which he hopes will snare at least some of the popular vote (Classic Bandwagon Willie:) ) with flagrant disregard for how utterly ridiculous it makes him look and how damaging it is to his credibility. He knows (he must know) that the Tories haven’t got a chance of overcoming Labours massive majority from the last election. So by going for the big publicity issues like the Euro & asylum seeking and by shamelessly pandering to what he thinks are popular vote winning policies he is trying to make the Tories stronger for the next election when they might stand more of a chance. In short his farcical campaign is, in part, being dictated by the fact that the Tories are, at the moment, at such as small majority in the Commons. If Hague’s overzealous campaigning results in, and every indication at this time points to this becoming an actuality, an even bigger Labour majority than last time, then we can expect this disarray to continue and worsen.

Remember when the situation was reversed? When the Tories, under Thatcher, had a majority of about 100? There is no doubt in my mind that she took advantage of that majority to push through measures that were both unpopular and ran completely contrary to common sense. For example, the Poll Tax caused mass civil disturbances around the country, particularly in London. These measures could, if not prevented altogether, have definately been impeded by a strong and influential opposition. If this current election turns out the way of the polls we will have nothing even closely resembling an effective opposition to Labour.

Also, the reason I didn’t suggest voting for the Lib Dems as opposed to the Tories for an effective opposition (even though I definately prefer them to the Tories) is that

[list]

[li] They have even further to come than the Tories. It would be much more likely, given the near total inevitability of Labours victory anyway, that a vote for the Tories would go further towards protecting an ‘Opposition’ than a vote for the Lib Dems.[/li]
[li] Most people see them as too close to Labour to be an effective Opposition. I believe that there would be far more vociferous debate in the Commons under a strong Tory opposition than a strong Lib Dem opposition mainly because the lib Dems and Labour agree on several fundamental issues.[/li]
[li] Their biggest policy is also their biggest flaw. They are being honest about the tax increases they would implement because they are even more certain that the Tories that they will not get into power. Since I don’t believe that the notion of voting for the sake of an effective opposition is particularly widespread, most people would obviously vote for the party based on their issues/parsonalities without considering the effect this would have on a balanced House of Commons. Since the majority of people wouldn’t vote for a party promising a tax increase even if it does mean better public services (especially since Labour are promising the same thing minus the increases the Lib Dems have planned) by voting for Lib Dems in the hope of creating an effective opposition out of them you would be voting against the tide of public opinion, so to speak.[/li]
Basically, I am concerned that Labour would abuse its power under the vast majority they’ve been predicted. As TomH said “Blair would have been defeated on several occasions in the last Parliament if he had had a majority of, say, 50-70.” If his majority grows to its predicted size, abuse of that majority is the next logical step. As such a vote for a Tory government might actually be far better for the country than a vote for Labour. Crazy world, huh? :slight_smile:

14

I have to disagree with Sua’s comment:

I would agree with you that the importance of the opposition is their effectiveness, but I disagree with the conclusion that the number of seats in the opposition is irrelevant. The effectiveness of the Opposition is largely a function of their size, because the more bodies they have, the more work they can do reviewing the Gov’t’s measures.

As well, the legal powers of the Opposition are not the issue; it’s their ability to stall bills in House, review the budget, and so on that is important. I’ve heard people who work in an Assembly say that the conventional wisdom is that the Government decides when the session will start; the Opposition decides when it will end.

A small Opposition has two options: focus all their efforts on a few issues, and essentially give the Gov’t a free ride on other matters, or try to cover all issues, but spread themselves so thin that they’re extremely superficial. Neither is very good.

For example, in the last election in British Columbia, the Liberals took all but 3 seats in an Assembly with 79 members. I doubt that the B.C. Opposition is going to be very effecttive for the next four years. Back in the late 80’s in New Brunswick, the Liberals took every single seat in the Assembly. Not a good thing.

If I think that a government is going to be returned with a large majority, I do tend to vote for one of the other parties, even if I wouldn’t normally vote that way. Strategic voting has a role in the parliamentary system.

15

This is the second time in two days that I’ve had to withdraw a point in GD. Have you people no concern for my ego?!!

Well, putting that aside, I agree with Northern Piper’s point that sheer bodies means that the opposition can actually look into more of the governing parties’ policies. TomH, I’m unconvinced by your point - an opposing argument is often made that a small majority engenders much stronger party unity, for fear of forcing an early election with concomitant loss of seats for the MPs of the ruling party.

On balance, though, I am convinced I was wrong, and withdraw, bloodied and bruised.

Sua

16

I didn’t mean to contribute to any bloodying or bruising, but I’m not sure why you disagree with me and not Northern Piper, since we were essentially making the same point.

I did say that it wasn’t safe to assume that the number of rebellions wasn’t related to the size of the majority, and I’m sure that a number of Labour MPs who have voted against the Government in the 1997 Parliament would not have done so had they known that it would have resulted in defeat. But equally, look at the Tory rebels under the Major Government: safe seats, no prospect of career advancement, slightly unhinged in some cases. What had they got to lose?

17

Slightly OP, but do you still have the option of voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party? I know I would.

18

<Vocabulary moment>

I believe the correct word is “pathos”.
</Vocabulary moment>

19

Sua,

Ego, schmego. We’re trying to crush you like a bug! A bug, do you hear? :stuck_out_tongue:

I missed the other retraction - I’ve looked but can’t find it. What was it about?

Oh, and I give you full licence to correct me when I say something wrong about your system :slight_smile:

[hands Sua bandage for his bloodied head]

20

Oops. I didn’t mean bipolar, exactly. You’re spot on in that there is very little to choose from between Blair and Hague. What I meant was that we have a two-party oppositional system, instead of a consensus-based multi-party system. I know coalitions can be weak, but the German model’s always looked good to me.