Yeah ok we have a bad system of election, and so we can often waste our vote. But this is more of a reason to bring in Proportional Represenation than it is to be bullied into not voting with your principles in mind.

I've always respected you in the time of reading this blog, but using scare tatics like this demeans you and your party. I'd rather have the pain of the conservatives if the alternative is surrendering to this sort of thing!

I'll vote labour if you convince me with your policies, you seem to be selling yourself on the odiousness of the Conservatives. Do you really have so little faith in your own party to think you can't win an election on your own merits?

And not protest voting makes it more likely that Tony Blair will be PM. Your point is?

I'm not trying to scare you, unless you think that the prospect of Michael Howard is scary. If you do, don't protest vote.

Of course if you don't want a Labour government, don't vote vote for one. If you are a natural Labour supporter though, all I say is don't risk Michael Howard by voting for a party you don't identify with in order to, in some way, send a signal to Tony Blair, or me, or the government, or my party.

The Liberal Democrats want you to send a signal to Tony Blair by voting for them, of course they do. It's their best chance of gaining seats. If you do, you *might* send your signal and still have a Labour government. You *might* get a few more Lib Dems and a few less Labour MPs. You are more likely to get Michael Howard. I don't think that most of the bloggers who are running protest sites want this.

I'm not clear how this argument applies to

* safe Tory seats
* Tory/Lib Dem marginals.

Tom,

What about those bloggers who want a labour government but don't want Tony Blair at the helm?

What should they do?

Tom, if you really were as concerned for the future of the country as you claim to be, you would call for Tony Blair's resignation. A recent poll suggests that Labour's lead over the tories would double if Gordon Brown were to take over the leadership. How will you duck out of your responsibility for making it more likely that Michael Howard becomes PM, if you truly believe that to be a possibility?

Either you don't actually think it's a possibility and you are just scaremongering to save as much of your unhealthily large majority as possible, or you support blair so strongly (or like your new job so much) that you think it's worth the risk. Which is it?

Tom, much as I value your thoughts and opinions, you're effectively making the issue of protest voting a simple case of "My way or the highway". Now the PLP, the Party Conference and Gordon Brown have all failed to address the issue of Tony Blair's leadership, so what alternative do we have? Vote Labour and hope that Gordon develops the cojones to act, or that the next Party conference will see the light and do something?

The Labour Party under Blair's leadership is heading the same way as the Conservative Party under the latter days of Thatcher's reign. The longer he stays, the greater the internal tensions, and the more likely that the next Labour victory is followed by the sort of defeat inflicted upon Major in 1997. Only then we'll see an organised and assertive Conservative Party that will move the agenda even further to the right.

To be honest, if the options are either risk a Howard victory this year with a miniscule majority at best, or a truly rejuvenated Conservative victory further down the line, then Howard - and this seems strange to say - would seem to be the lesser of two evils.

But the bottom line is that I don't believe a Conservative victory is on the cards. A reduced Labour majority of 50 would be the best that the opposition could hope for. And that might at last restore some responsibility and accountability to the leadership.

Of course, all of the above is imho, ymmv and all that.

It's not "my way or the highway". In an earlier post I said that the tables were turned at election time. You are the ones with the power. To stretch the metaphor - it's your highway, you can choose the left fork or the right (or, so as not to wind up the usual suspects, the one in the middle :-) ).

Martyn - if you want a Labour government - vote Labour. If you want to change the Labour Party, join it and fight your corner.

Underblog - same for you. I think Tony Blair is a great PM. If you don't, you have the choice not to vote Labour but then you risk us getting Michael Howard. You might not like that choice but that is the one you have to make.

Clive - That's one hell of a punt you're making for a man from South Yorkshire. See the link to Bob Piper's post about trots calling for people to vote Tory in '79. It may be 50, it might very well not be.

I just have this sense that in the very depths of your souls, you know what I am saying is right. You're mad at me for saying it and in many senses I understand why you are. Nevertheless, I'm not going to let you do what you're doing without pointing out the dangers of your action.

Put another way the upsurge in interest in tactical, strategic or protest voting is directly related to the stranglehold by No 10 Downing Street on the freedom of expression whether on Labour in government, the Labour Party HQ or Labour on the ground.

A tricky question for you Tom with your job in the Whips' Office is whether the latest example of triangulation over the proposed anti-terrorism will prove politically fatal for the current incumbent. Do you join in the arm-twisting to try and protect the government's majority, or accept that your
responsibility now is to tell the Chief Whip that
Labour can not govern like this any longer?

None of us doubt that there is a problem for democratic society with suicidal fanatics, the issue is how do we deal with them?

Listening to the news at lunchtime, it sounds as if No 10 is prepared to go to the wire and let the current legislation expire on March 14.

I think the public is getting more savvy. I hope the
rest of the Cabinet has got the guts to let it be known that it is opposed to these tactics.

In fact why don't you get out the Labour Party Rule book and re-read Clause IV from beginging to end, copy it and circulate it to all members of the PLP?

It sets out the aims and values of the party and concludes in paragraph 5. "On the basis of these principles, Labour seeks the trust of the people to govern."

Note, not 34% of the popular vote and a whopping great majority in the House of Commons thanks to FPTP - but "trust".

We are looking to every member of the PLP to remember those aims and values this week and do what is right by the Party and the country.

If you were part of that movement then your worries about protest voting would lessen significantly.

Tom - I think Tony Blair is a right-wing liar, dangerously deluded and possibly a war-criminal. If you don't, you have the choice not to call for his resignation, but then you risk us getting Michael Howard. You might not like that choice, etc...

There's a basic symmetry between our arguments, and neither of us will want to take responsibility in the unlikely even that Howard wins. Unfortunately for you, for the electorate to blame politicians is much acceptable in our society than for politicians to blame the electorate!

Had the whole Iraq thing not happened, the "Beware the vampire!" line would probably have worked. I'd resent the lack of choice in our supposedly democratic system, but I'd vote Labour. But now I and literally millions of others believe Blair has lied to us over the most important thing possible: the case for invasion of another country. A good proportion of those people will feel unable to vote labour while Blair is PM. That's something neither you, nor I, nor Tim, nor even blair's mate Murdoch have the power to change much. If you want to neutralise that problem, blair has to go, even if you do believe him to be a great PM. If you really believed this "anything's better than the tories" stuff you're spouting, you'd work towards that end.

And funnily enough, I think that deep down in your soul you know *we* are right.

I'm not voting Labour on the basis that if they got in, then the chances of Brown becoming PM increase. I'm going for either the Greens or the Lib Dems because they at least have stated policies that I can identify with (anti ID cards/database, anti software patents, pro Europe, a commitment to trying to do something truly effective about climate change).

I'm fed up of being let down by both Labour and Conservative "promises" (and I've voted for both in the past).

Brown as PM is a truly frightening prospect - he's presided over the wholesale destruction of the small business knowledge based sector through his introduction of ever more complex and contradictory tax regimes.

Please God that whoever gets in next time provides a Chancellor who has some smidgen of experience of what it's like trying to be a wealth generator in the Real World.

The only thing Brown knows how to do is spend other people's money.

With a protest vote the only message you are sending is that you don't want a Labour Government in power and worse than that its sending a message that you do want a Lib Dem or whoever Government in place of it.

There is a place for a protest vote. A few weeks ago, I was certain I'd vote labour again. Even though there were a number of things done I've disliked, I don't want the tories back. But there are some things which simply go beyond the pale. I won't vote to keep a government that revokes our civil liberties as this one is attempting to do. Unless the government backs off on this - and not grudgingly - I will be voting for the *$#!ing tories; something I never thought I'd do.

"If you protest vote, you increase the chances of Michael Howard being PM. That's just the way it is."

Not really, Tom. More "That's just the way we've kept it (despite promising to change it when we thought we might need Lib Dem support)".

"[Tom Watson] supports the first past the post electoral system"

Or "That's just the way I want it to stay."

"Martyn - if you want a Labour government - vote Labour. If you want to change the Labour Party, join it and fight your corner."

Tom, you know, for me at least, this isn't possible - I'm relying on my elected representative to do the job for me, as are so many others. At least for now.

;-)

Alex - I think you might be satisfied with the backing off today and I personally pledge to you, for me at least, it will not be grudgingly.

Martyn - For you it is possible and you, more than most, have a vested interest in keeping Labour's investment and reform in the public services on track. If their public sector cuts come to fruition, you know what will happen in your neck of the woods.

Phil - A pedantic point, but we didn't promise to change the electoral system for Westminster. I hope we never do for reasons that will divert me away from the issue of protest voting. I just say this. We are where we are. You go to the polls under the system we have had for many years. If you want the Tories, vote for them. If you want to risk the Tories getting in by default, protest vote. If you don't want the Tories, vote Labour.

I'm still curious. I understand the logic of "Vote Liberal Democrat, get Conservative" (although, like Innocent Abroad, I think you're overstating it somewhat). But this is, rather obviously, a perverse outcome - it's a bug in the current electoral system, not a feature.

In other words, you're using a defect in the voting system - a system that you support and don't want to change - as a reason for voting for your party. Is it just me, or is this a bit... well, bare-faced?

(Incidentally, I'm a socialist, I'm in a safe Labour seat, I haven't voted Labour since 1992 and I don't intend to start again this year.)

"Martyn - For you it is possible and you, more than most, have a vested interest in keeping Labour's investment and reform in the public services on track. If their public sector cuts come to fruition, you know what will happen in your neck of the woods."

You're right mate, so, for me it's a choice between weather I want a party that will help me in my neck of the woods, but is currently headed by a man I don't trust or a party that will help me in my neck of the woods but is run by someone who won't remove civil liberties & won't send our armed forces to war under false pretences.

I'm happy to join the party and do my bit (and I will), but I can't while Tony is in charge.

Phil - You don't vote Labour, I respect your opinion. You are not protesting then and therefore this particular post is not relevant to your personal situation. I might return to PR later but I want to hold my good friends to account a little more.

Martyn - You have listed the choices that you *want* to have. Alas, these are not the ones you are currently facing. Tim, links to the article by Martyn Kettle in the Guardian today in which he points out the dangers of protest voting. Sorry mate, it's just the case that if you choose to protest and send your signal of discontent to the party you most identify with, you risk bringing back the party you most disagree with, led by the man I know you want to lead the country less than the current encumbent.

Tim has trackbacked here. I'm not spinning tectonic plates mate. I'm just trying to point our the hazards in your plan. For you I know, it's balance of risk. You risk getting the Tories by exercising your plan to remove the Leader of my party. For you it's a risk I know you are prepared to take. I shudder to think what would happen to my own constituency if your campaign goes pear shaped and Mr Howard becomes PM.

Finally, and just so that you all know, I have deleted another comment from James Graham. Some time ago I patiently explained he wasn't welcome here on account of his gauche and vulgar ways. I see no signs of improvement in his manners.

The 'spin' in that headline wasn't a reference to you, Tom. But I will take the time to say - again - that if Labour want my support, they have to get rid of Blair.

If Labour are worried about the possible consequences of a protest vote... then they have to get rid of Blair.

Well, we're going to disagree. Just answer me this though. If you had a single choice, Tony Blair or Michael Howard as PM, what would you go for?

Tom - you seem to be struggling with the idea that as a member of the Labour Party you have the right to choose the leader.

All our experience as democrats tells us that it is a good idea to have rules that ensures that mandates are renewed regularly. Councillors in the Labour Party face compulsory re-selection. Members of Parliament face possible trigger ballots.

But the Leader when Labour is in government doesn't have any such opportunity....even though membership since he was prime minister has fallen by 50%...for someone who has preached the creed of rights and responsibilities and imposed demanding targets on every other aspect of public service..isn't it about time he faced his key electorate...Labour Party members?

It is not a choice between Blair and Howard as far as the electorate is concerned.

It is a choice between Labour and Tory.

As you know I will be voting Labour.

Boris.

:o)

"You don't vote Labour ... You are not protesting then"? Steady on. I'm a Labour voter from way back. I voted Labour in 1992 and 1987, I would have voted Labour in 1983 if my registration hadn't been screwed up, and I only voted Liberal in 1979 on tactical grounds. (The Tory got in and the Labour guy lost his deposit. I was gutted.) I was pretty consistently Labour in council and Euro elections until the mid-90s, come to that.

Tim wrote: "if Labour want my support, they have to get rid of Blair". That's exactly what I've been saying - I've just been saying it for a bit longer.

I doubt a politician would answer that, Tom. They avoid hypothetical questions like the plague. If there was a leadership contest tomorrow, would you vote Brown or Blair?

But for what it's worth:

Michael Howard.

Why? There are at least 16,231 (according to Iraq Bodycount) reasons.

Tom
You should have ditched Bliar before now, but nobody in the Labour party has had the guts do do it.

Once apon a time I would have considered myself a "Dyed in the wool socialist" but thats a dirty word now.

I have voted Labour at every election starting in 1970, apart from the last one one, when I could`nt bring myself to vote for a party led by President Bliar.

Never thought I would ever contemplate this, but I am voting for the Tories this time, as anything has to be better than NEW Labour, Parliament and the cabinet dictated to by "PRESIDENT BLIAR" for another 5 years.

Hmmm. Tough choice.

Lets see, they are both very right wing - one a bit more than the other admittedly.

Both love a good war - one a bit more than the other admittedly - and see themselves as a Churchill for the modern age.

Both see me (30's, single male) as a cash cow.

Both have been in administrations where there has been a housing boom that has kept me off the property ladder.

As a Civil Servant, I know both hate my guts and would dearly love to throw me out of a job.

Howard is creepier I suppose although TB is pretty unerving as well.

Looks like a spoilt paper for me !

Afternoon all,

Sorry to leave the debate when it was just hotting up yesterday, things got a little busy around here. Interestingly, I might be blogging in the very early hours, if the Lords keep playing "ping-pong" with the Prevention of Terror Bill today.

Anyway, other than Peter, who after all, is a member of the Labour Party, despite wanting to save it, nobody has said that they will be voting Labour. One person says they will be voting Conservative because Labour is too right wing [blinks in incredulity at the thought of a "dyed in the wool socialist" crossing the class divide].

If you don't mind me saying, in the politest possible way to my discontented Labour symphasing friends, you are bottling the question. I suspect, you accept the logic of my argument, that protest voting increases the chances of Michael Howard being PM. If you're happy with that, fine, just say so and we'll put the kettle on and move on.

Having read many of your sites for the last three years though, I just *know* that you will be very unhappy indeed with Mr Howard as PM. More unhappy than you thought possible. And I don't want my friends to be more unhappy than they are already ;-)

1. The Lords keep pinging it because it pongs.

2. I know the Tory threat is there. I currently don't see it to be a big one, but have taken the precaution of putting someone reliable in charge of poll data and analysis anyway (there is a difference about talking about a threat in the abstract and tracking the actual risk).

3. I know the Tory threat is there. I would also remind you that I brought up the subject of the risk of a Tory party win in April 2004, which was about a month after the Madrid bombing. At that time, there was a very real risk of Al Qaeda intervening in a UK election, especially as Blair (admittedly, not as boldly as Aznar) has been manipulating the terrorist threat for political gain, which makes the threat even greater. At this stage, the Tories were also jumping on (and off) the war bandwagon and - incredibly - making gains as a result.

See:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/labour/

4. I know the Tory threat is there. I brought it up again in June 2004, when Blair was at his most vulnerable. The result? Even rebel MPs clammed up, and the (very few) core faithful circled the wagons and insisted that there was no question regarding Blair's leadership.

See:
http://www.bigintervention.org.uk/statements.htm
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2004/06/blair_resign.asp

My position then is the same as it is now.

Blair has to go.

But only Labour can get rid of Blair.

I know the Tory threat is there. But the threat of Blair coming through this election without a bruising is greater (and - yes - it is possible to give Blair a bruising and keep Howard out of the picture).

You just *know* that if he does manage this, then he will claim that the people were given a chance to judge him over Iraq and his management of the 'war' on terror at the polls and judged him to be right... when really it will have been the result of the electorate being dead scared of terrorists and Tories:
http://www.backingblair.co.uk/2005/02/tories-are-terrorists.html

As many Labour MPs clearly (still!) see the Tories to be a bigger threat than Blair (in that they fear the Tories will win without his leadership) those who are strongly opposed to Blair's continued leadership are forced to show them that we think otherwise, that we're willing to back it up with a vote, *and* that we believe in so strongly that we're going to campaign for it.

I know the Tory threat is there. I've seen it, pointed at it, and asked Labour MPs to act on it. And I wasn't alone.

And what did those Labour MPs do? Nothing.

If protest voting actually presents a danger; if it is likely to bring back a Tory government, then why not act sooner to reduce the risk? Hasn't it been clear how many of us are unhappy with his leadership? Wasn't it obvious that we weren't going to tire, sigh and shake hands over the bodies of dead innocents?

One more thing to consider:

Blair is a liability with a capital 'L', and not just because he's an 'issue'. What happens if Blair's tangled case for war unravels sometime just before the election and a rock-solid legal case for his immediate removal appears as a result? Where will you be left then?

You may not think it very likely, but surely (ahem) you must accept the logic of my argument.

I'm going to vote for my local monster raving loony party member, he's got a wicked hat! :-)

It's not just a straight up choice between Blair and Howard though, is it?

It's a choice between Blair with a big majority and no effective opposition, and Howard with a tiny majority and an effective opposition.

Given the choice, I'd rather have the effective opposition thanks.

The thing is, Tom, that while nobody here would actually want o Tory government, particularly not one led by Michael Howard, it seems equally that nobody really wants a Labour government if it's led by TB. In fact, I think I'd rather have the medical TB than the political one.

The problem is that a guy who managed to use right-wing rhetoric to disguise a whole load of great things that were being done (mostly, it appears, by GB) has over the last few years used his undoubted debating skills for evil.

To view the WMD claims sympathetically, it is possible that TB is just a gullible dupe who should never be trusted with a breadknife, let alone a nation's armed forces and nuclear arsenal. In which case we should get rid of him. If he's not gullible, then he's a filthy murderous liar who should be imprisoned as a war criminal.

Whichever reason, he is now distrusted by just about everyone I know. May 1997 was fantastic and the warm glow of that still carried almost everyone through the 2 years of following the Tory spending plans, but all our goodwill has been exploited and wasted.

The party is now trying to force through a law that would allow any of us to be placed under house arrest (or have our liberties otherwise removed) up for an incredibly wide-ranging number of offences, on the say so of the same security services who told us, categorically, that there were WMDs in Iraq, and we won't even be able to know what we're charged with.

There is a saying, something to the effect of "one should watch how a government treats refugees, because that is how they would treat the rest of us if they could". With this government it's being proved correct.

I have been campaiging for the Labour party since I was a child, canvassing during election campaigns and suchlike, but there is no way now that I could possibly vote Labour at this election with a clean conscience.

Tom - firstly may I say how delighted I am that you are so worried about people switching to the Lib Dems that you have to come to this pathetic argument.

Secondly may I repeat what I said last time you put this argument - the only seats where people voting Lib Dem can increase the chances of a Howard Government is in the handful of Labour/Tory marginals.

In safe Labour seats, safe Tory seats, Lib Dem seats, nationalist seats, Lib Dem/Tory marginals, Lib Dem/Labour marginals, Lib Dem/Nationalist marginals and Nationalist/Labour marginals it is perfectly safe to vote Lib Dem.

That is how FPTP works and you know it.

Of course the single most effective way to ensure that Howard gets nowhere near Downing Street ever again is to help persuade Labour supporters in Folkestone & Hythe to switch to the Lib Dems to help them boot Howard out altogether.

Are you up for this?

Tom, in order for the Tories to gain an overall majority they'd need something like an 11% national swing from Labour's 2001 election results.

That's larger than the swing from Tory to Labour in the 1997 election (10.2%), and is only bettered by the 1945 12% swing away from the National Government to Labour.

So this hype about "protest and you get the Tories" doesn't wash, and you should drop it because it's just plain foolish.

It's far more likely that the result will be "protest and you get a less overweening executive - of whichever flavour". The argument for tactical voting has never been stronger.

Perhaps that result would be the spur to achieving something more like the situation I'd like to see - a government where negotiation, reasoned discussion and thoughtful debate took centre stage.

Tom P. If nobody wants a Tory government, then why risk having one?

Tim: I think I'm getting closer to the point. I think that you are saying, you would prefer the Tories in government *more* than Labour led by Tony Blair. If that's the case, why not just say it? Just say that to me in a sentence and I'll stop rowing with you.

Nik - You want to clip the wings of my government by reducing the majority but not by enough to let the Tories back. I understand you want that but I return to the point I made to Clive, that's one hell of a risk.

Sam and Neil - I know you are really mad about the Hodge Hill by-election. I know that as Lib Dem activists, you blame me for the defeat. That's fine, but it's not going to do your karma much good by dropping by here and ranting all the time. Let it go. Move on.

On the PR thing. I will introduce this debate later, but I don't want to get distracted from the protest voting discussion. Not just yet anyway.

Have been following this debate with growing incredulity. I have absolute respect for people who say (as some of the comments here do), that because of x or y (usually but not always Iraq) they cannot vote Labour at this election, having done so before. It's their view and their vote follows logically, even if that increases the chances of Howard becoming PM. But some of the comments posted here seem astonishing. For example, the claim that "the only seats where people voting Lib Dem can increase the chances of a Howard Government is in the handful of Labour/Tory marginals" is either deeply ignorant or deliberately disengenuous (I suspect the latter). The 'handful' is in fact nearly all of Labour's marginal seats. Following Scottish boundary changes (which have hurt Labour disproportionately), Labour needs to lose 77 seats to lose its majority. Of those, the Conservatives are the challengers in 66 - almost 90%. (The remaining 11 are split between four nationalists and 7 Lib Dems). It is for precisely this reason that many commentators - like John Curtice of Strathclyde University, for example - are pointing out that the chances of Labour's majority vanishing altogether are in fact much higher than they appear on the surface, because a fall in Labour's vote in those marginals will benefit the Conservatives, even if none of those ex-Labour voters switch to the Conservatives. Of course, there are other seats - such as a safe Conservative seat, or a very safe Labour seat - where it might appear somehow 'safe' for disgruntled Labour voters to switch, but there still strike me as two problems with this argument. The first is a problem for the protest voter: if you are only willing to protest where it won't hurt Labour, then it's not doing very much, is it? All those who claim that they want a smaller or non-existant majority will not get that if the only places where protest voting takes place are rock solid seats. The second is a problem for Labour: if the message goes out that it is somehow OK to defect from Labour in safe seats, that it can't hurt and that Labour will win anyway, then it won't just be confined to the safer seats. There's plenty of evidence that most voters don't know the tactical situation in their constituency, and often vote 'tactically' in ways that are not tactical at all. Which is why Labour MPs - like Tom - seem very keen to stamp on the idea. So (and apologies for a long post), if you want to do it, do it - but please don't pretend that the consequences are anything other than what they are.

Personally I think when the electorate focus in on what the Liberals stand for it terms of Europe, they will desert them whatever they have told the pollsters in the run up when Europe hasn't been mentioned. The protest vote may well then move to the Tories. As Tom says, if you're comfortable with that... so be it. But if Howard wins, try explaining your principled position to the kids losing the minimum wage, to the pensioners suffering from boom bust inflation, and the hospital consultants planning their next plot of land in Florida. The truth is Blair is a lame duck after the election and everyone in the Party knows it... and when the greasy pole merchants smell blood they are worse than sharks.

I'm a little puzzled.

Who's ranting? Neil seemed to me to be making a reasonable point, and he seemed to be doing it politely too.

What harm does it do in your eyes if someone protest votes Lib Dem in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal such as Haltemprice and Howden or Folkstone?

"One hell of a risk"? With respect, no, Tom, it really isn't. The chance of the Tories getting back in this time is minuscule, and the chance of a blog-driven protest vote campaign getting them back in is microscopic. With any luck I'll go into both of these points in more detail on my blog. For now, I'll just say that if Labour lost every seat where they had a majority of no more than 5% of the electorate in 2001 (not 5% of the votes cast, 5% of the people registered to vote) the Conservatives would... have 199 seats instead of 166, and Labour would have a majority of 81. We're not talking 1978 here, or even 1964 - and we're certainly not talking Tory victory.

Apologies to you all - haveing to approve comments in order to stop the sp*m sometimes leaves the conversation a little disjointed.

The lower Phil - I think the upper Phil more than undermines your assertion, he demolishes it.

Bob says vote Labour - hurray!

Biscit - you want people to vote Lib Dem, fine, your point is made.

My point's been addressed, but hardly demolished. As I said earlier, I'll crunch some numbers elsewhere.

Biscit's point hasn't been addressed at all, as far as I can see. What message are you giving to anyone unfortunate enough to live in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal? "Vote Labour"? I really hope not.

Thanks for the sobriquet, by the way - mind if I keep it? ("We're low, we're low, mere rabble we know....")

Tom said: "Tim: I think I'm getting closer to the point. I think that you are saying, you would prefer the Tories in government *more* than Labour led by Tony Blair. If that's the case, why not just say it? Just say that to me in a sentence and I'll stop rowing with you."

What to choose, what to choose...

You may as well ask me if I would prefer the return of Saddam Hussein because I have serious doubts about the legality of the war in Iraq and the wisdom of undertaking such and illegal act in the name of the â??warâ?? on terror (or, hang on, was it about regime change on humanitarian grounds this week?).

The choices you provide me with in your tightly-controlled scenario (i.e. that a protest vote means sweeping the opposition to power) provide very little by way of choice.

Hmmm, do I pick the right-wing tosser who acted illegally as Home Secretary or the right-wing tosser who acted illegally as Prime Minister?

Neither choice is much of a choice, thus:
http://www.backingblair.co.uk/images/blairposter_thumb_blair.jpg

But I don't expect to be made to *make* that choice.

This is not about preference; it's about principle. The little things like the rule of law and the reliability and integrity of Parliament matter to me and many others. These things have faltered and failed under Blair's leadership. Someone must be answerable, someone must be held accountable, and that someone is Tony Blair.

There's a very safe margin to work with here, and I plan to operate within that margin, not to give Tony Blair a petulant slap on the wrist, but to harden the resolve of those within the Labour Party who have the power to remove this dangerous man. The same resolve you face now could be acting in their favour should they choose to act.
There's a very safe margin to work with here, and I plan to operate within that margin, not to give Tony Blair a petulant slap on the wrist, but to harden the resolve of those within the Labour Party who have the power to remove this dangerous man. The same resolve you face now could be acting in their favour should they choose to act.

But, in honour of the campaign of Tory-Fear, I will upload this new poster to the Backing Blair site later today:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/blairposter_template_thatch.jpg

...

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050217.html

Bob said: " The truth is Blair is a lame duck after the election and everyone in the Party knows it... "

So our protest is surplus to requirements? If so, we may need a clearer signal than the rather light level of rebellion we're seeing in the house this week....

Howard is dodgy, and introduced bad legislation while in power; Blair is dodgy and is as I type trying to introduce worse legislation. Neither is an ideal choice for PM - but none of us are voting for PM in the general election - we're voting for our local MP.

No MP who votes for this so-called anti-terror legislation, or for ID cards, will ever get my vote. Simple as that - party doesn't come into it.

Basic problem - I don't want a Tory government, I don't want a Blair-led Labour government, I don't particularly want a Lib Dem government. I do, however, want to live free from state tyranny. There are principles at stake here - something the Lords seem to understand, but something the Blair government forgot all about long ago.

Following on from Tom McEwen's cartoon post and Nosemonkey's comment:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/better_ole.jpg

Dear friends, good morning. In the weird world that is the palace of Westminster, we are still living in Thursday, so forgive me if my tone is not exuding that Friday feeling right now.

Tim, the choices I present you with are not my own "tightly controlled" scenario. They are, I am afraid, the possible outcomes of an election if a number of people who have previously voted Labour, choose not too. Granted, as "upper" Phil points out, these are vote shifts in about 100 key marginal seats. You have not answered my question though. A 'yes' or a 'no' will do. Do you prefer a Michael Howard led government to a Tony Blair led government?

"Lower" Phil - if the cap fits....;-) No offence was intended but in the early hours of this morning, my powers of description were weakened.

Peter Kenyon - Just to repeat, this is a personal blog. You have posted about the rule book of the Labour party on this site on dozens of occassions. In fact, your comment from yesterday, mirrors a number you have made this week. On this particular discussion thread about protest voting, I do not intend to be diverted by an arcane debate about Labour Party rules by you, or for that matter, Proportional Representation by the hardy band of young liberals who like to pop by. Some other time we'll bore ourselves to death and have both those debates (again). Not right now though. you have the right, of course, to set up your own blog. I will gladly provide a link to get you started if that helps.

Nose monkey. You don't want a Labour, Lib Dem or a Tory government. You imply that you would prefer to be ruled by an unelected House of Lords. If that's the case, you don't have to worry about protest voting at all, as in your world we won't have a franchise and our beneficial dictatorship will give us principled government.

Finally, where has Martyn Haynes gone? Surely it doesn't take a day to join the Monster Raving Loony Party?

Now, a bacon sandwich, more coffee and a ritual burning of today's copy of the Guardian awaits. Happy Thursday. T

Q: Would I prefer a Michael Howard led government to a Tony Blair led government?

A: I would prefer a Labour government.

Tom: Don't forget that Blair made a pact with Paddy Ashdown to create a PR system for England, then he welched on the deal. If I was a LibDem I would be hacked off too.

And before anyone points out that I'm voting LibDem, the reason why I'm doing so is because I don't want to Vote Blair and Get Tory. Again.

If Howard gets in then the primary responsibility lies with the PLP, not those with enough moral outrage to protest vote. Labour MPs failed in March 2003 to exercise reasonable cynicism, and they failed subsequently to mitigate their mistake by calling Blair to account.

Personally I'm not voting for a party with so much blood on its hands, and I'm not particularly receptive to emotional blackmail by the perpetrators. I believe my primary responsibility is to use my vote to punish a wilful disregard for democracy, accountability and honesty.

The chances of Howard getting in with a workable majority are minute. The chances of Blair getting in with a result which condones his disgraceful behaviour to the permanent detriment of our democracy are very high.

OK Tom, let's go for your scenario and assume that Labour lose every one of these 100 key marginal seats to the Conservatives. In that event, Labour would no longer have a majority in the Commons, but would still be the largest party. And, if my calculations are right, even the Tories and Lib Dems combined wouldn't have an overall majority.

And just to put the ball in your court, can you point to one example in the recent past where people have 'accidentally' elected a Tory because of protest voting? Brent East? Leicester South? Hodge Hill? Hartlepool?

Tim - You've said this many times before. You want a Labour government without Tony Blair at the helm. Now, the question I asked was would you prefer a Government led by Tony Blair or one led by Michael Howard? Why can't you answer that question?

Irritant: You don't want to "vote Blair, get a Tory. Again." but you are prepared to vote Liberal Democrat and get a Tory government. Do you sense any flaws in the logic of that position?

Aidan: "The chances of Howard getting in with a workable majority are miniscule". Well what happens if everyone followed your lead? You are prepared to salve your conscience by protest voting, safe in the knowledge that Michael Howard, your least favourable leader (I'm guessing) will not win. Like I've said to Clive, Tim, Martyn and others, that's one hell of a risk.

Friends, Thursday is still unfolding for me. The chamber meets in three minutes, so have to go for now.

Take care all.

(Delurk ...)

Well, since Tom wants someone to come out and say it, I will. I had a horrible realisation in the shower yesterday (listening to the radio coverage of this appalling "Big Brother loves you the terrorists don't" farrago). It shocked me to the core of my being -- a child of the Thatcher years who grew up disgusted by the vision of society that the Tories enacted. I really would rather Michael Howard won the election than Blair got back in *with his current oversized majority*. Not because Michael Howard is better than Blair, but because he is honest. We know what we will get with him. Blair is a wolf in sheep's clothing; he should have been shut out of the Labour pen years ago, but the shepherds are asleep on the job and now the issue must be forced. The enemy without is far, far preferable to the enemy within.

(Now, if Tim Ireland would just modify the scripts on BackingBlair so that they don't try and tell you what to do in a straight Con/LD fight, I'd even give him some money for his little van.)

Incidentally, that qualifier above about the size of Blair's majority indicates the middle you're desperately trying to exclude, Tom -- that a successful protest vote campaign would in all probability put Blair back in power, but with a majority small enough that those of his backbenchers still in possession of a conscience could bring him into line. Not what you want to hear as a whip, I'm sure, but it's what a lot of us are hoping for.

And as for this terrible, terrible bill, the "logic" the government is trying to apply that civil liberties come second to security is disgusting. In WWII, vast numbers of people willingly gave their lives for freedom. Now I'm supposed to believe that I'd rather lose fundamental freedoms that underpin the basis of our civilisation than take an imperceptible increase in the risk that I could get blown up by a lunatic. If that's a "balance", then the scales are as rigged as the ones in the Egyptian afterlife.

Nice card Tim. Is that Tom at one of his local surgaries?

By the way, whose 'ole is it anyway?

(enters magical lab where 'everybody' protest-votes)
(considers options of Howard winning and being vulnerable or Blair winning and being invincible)
(protest votes anyway)

There's your answer, Tom. I hope you can forgive my choice. One day, I hope to forgive those who forced the choice upon me.

I am seriously coming to the opinion that Blair and Howard are as bad as each other. Labour have done a lot of good since they've been in power - some of which a Tory government might undo.

Labour have also been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Iraq and are currently trying to undermine the very foundations of a free democratic system - not to mention how they have shown and are continuing to show utter contempt for the British system of parliamentary democracy.

When the Tories went to war against Argentina for political purposes, at least far, far fewer were killed and they had international law on their side. The sinking of the Belgrano pales into insignificance beside the bloodbaths and torture Blair is responsible for in Iraq.

Luckily, however, I have a Labour MP who has consistently rebelled against this God-awful piece of legislation, against ID card plans, and against the war. If I do vote for them I am going to write to make it very clear why. The majority of the rest of the Labour party is either severely misguided or utterly spineless.

Tom - isn't it the sad thing that so many of us now see such little choice between the two?

I'd rather see a labour government with a majority of 40 than either one of 140 or a Tory government.

I couldn't see Tony hanging around for long if he had to act like a prime minister rather than a president though?

Personally, I can't wait to be (only ever so slightly) responsible for helping to kick David Davis out of his Haltemprice and Howden seat.......to do that requires me to vote LibDem...haven't got a clue what Jon Neal will be like to have as a fellow MP Tom - maybe you could welcome him in and show him the ropes.

After the Thatcher legacy the (nearly) most important thing to remember is never to vote Tory again (although I have to admit that I did vote for John Fareham [Tory], the most likely non-Labour councillor to get elected (t=and thankfully he did)during those sorry "democratic" days of a 65-0 Labour Hull City Council). Pleurarism is THE most important ideal to uphold....blind deference, the least.

Tom, I would be grateful if you could answer the question implicit in my comment a couple of days ago:

Who would you prefer to be PM? Gordon Brown or Michael Howard?

Since Gordon Brown would double Labour's lead over the Tories, why is Labour risking this protest vote (which you're apparently so concerned about) by sticking with Blair?

And although you didn't ask me, I wouldn't prefer a Tory government, but I would prefer the tories to win. I want every future government to know what the consequences are of behaving as Blair did. If 5 years of Howard is the sacrifice required to ensure the Iraq fiasco isn't repeated in my life-time, then so be it. There are principles of democracy and liberty at stake here, which are more important than the tories selling off even more of the NHS than labour has, important as those issues are.

I wish Tony had resigned last year. I believe that he made a bad decision over Iraq and I believe that the control orders are fundamentally wrong.

However, I also believe that this government has made great steps in funding education and health and that the poorest in our society are better off than they were.

I can read polls as well as anybody else and know that, for all Charlie Kennedy's posturing, it IS a choice between Labour and Tory. For me, not voting isn't an option, as that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility for the outcome.

The Tory policies scare the hell out of me. I grew up under the Thatcher administration and can well remember the difficulties of under-funding in education and health. Vote for a party that wants to redistribute UKP1.2 billion to the richest in society for healthcare? Not a chance. The Tories would still have taken us to war and I suspect would still have pushed the anti-terror bill through if the shoe was on the other foot.

ITMA reckons that the LDs offer a better chance for the small business sector - this is the party that will abolish the DTI and all the technology and business grants and assistance that the department gives. In any case, based on their record in Birmingham, I don't trust them not to do a deal with a minority Tory administration.

So, what do I do? I don't have the Labour Party I want - but then do any of us? I shall vote for the Labour Party we have for the sake of children, pensioners and the poorest in society, because I still believe that Labour offers the best option for this country. Not perfect, by a long shot, but still the best.

PoliticalHackUK: I would welcome the abolition of the DTi - it's done nothing to protect businesses against the worst excesses of this government's vengeful attacks on anyone who dares to be something other than a 9-5 PAYE wage slave.

Well, we've probably exhausted this debate. The Lib Dem commenters want to persuade you that protest voting for them will not bring about a Tory government. Some of those to/beyond the left of Labour will not be voting because of socialist betrayal, some will be voting Labour despite it!

At least now those people who are protest voting have had to think about the consequences of their decisions, although I still haven't had a confirmation from this group that they would prefer Michael Howard to Tony Blair leading a government.

The Tories who are posting are rather obviously still sticking with the Tories. It was interesting that Michael Howard appears to be encouraging protest voting as predicted. This from his speech this afternoon:

"When you go into that polling booth you could pick up that pencil and vote for five more years of Tony Blair. Five more years heading in the wrong direction."

Although of course, he would rather you didn't protest vote in Haltemprice:

"If you want higher taxes, if you want to give Brussels control of our asylum system and if you don't believe in the mandatory life sentence for murder - then you are quite right to vote Liberal Democrat"

I'm suprised he forgot to mention that the Liberals also want to give the vote to convicted killers....

Thanks all for a good debate.

"Finally, where has Martyn Haynes gone? Surely it doesn't take a day to join the Monster Raving Loony Party?"

I went to London this weekend to join the MRLP only they wouldn't accept me till I got a had. So I went off down oxford street to get me one but I couldn't find what I needed. I got this - http://tinyurl.com/5rot6

By the time I got back to MRLP HQ they had closed. gonna try again next week.

There are some 'Labour supporters' on the left who would probably be happier with a Howard Government and a socialist Labour party in perpetual opposition. Like the old days!

by 'Had' i mean hat, obvious really.

Thanks for starting this, Tom - although I'm convinced you're wrong, it's taking a bit of time to prove it! (I don't mind, I enjoy the exercise.) For a kickoff, some numbers have now been crunched, as promised, on my blog; my conclusion is 'Protest vote at will'...

I recently resigned after eighteen years membership of the Labour Party. During that time I have walked hundreds of miles and delivered thousands of leaflets on behalf of the party. I have been waiting for Blair to standdown and for the party to unite and win the election under a new leader. Unfortunealty this has not happened.

For some of us the Iraq war was the last straw. When making the case for war Blair effectively exaggerated "Buttler - more weight than it would bear etc" and must ultimately share responsiblility for the contents of the dodgy dossier - a disgracefull event. He must also bear responsibility for the death of 80 or more British service personnel and the thousands of Iraqi's who have perished but we havn't bothered counting. Add to this allegations that the US used chemical weapons in Fallajua www.iraq-war.ru - well I could go on and on. I shall vote Lib Dem and if Labour lose the election TB will have to explain himself. My conscience will be clear - free at last.