Skip to main content

Tariq Ali Says: vote Lib Dem to beat Labour

This issue is relevant in Sparkbrook and Small Heath and Perry Barr. In both of these seats the Respect group are standing.

Extracting from his article:
" the votes cast for the Greens, Respect and others will have no impact, with a possible exception in Bethnal Green and Bow,"

and

"It is possible that in some constituencies the Green/Respect vote could ensure the return of a warmonger, as we have seen in the odd by-election."

In this he is referring in part to Hodge Hill where having the Respect votes were sufficient to stop Labour winning.

The challenge for Talib Hussain and Jon Hunt is that of persuading anti-Labour voters to unite behind them as the best placed candidates to beat (probably) Roger Godsiff and (probably) Khalid Mahmood.

Comments

PoliticalHackUK said…
Let's continue the extracts:
'In constituencies where there are MPs belonging to the anti-war faction, one should vote for them despite disagreements on many other issues'

Last time I checked, Roger Godsiff opposed the war and voted with the Labour rebels. Therefore, anti-war Labour supporters can support him with clear consciences.

I'd be careful about implying that Roger is a warmonger. He isn't.
John Hemming said…
I haven't checked the source on this, but "strategic voter" says:

The MP for this constituency first voted that the case for the war had not "yet" been made out (Division 117 of March 18, 2003) but then immediately went into the Aye lobby with the government on the crucial main motion supporting an illegal war (Division 118)
Bob Piper said…
As opposed to Paddy Pantsdown who, as George Galloway points out, waited until we started bombing the shit out of the Iraqis before declaring his support for our bombers. One head... two faces.
John Hemming said…
Paddy Ashdown is not an MP. I don't know what he said about the war in Iraq.

I fail to see where it is relevant.

Popular posts from this blog

Why are babies born young?

Why are babies born young? This sounds like an odd question. People would say "of course babies are born young". However, this goes to the core of the question of human (or animal) development. Why is it that as time passes people develop initially through puberty and then for women through menopause and more generally getting diseases such as sarcopenia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cancer, but most of the time babies start showing no signs of this. Lots of research into this has happened over the years and now I think it is clear why this is. It raises some interesting questions. Biological youth is about how well a cell functions. Cells that are old in a biological sense don't work that well. One of the ways in which cells stop working is they fail to produce the full range of proteins. Generally the proteins that are produced from longer genes stop being produced. The reason for this relates to how the Genes work (the Genome). Because the genome is not gettin