Sunday, April 18, 2010

What about where there is no socialist candidate?

"The likelihood is that a Tory government will make earlier and deeper cuts in public spending than a New Labour one. A Labour government may also be more vulnerable to trade union pressure not to outlaw industrial action in 'essential' services."

I agree with this statement. It is enough to warrant voting Labour where there is no credible socialist protest candidate, despite New Labour's appalling anti-working-class record in office.

Who made this statement? The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, as part of its founding statement of policy.

I would vote for a TUSC candidate if there were one in my constituency (unless there were an exceptional reason not to vote for that particular candidate), and I would hope that TUSC supporters would, by the logic of TUSC's own statement above, vote Labour in constituencies where neither they nor another socialist candidate is standing.

But will they? The SWP says it will, though it whispers rather than shouts the fact. One TUSC candidate has put his name to the Socialist Campaign to Stop the Tories and Fascists, which advocates a Labour vote. But the Socialist Party will not, apparently. I have even heard of their members saying they would advise people not to vote in Barking, where Nick Griffin in standing, although I have not seen that as the official Party line.

What the SP does say is "There is no fundamental difference between the attacks that a Tory government will inflict on us and the attacks a New Labour government will make", which seems to contradict the TUSC statement at the start of this post.

Labels: , ,