Tired of being labelled apathetic? Make your vote count in 2005

As we enter the run up to this year’s general election there is turmoil at the top end of British politics. In the current climate of in-fighting, spin, propaganda and war, first time voters could be forgiven their disillusionment with the two parties that have for so long dominated British government. For all his talk of freedom and democracy Tony Blair has led the nation into an unpopular and unfounded war, centralised decision making power in the government giving himself almost Presidential levels of authority, and encouraged the Blunkett-Clarke Home Office to introduce a new set of authoritarian powers, including allegiance pledges, ID cards and the suspension of jury trials for terrorist suspects. We appear to be entering an era of Orwellian government. Besides, fear got George Bush re-elected and with Gordon Brown looking ever more attractive an alternative for Blair’s position the PM needs to play his biggest cards. However, the farce over the Blair-Brown saga has left the PM with the dilemma of sacking or marginalizing one of our most successful Chancellors or allowing himself to be undermined by him. A recent survey for The Independent showed that Labour would get a higher proportion of the vote with Brown at the helm, but Blair has made it clear he will not give the British public this option in the near future.

American reporter Seymour Hersch recently published an article in The New Yorker claiming that Bush’s next move is into Iran, a military campaign that would make Iraq look like a children’s tea party. Blair has refused to rule this out and a vote for New Labour in 2005 could be a vote to expand the conflict in the Middle East. Not that a vote for the Conservatives would be a vote against expansion of the war. Despite questioning Mr Blair’s relationship with the truth, the Tories have always been staunch supporters of the war in Iraq, with only three MPs voting against it.

In response to New Labour's more right wing stance, and with UKIP and now Veritas (the latest Kilroy show) seducing voters in Tory heartlands, Michael Howard has reacted with hard-line asylum policies. These include withdrawing from the 1951 UN Convention On Refugees and imposing new strict measurements of potential immigrants’ economic usefulness. Blair has dismissed Howard's ideas as "unworkable, impractical and uncosted", and the Liberal Democrats are concerned they will mean turning away genuine refugees. This is despite the country enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth for 200 years and ours being the fastest growing big economy in Europe. The fact is people have always gone where the jobs are and we are providing them at the moment. It should be a source of pride not fear that we live in an ever-developing society and to restrict this to preserve ‘traditional values’ smacks of isolationism and thinly veiled xenophobia, to say nothing of economic irresponsibility.

So where should the socially conscious first time voter place their vote in the upcoming election? The only party that is offering a genuine alternative is Charles Kennedy’s Liberal Democrats. Having opposed the war from the get go they are proposing a responsible withdrawal from Iraq with little prospect of expanding the war into Iran, or Syria or North Korea for that matter. Their September 2004 ‘Safe Haven’ document also uses very different language when discussing asylum and immigration, proposing “an open approach which honours international humanitarian obligations and treats asylum seekers and refugees humanely, recognises the value of migration in enriching our economic and cultural lives, and inspires public confidence”. They are also proposing to scrap tuition fees and the current disproportionate Council tax system, which current students will find out all about when they have graduated. They plan to replace this with a one percent increase in income tax on people who earn more than £100,000 a year, setting Mr Kennedy up as a modern day Robin Hood.

When he first took control of the Lib Dems Kennedy was seen by many as a jovial, lightweight politician who would not be able to handle the responsibilities of the top office. However, in recent years he has emerged as a thoughtful, reasonable and socially aware leader who is offering the only real opposition to the current political status quo. A vote for the Liberal Democrats may not realistically put Kennedy into office this year, but it is not unrealistic for them to emerge from this election as the real opposition to New Labour with a platform that could make them genuinely electable in five or ten years time. As young voters we have a responsibility to look at the bigger picture.

By Philip Reilly