Metropol

So we've heard a bit about who each of us might or might not vote for, but then there might be some who decide to vote for a party as a "protest" or because they know they have a good chance of splitting the vote and letting someone else in via the back door.

My thread was, in part, inspired by http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 39847.html

OK so I'm not completely buying into the emotive "Labour begs for Lib Dem votes" headline. However, this kind of thing does pee me off very slightly. Election campaigns, of course, are about trying to rubbish the opposition to make people think you're the best thing since sliced bread. But to make comments that the Tories should be kept out at any cost seems very arrogant but also a little desparate. It could be read that Labour know how easy it is for them to lose their overall majority at this election - just a 1.6% swing from them in required. But they also know that David Cameron faces a massive battle to both become the largest party in terms of seats or even secure an overall majority. So is this a little admission that they'd perhaps they're trying to cosy up to the Lib Dems (or show them a bit of leg as Jeremy Paxman puts it) come a hung parliament?

Or does it just risk alienating people who will decide to vote neither Labour or Lib Dem as a result and simply vote for someone else - again splitting the vote and making for some interesting results.

I just find it a little incredible that this early into the campaign we're not getting an article written by a Labour minister about why they should get people's votes. Come on they have a good record to look back on and have been making all the right noises so far. But at the same time as I said above, I know that campaigning is always going to fall on the negative side rather than the positive.

I was chatting to a pal last night who was telling me about a lad at his work prompting everyone to vote SNP - in the hope that, in the event of a hung Parliament, the SNP will be able to lever significant concessions from the conservatives.

This morning I see a front page article in the Scotsman newspaper with a quote from William Hague dismissing this notion entirely - "Tories reject SNP pact for hung parliament".

My personal view was that the tories couldn't be trusted in such a marriage - bearing in mind the SNP's hopes for independence, juxtaposed with the tory party here being known as the "conservative and unionist party".

I'll make a point of handing over a copy of the paper to him later today, to persuade him that this is probably not going to be a wise course of action.

I am about 50-50 between the policies of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, so on Polling Day, If a hung parliament or (fantasy mode) Lib Dem victory is likely, I will vote for Bridget Fox and the Lib Dems. Now if a Labour small majority or Tory majority is the likely result, I will vote for Emily Thornberry and Labour.

Is this tactical voting? Maybe.
Is it honest to my political views? Yes!