This has to be the last Westminster General Election using First Past the Post, surely.
When a ruling party tells its supporters to vote Lib Dem strictly in order for it to continue governing, as Labour has so brazenly done today, something has gone seriously, seriously wrong.
When a chief factor in voters’ minds is what the result was last time, more so in some instances than the current day issues themselves, we need to look again at what we want from our parliamentary democracy.
When politics starts to become a cross between a game and a television entertainment show, it is incumbent on the people to somehow wrestle back control and put the ‘direct’ into “direct elections”.
However, we are where we are and we have what we have so, as a pro-immigration, pro-EU, anti-Trident, pro-environment proper leftie, I thought I would take heed of 66.7% of my blog’s moniker, join in the fun and games and repost my ‘anti-Tory Tactical Voting’ post from late last year to assist with the decision-making of those who want this election to result in Scotland as a Conservative-free zone.
As someone who will be voting Green in the unwinnable Hornsey and Wood Green seat down in London, I should also point out that you don’t necessarily have to have backed the winner or the runner-up in order to feel like you have played a part.
-------------------
One would think that in a First Past the Post election and a bloody-minded preference for one particular party there is no room for tactical voting considerations. On the contrary, that would depend upon what one considers a good result at said election and what one's long term vision for their country happens to be.
There are two objectives that a typical SNP member will no doubt be considering and each need to be viewed in isolation.
The first result is the simple maximisation of the number of SNP MPs at Westminster. A strong base of SNP MPs could argue Scotland's case in the UK Parliament but it is debatable how strong a case for independence this would represent.
The second potential result from the 2010 General Election is the minimisation of the number of Tory MPs in Scotland. A realisation of Peter Lynch's 'Doomsday Max' scenario as discussed on this blog a fortnight ago would arguably offer up an ideal platform for the SNP to advance its arguments that Scotland should govern itself.
The rationale would be that winning a mere handful (or less) of Scottish Tory MPs north of the border while they form a Government in London down south would exacerbate the already awkward constitutional arrangement that we have where a distinctly non-Tory nation is governed by a party that it has already largely rejected at the ballot box.
Of course, achieving one result will simultaneously assist with the achievment of the other (Mike Weir winning Angus in one of twenty SNP seats will deny Alberto Costa winning it for the Tories, for example). However, not all of the 59 seats are a simple SNP vs Tory head-to-head.
So, inspired somewhat by Professor Harvie's comments at a recent independence debate where the SNP MSP said that a lack of Tory representation north of the border had a significant part to play in the Nationalists winning independence on behalf of Scotland, I decided to look at where SNP supporters may be wishing to cast their vote to increase the chances of 'Doomsday Max'.
For anyone out there who is interested in voting considerations that could result in minimising Scottish Tory MPs, as opposed to maximising SNP MPs, here are the Conservative target seats and the tactical voting that I think could apply:
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale
2005 result:
David Mundell (Conservatives) - 16,141
Labour - 14,403
Lib Dem - 9,046
SNP - 4,075
Ok, so technically this isn't a target seat as it is the one seat that the Tories already represent but I don't see the SNP winning DC&T from 4th here so consideration for tactically voting for Labour's Claudia Beamish could be applied.
Perth & North Perthshire
2005 result:
Pete Wishart (SNP) - 15,469
Conservatives - 13,948
Labour - 8,601
Lib Dems - 7,403
An easy decision here. Voting for Pete to hold his seat will obviously ensure the Tories are held at bay in 2nd place. Tactical Voting from 2005 Labour and Lib Dem voters could be interesting with an expectation (and the recent Bearsden by-election backs this up) that more votes would go to the SNP than to the Tories.
Angus
2005 result:
Mike Weir (SNP) - 12,840
Conservatives - 11,239
Labour - 6,850
Lib Dem - 6,660
Virtually a carbon copy of Perth (above) and needless to say there are no tactical voting implications here from a pro-SNP/anti-Tory perspective.
Interestingly, Rev Scott Rennie stood for the Lib Dems in 2005. I didn't realise the man who was at the centre of the recent storm over homosexuals in the Church had been a candidate before.
Dumfries & Galloway
2005 result:
Russell Brown (Labour) - 20,924
Conservatives - 18,002
SNP - 6,182
Lib Dems - 4,259
A clear tactical voting consideration here is to vote Labour to stave off the Tory challenge.
Edinburgh South
2005 result:
Nigel Griffiths (Labour) - 14,188
Lib Dems - 13,783
Conservatives - 10,291
SNP - 2,635
Going by the 2005 figures the SNP do not have a realistic chance of challenging for this seat. It is difficult to say if Nigel Griffiths will come to embody 'trousers down, majority up' in 2010 so it's not easy to see who the main competition for the Tories are here.
I've been told Fred MacKintosh was a very popular councillor and, consequently, a vote for the Lib Dems may be a worthwhile consideration from a tactical voting perspective.
The Tories are ranked 11/8 favourites according to the bookies with the Lib Dems second at 6/4 (and Labour out at 7/2) which backs up the suggestion to plump for Fred if the personal objective is to stop the Conservatives.
Ochil and South Perthshire
2005 result:
Gordon Banks (Labour) - 14,645
SNP - 13,957
Conservatives - 10,021
Lib Dems - 6,218
An easy one to call here as the only tactical voting can be expected to come from the Lib Dems who would be expected to back the SNP or Labour. From a pro-SNP/anti-Tory perspective, go with your heart on this one...
Stirling
2005 result:
Anne McGuire (Labour) - 15,729
Conservatives - 10,962
Lib Dems - 9,052
SNP - 5,503
Despite coming 4th in Michael Forsyth's old seat, I honestly still reckon the SNP are the main challengers here. This may be my heart ruling my head as I have family based here but I don't see the Tories getting much further past the 11,000 they got last time and with Bruce Crawford as the local MSP and the SNP controlling the local council, the Nationalist candidate can expect to tear through the field to challenge Ms McGuire.
I don't think this seat merits a tactical vote for those who wish to minimise the number of Scottish Tories. Vote SNP.
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk
2005 result:
Michael Moore (Lib Dems) - 18,993
Conservatives - 13,092
Labour - 7,206
SNP - 3,885
This is clearly not one of the SNP's target seats so a tactical vote for Michael Moore is worth considering in the face of the challenge from Tory MSP John Lamont.
Argyll & Bute
2005 result:
Alan Reid (Lib Dems) - 15,786
Conservatives - 10,150
Labour - 9,696
SNP - 6,716
Despite the similarities to Stirling (above) in that the SNP has a very strong MSP for this area, I still think there is a better chance the Tories might pip the flailing Lib Dems to this constituency and, for that reason, a tactical vote for Alan Reid could be worthy of consideration.
Renfrewshire East
2005 result:
Jim Murphy (Labour) - 20,815
Conservatives - 14,158
Lib Dems - 8,659
SNP - 3,245
There are more potentially winnable seats for the Tories but this is a good constituency to finish on given the intriguing prospect of the Scottish Secretary being deposed.
A vote for Jim Murphy is a vote for Tory free Scotland. A fitting dilemma to finish on I fear...
SNP Tax
3 minutes ago
7 comments:
Enjoyed reading this article and as much as I would love a Tory free Scotland,I would have a wee grin if Murphy was toppled by the well heeled people of Busby and Clarkston and vicinity!
BTW a Tory free Scotland would be much more desirable than a SNP Tactical Voting free blogosphere zone!
It looks like the game's up for Labour, with senior cabinet ministers encouraging tactical voting to stop a majority Tory government. This is almost tantamount to conceding defeat, and hopefully will work in the SNP's favour in some parts of Scotland.
East Renfrewshire looks to be the most intriguing contest in Scotland at this election, and it will be interesting to see if SNP supporters here vote tactically, and which they decide is the lesser of the two evils. It would be great to see a Tory free Scotland, or one where they perhaps only hold on to their one existing seat.
On the other hand, Jim Murphy deserves to be unceremoniously dumped, and I can think of at least 2 occasions where voters have been prepared to vote out a sitting Scottish Secretary (1974 and 1997), perhaps 2010 will be another one.
There's an economic shit-storm ahead, Jeff. If the Tories get in, Labour and the Lib-dems will position themselves as Scotland's saviours and, of course, the press will play along.
The Tories will come to be identified with the economic disaster ahead and, come the 2011 Scottish election, the electorate will vote in droves for Lab/Lib.
How can the SNP play on lack of Tory MP's north of the border when they might not have many themselves?
NO, a Tory win is not a positive scenario for nationalists.
I'm crossing my fingers for a Lib Lab coalition.
The next year would see any popularity they had nose-dive.
Given the perennial unpopularity of the Tories in Scotland, there's only going to be one major beneficiary in 2011.
Alan Reid has done absolutely nothing for Argyll & Bute.
In a 3 way marginal (Labour are well and truly out)the SNP is well placed to take the seat providing that it can get its vote out.
So in Argyll, Jeff, vote for Mike MacKenzie to keep the Tories out & elect a bonny fechter for A&B's long suffering electors.
I don't care if East Renfrewshire does elect a Tory. Just the one can't do too much harm. Seeing Jim Murphy kicked out of the Parliament would offer me an unparalleled feeling of schadenfreude.
I agree with Voiceofourown that a Tory government may not as be as beneficial to the SNP and the case for independence as we often presume. A Lib-Lab pact would be preferable as both parties will be tarnished by the cuts they have to implement. With a Conservative Government, Labour will eventually re-energise itself as Scotland's party and take advantage of the Tories inevitable unpopularity. Whether they can do that in time for the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections is another thing.
A Lib-Lab pact would also be good for the SNP if it led to the implementation of proportional representation at Westminster. 20 seats would be well within their grasp.
Would Ed Balls vote tactically for LibDem?
Just a small point here - long term tactics.
Next year there is a Scottish election, and the differences in seats geography mean that in some seats, parties are strong in parts of the westminster constituency, but not in others, and so have an interest in keeping their vote strong. A good example would be Catriona Bhatia vs David Mundell - she has no chance realistically of winning (and would be shocked if it happened). But half the constituency is Roxburghshire, and she is lining up a bid to take that from the Tories next year. A LibDem collapse is the last thing she needs. Next door, half of BRS is now the new seat of ettrick lauderdale and south midlothian (doesn't that run off the tongue?) and notionally, the SNP should take that from Jeremy Purvis. So should the SNP vote tactically to keep Moore (a poor local MP), when it may give momentum to Purvis next year?
Post a Comment