Tactical voting set for a boost?

Earlier this month I wrote,

For a long time after David Cameron’s election to leader of the Conservative Party there was widespread talk of “tactical unwind”, that is how his changes to the Conservative Party may result in much less anti-Tory tactical voting at the next general election. It’s one of the range of reasons that many Tories quote for believing that they will do better in terms of seat numbers than the overall vote numbers suggest.

However, what’s struck me for some time is how the overall political campaigning is playing out in a way that is likely to rewind the unwind.

At the time there was some poll evidence to support the idea of tactical rewind. Two more recent pieces of news reinforce the picture I’m getting from canvassers around the country that, as far as people tactically voting for the Liberal Democrats is concerned, there are good grounds for optimism.

Most of the public willing to vote tactically
A majority of the public are willing to vote tactically, to help guarantee an election outcome to their liking, new PoliticsHome research reveals.

52 per cent would be ‘likely’ to ‘vote tactically at the general election if it would would help the party that they support’. Meanwhile, 41 per cent say they would be unlikely to do so. (PoliticsHome)


Last week the left-wing campaign group Compass asked its members whether Compass should advocate tactical voting in the forthcoming general election…

Today the pressure group reveals that they have a “clear result”.

72% (467) of members backed the call for tactical voting with only 14% (93) against. (Liberal Conspiracy)

That’s all very good news when it comes to turning a healthy share of the national vote into a healthy number of seats.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in General Election.


  • There is an obvious current benefit to mutual LD-Lab tactical voting, eg in seats way down the Tory target list, with there being a Tory lead in the polls at the minute. However, there is also some benefit (regarding future elections/policies) of Lib Dems tactically voting for the Tories in Labour seats at the top of the Tories’ hit list in order to make it apparent to Labour that after 13 years with an illegal war and no reform of FPTP they will never again be trusted with a Commons majority. This will emphasise that if they are ever again to participate in government that they need to co- conspire in the death of FPTP.

  • George Kendall 30th Apr '10 - 11:19pm

    I think, when it comes to Lib/Con Lib/Lab marginals, tactical voting will still hold. But with ConLab marginals, I think there’ll be a higher LibDem vote, less anti-Tory tactical voting, and a few more right-of-centre LibDems voting Tory to get Labour out.

    This effect will help us in our national share of the vote, won’t hurt us in our target seats, but increases the small possibility of a Tory majority. I hate to say it, but I think Cameron is right to visit more labour seats with larger majorities. But to reduce the chance of a Tory majority, I hope those seats stay Labour.

  • George Kendall if the Lib/Dems had a realistic chance of winning the election then I would even vote for them in the hope that they would kick Labour out from my Constituency of Leith but I wrote on here before that a vote for the Lib/Dems is a vote for Labour.

    I vote SNP and most SNP supporters want a hung parliament and would prefer a Labour/Lib coalition than a Tory victory but this prospect gets my blood boiling. I don’t want any remnants of this Labour party lingering on at all and I feel that a vote for the Lib/Dems will keep Labour (whether Gordon stays or go) in power for 5 more tedious years.

    I’m not being negative towards the Lib/Dems because as I said before I would actually like to see them in power but not propping up a wounded Labour government.

    I do wish the Libs well but not at the expense of real change sorry.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 1st May '10 - 12:20am

    The trouble is that despite the best efforts of all the parties to avoid the main issue, I think there is still a discernible dichotomy in this election between those wanting to tax a bit more and try to minimise the damage to public services (Labour) and those secretly planning the deepest cuts in public spending since World War II (Conservatives).

    I understand all the arguments about political expediency, but it still distresses me that I don’t have a clue which side the Lib Dems would support in a hung parliament, if push comes to shove.

  • Kathryn Cann

    I 100% agree with you but unfortunately due to the current political system we have, the Lib/Dems could win 34% of the popular vote to Labour’s 26% and Clegg would still have fewer seats. Of Course we should vote for who/What we believe in but as all the polls currently show, it looks like we are heading for a hung parliament with about 74% of the UK snubbing Labour but ironically as things stand Clegg could hand them power.
    I don’t particularly like the snobby mentality of Cameron and his saps but anything please just to get not just Brown out but all of Labor.

  • paul barker 1st May '10 - 1:43pm

    The point is , if you are serious about voting tactically you must begin by deciding which of the pollsters are right, then apply the change since 2005 to your own constituency. Thats a simplification of course, I am ignoring the question of arithmetic Vs proportional change for example.
    The actual effect of any attempted Tactial Voting is likely to be random, rather like voting for the wrong Party by mistake, but on a larger scale- a massive waste of energy. Just vote for the Party you want & stop trying to be “clever”.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 1:55pm

    Lib Dems should not even think of discussing tactical voting: it is poison. As soon as tactical voting is discussed we inevitably lose out: the punter end up voting Tory to keep out Labour and Labour to keep out Tory. Tactical voting is red/blue myth dragged out every time we are doing well; they know it hurts us.

    If people believe in Lib Dem policies, if they share Lib Dem philosophy and vision, if they like and trust their local Lib Dem candidate, it they dislike their non-Lib Dem incumbent, if they like what Nick Clegg and his team have proposed, then they should vote Lib Dem. End of.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 2:01pm

    @Anthony Aloysius St
    >>>I understand all the arguments about political expediency, but it still distresses me that I don’t have a clue which side the Lib Dems would support in a hung parliament, if push comes to shove.

    NO NO NO.

    Lib Dems in parliament should promote liberal, democratic policies; for the rest they should simply vote as they see fit in the national interest. Liberal Democrat: not Conservative, not Labour. If we were closet Labour or Tory, what would be the point? We promote a unique philosophy with a distinct (and excellent imo) range of policies flow from that.

  • George Kendall 1st May '10 - 4:24pm

    Paul McKeown says: “Lib Dems should not even think of discussing tactical voting: it is poison”

    Paul, If you mean our candidates and our leadership, you’re absolutely right. But when it comes to Liberal Democrat Voice, it’s important we try to grapple with the difficult issues. Most of the readers on this blog are not casual voters. They are either LibDems, or floating voters who are already seriously grappling with these issues. They deserve answers.

    When it comes to tactical voting, I’m glad I live in a LibDem seat. If I lived in a ConLab marginal, I’d still vote LibDem, but it’d be a wrench, as I wouldn’t want the Tory to win.

    But in reality, under our crazy election system, these marginal ConLab seats are few and far between.

    Nationally, the Labour vote is down 7%, and the Tory vote up maybe 1%. This means that in a seat where the Tories have a small majority over Labour, there’s no way Labour will win. In a seat like that, tactical votes are irrelevant, and people should vote with their convictions. The same applies in seats where Labour have a small majority, because Labour are going to lose them anyway.

    And if Labour have a large majority, you should also vote LibDem, because the Tories can’t win.

    Polls don’t always tell the full story. In previous general elections, the LibDems have won seats on dramatic swings. This is uniquely the case of LibDem campaigns because many people only switch to the LibDems if they think we can win. If a previously safe Labour or Tory seat is festooned with LibDem posters, that’s a sign that the LibDems are making such a breakthrough.

    But even if a LibDem vote won’t make a difference to the MP, it doesn’t make it a wasted vote. In this election, more so than any in our lifetimes, voting share will matter. If the LibDems get just one more vote than Labour, it’ll shake the two party system to its foundations. And if they get one more vote than the Tories, it’ll bring it crashing down.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 1st May '10 - 4:45pm


    “Lib Dems in parliament should promote liberal, democratic policies; for the rest they should simply vote as they see fit in the national interest. Liberal Democrat: not Conservative, not Labour. If we were closet Labour or Tory, what would be the point? We promote a unique philosophy with a distinct (and excellent imo) range of policies flow from that.”

    That’s all very well, but being realistic there’s going to be either a Tory or a Labour prime minister after the election, and the Lib Dems may be in a position to decide which.

    What I’m saying is that I have no doubt that a Labour prime minister would be the lesser evil, and I’m sure the majority of party members feel the same. But I’m really not sure whether Nick Clegg shares that feeling.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 5:47pm

    If Lib Dem’s start going around telling voters to vote Labour to keep the Tories out, then they are even more likely to go vote Tory to keep Labour out. Any talk of propping up that corrupt corporatist corpse is going to rebound: people want rid of Gordon Brown and they want rid of Labour, too. Give them an alternative to Labour.

    Read the vox pop in the Sun, for instance. Lots of people saying they will (or have) voted Lib Dem, despite the proprietorial “vote Tory” drumbeat. No one is saying they will vote Labour, even in the Guardian, except for Polly Toynbee. Nick Clegg is completely justified in calling this a two-horse race between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 5:49pm

    George: I think we are in agreement. No excuses: vote Liberal Democrat.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 1st May '10 - 6:00pm


    “Nick Clegg is completely justified in calling this a two-horse race between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.”

    I think you have to be careful not to start believing your own propaganda.

    Yes, there is a reasonable _possibility_ that the Lib Dems will come second in terms of the popular vote. Of the polls released so far today, two have the Lib Dems ahead of Labour, and two have them behind.

    But of course, that would still place the Lib Dems firmly in third place in terms of parliamentary seats. It’s not fair, but it’s a fact that most people are aware of, and if you try to tell them something different not many will be fooled.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 6:11pm

    Look, I have no illusions about what a Conservative administration means, but given the choice between another 5 years of Brown and the destruction he has wreaked on the British economy, civil liberties and British esteem abroad, and the Conservatives, I vote Lib Dem. I do not believe that the Conservatives would be worse than Labour, just they will inflict different damage. I fundamentally disagree with anyone who wants to consider tactical voting. It has only ever hurt is in the past, and I can think of no convincing reason that it won’t hurt us again. The electors are looking for a change: if Liberal Democrats don’t offer them that change, then they will vote Tory. Liberal Democrats are not some sort of Labour “mini me”, for Pete’s sake.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 6:13pm

    Why should we reward a party that has consistently opposed electoral reform when first past the post favoured them and they could gerrymander it to favour them further? Do leopards change their spots? I don’t think so. Punish them for their mealy-mouthed false promises.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 1st May '10 - 6:33pm


    “I do not believe that the Conservatives would be worse than Labour, just they will inflict different damage”

    I’m sorry, but I think it’s clear that a party that will have to inflict the deepest cuts in public spending since World War II _would_ be worse than Labour, and if the Lib Dems enable them to carry out that programme, they’ll do so at their peril.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 6:55pm

    Anthony Aloysius St.
    >>>I’m sorry, but I think it’s clear that a party that will have to inflict the deepest cuts in public spending since World War II _would_ be worse than Labour, and if the Lib Dems enable them to carry out that programme, they’ll do so at their peril.

    Sorry, Anthony, a Labour or Liberal Democrats administration will have to do the same thing, anyway. Anything else is wishful thinking.

  • George Kendall 1st May '10 - 7:47pm

    Anthony Aloysius St said: “being realistic there’s going to be either a Tory or a Labour prime minister after the election, and the Lib Dems may be in a position to decide which”

    A very good question.

    It’s pretty clear that a LibLab coalition would be easier than a LibCon coalition. If the Tories and Labour have an equal number of seats, and a new Labour leadership are prepared to negotiate seriously, we’d have a LibLab pact. It’d probably have a Labour PM, but if Labour really get hammered, it could be Nick Clegg.

    Although a LibLab coalition is the most likely, at this stage, Nick Clegg would be mad to express a preference.

    Firstly, the post-election negotiations will be tough, and Clegg should keep his cards close to his chest.

    And he may not have the choice. If the Tories are 15 seats short of a majority, a LibLab coalition would also involve a coalition with the Northern Ireland Unionists, and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. At the best of times, this wouldn’t be sustainable. At a time of severe economic crisis, it’d fall apart in weeks. In that case, what would you want the LibDems to do? Cause a second election?

    A go-it-alone minority Tory government would be a nightmare for Cameron. To get his budget and legislation through, he’d need support from another party. But worse, he’d have his rightwing fringe to deal with. Some of them regard Cameron as a traitor, and are itching to replace him.

    Cameron might prefer a LibCon pact, and be prepared to concede a referendum on electoral reform. In such a situation, you can forget those parts of the Tory manifesto that were a sop to the rightwing: so no double millionaire inheritance tax-cut, no batty ideas on Europe. And we’d have positive change on civil liberties.

    We’d end up with a centrist government, with the far right isolated.

    There’d be extremely severe cuts, but I’m afraid they’ll happen anyway, under anyone.

    Would you want Clegg to say no to this? And if so, what would you want him to do?

  • Anthony Aloysius St 1st May '10 - 7:48pm


    You need to read the IFS report, which I was referring to.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 7:52pm

    My price to stuff Labour literature through people’s doors?
    1. Gordon Brown to stand down for the good of the country; Darling/David Milliband/Johnson or some other reasonable candidate to take over as Labour leader (i.e. not Harman).
    2. Labour to accept AV+ and all the other strands of Lib Dem electoral and parliamentary reform
    3. A statement that they recognise the critical state the British economy is in and that difficult choices will be necessary, which will inevitably mean painful cuts in central government spending
    4. 100 Labour candidates to stand down to allow the Lib Dems free run; the cull would have to include all the major fiddlers and crooks from the last parliament

    Short of that? No bl**dy chance.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 7:58pm

    >>>You need to read the IFS report, which I was referring to.

    I understand that, according to the IFS, the Lib Dem’s budgetary proposals presented the best balance between cuts, spending restraint and increases in taxation. It still left a £30 billion hole to filled. The proposals from the other two parties were much less realistic even than that and equally dangerous, but in different ways. I think Vince should be have given free rein to promise 5 years of blood, sweat and toil. Strangely enough, Darling and Osborne both wanted to communicate the same message, but both were muzzled.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 1st May '10 - 7:59pm


    Fair enough, provided you would apply similar conditions to a deal with the Tories. What makes me think you wouldn’t?

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 8:01pm

    George – I agree entirely with what you have written.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 8:09pm


    The Tories are devils and make no real pretense otherwise. They also have a chance of winning this election, they will not cut a deal until they see the lie of the land after May 6. Nick Clegg and his team should also refrain from mentioning any deals until the electoral arithmetic is clear, just as George has outlined. Anthony, please don’t get personal with me; I have never voted anything but Lib Dem, except when I voted in Northern Ireland (APNI) and the Netherlands (D66). I have no wish to see either a Tory or Labour administration. Where we differ is simply in thinking that Labour are in some way “better” than the Conservatives. I strongly dislike both, but could accept making a sensible deal with either. Not before votes have been cast, though, unless the deal was a good one and the counter-party presented credible bona fides. Labour is weak at the moment, they should not be helped merely for more meaningless promises, “I’m sorry, I love you really”.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 1st May '10 - 8:36pm


    Well, I guess it’s obvious from that that you _wouldn’t_ insist on similar conditions with the Tories.

    I’m not saying it’s a crime to favour the Tories over Labour – though I wish you wouldn’t pretend to be impartial between them when you’re so obviously not. But we know that a majority of Lib Dem members consider the Tories to be the greater evil. The observation I’m making is that I’m not sure Nick Clegg shares that feeling.

  • George Kendall 1st May '10 - 9:01pm


    Clegg is too sensible to let us know his preference between Labour and the Tories, and I’m glad of it. But the way I read him is that he doesn’t have a problem with Labour, but he does have one with Gordon Brown.

    When he said Brown couldn’t be PM if Labour came third, it was partly good negotiating – if we have more votes, don’t assume we’re the junior partner. It was partly in response to the Tory attack of “Vote Clegg get Brown”.

    But it was also because of Brown’s character. Just look at the enemies Brown has made in his own party. Brown is highly intelligent and has many other qualities, he’s also a bully, and a Labour tribalist. He is totally unqualified to lead a coalition.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 9:10pm


    Why can’t you understand that I prefer neither?

    My choice is for a Liberal Democrat majority administration, able to push its radical reforming proposals through parliament. Failing that, I would simply prefer the best deal that can be done, or no deal at all if it would damage the party. I find measuring the degree that Labour are either better or worse than the Conservatives uninteresting; I do remember, however, the number of insults that Labour have dealt us over the years. Every time Labour has cozied up to the Liberal Democrats, it has been as Judas. They cannot be trusted; the electors do not trust them either and remember a long list of broken promises and absurd decisions taken against the national interest and the interest of its people. I don’t believe the Conservatives would be better. I am trying my best to ignore the slight that you intend me, by suggesting otherwise.

    I do wish you would be realistic, though. The Conservatives are winning or close to winning this election: they have no need to cut a deal this side of election day. Labour are losing: if they are desperate to keep the Conservatives out, then I would be happy for them to come to Nick Clegg and his team and make sensible concessions, and would then countenance a call to tactical voting. Short of that: no way.

    Please don’t call me a Tory again, it’s getting annoying. I started out as an SDP supporter and have made the long journey to Liberalism. I understand Liberalism and see no reason to look elsewhere.

    It is possible that the Liberal Democrats will be asked to support a Labour or Conservative minority government or to enter into a formal coalition with one or the other. Fine. I think that it is possible to argue a great number of our policies from a Conservative or from a Labour philosophical perspective. The reason for that is that our policies are good ones, which fulfil some of the voids in the other parties’ prospectuses. For instance, our pledge to raise the threshold at which the Basic Rate of Income Tax becomes applicable to £10,000 can be argued from the point of view that it is raises people on low or moderate salaries out of poverty, but it could equally be argued that lowering taxation for the poor is a good macro-economic policy as they will necessarily spend more of their income, hence stimulating the economy. Similarly, one could argue our ideas of localism as providing the practical fulfllment of the Conservative idea of the “Big Society”. or one could argue that it is empowering people to guarantee fully funded social provision within their local communities, ensuring that no one is left behind.

    I simply believe that Liberal philosophy provides a sound basis for analysing our society. I will be happy to see the ideas that flow from this philosophy implemented and trust that Nick Clegg and his top team will strike a hard bargain with whichever devil wishes to avail itself of our help.

    I don’t see the point in surrendering to one particular red devil for fear of another blue one.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 9:18pm

    George – again I agree with everything that you have just posted.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 1st May '10 - 9:38pm


    Well, if you are saying that you would impose similar conditions on the Tories as those you would demand from Labour, I’ll be happy to acknowledge that you don’t have a preference between them.

    Would you impose similar conditions on the Tories?

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 10:42pm


    Get real, please. The Tories are winning, they aren’t looking to cozy up to us, although no doubt they are trying to persuade Lib Dem waverers up and down the country to vote Tory to keep Labour out. It really is a question of seeing things for the way they are. If the Tories were losing badly and were desperate enough to want to keep Labour out, then, yes, same sort of deal.

    They don’t need to get rid of Cameron, though, as he hasn’t made the mess that Brown has. The electors will expect a change. That means, at the very least, Brown has to go.

    The history is different, too. The Conservatives have not entered into deals with the Liberals in living memory, nor have they hinted at them, either. So there is no awful history of being lead up the garden path, only to be jilted at the altar, many times. Labour have used us or tried to use us many times in the past. We should be wary of their entreaties. This time it could be a zombie death grip; we don’t need to be taken down with them.

    No deals, until the numbers are known. No deals, unless they promise real change. No deals, unless they do us no long term harm. No deals, unless our core principles are left without taint.

    Leaving a minority Conservative administration to collapse under its own internal contradictions may well, as George, outlined be the best that we can achieve. Any deal with the Conservatives would be difficult, they would clearly look to stiff us. So therefore a deal with the Conservatives could only happen if they were well short of a plausible minority government and really, really wanted our help. As Michael Portillo made clear, they would then outbid Labour. Accept that deal, then, if it was offered. A deal with Labour would probably be easier, but, Labour has many unreformed sorts that would be only to happen to go against the Labour Whip to stiff any deal. So therefore, Labour would have to be weakened enough that its Whip could genuinely enforce discipline, yet strong enough that the deal didn’t depend on various other parties.

    I certainly don’t want to see the Liberal Democrats ruin things for themselves by going all soft before election day.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 10:45pm

    We simply lose out every time tactical voting is discussed, it simply hardens the vote for blue to keep out red, red to keep out blue. If you think about what you are saying, it is pretty obvious. You want Lib Dem success, but you are willing to sacrifice it to keep out the blues. To hell with them both, I say.

  • Paul McKeown 1st May '10 - 10:48pm

    And we shouldn’t be talking about this nonsense in public here at all: it just makes us look weak. A few seductive glances to the left or to the right, show a little leg to keep some interest. But we should not be having an argument amongst ourselves, except behind closed doors.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 1st May '10 - 11:09pm


    OK – you’ve made it amply clear. You’ve set forth the most humiliating conditions for a deal with Labour, but when you’re asked whether the same would apply to the Tories suddenly everything is different. and we’ll just have to wait and see.

    I repeat – everyone has different opinions. It’s not a crime to prefer the Tories to Labour (though personally I find it incomprehensible – and undoubtedly it’s a minority view within the party). But please don’t paint yourself as impartial between the other parties when you’ve made it abundantly clear you’re not.

    Oh, and someone who is trying to portray this election as a “two-horse race” between Clegg and Cameron – when the reality is that the Lib Dems will finish a distant third in terms of seats, even if they surpass their current poll rating considerably – is really not best placed to tell other people to “get real”!

  • Paul McKeown 2nd May '10 - 9:51am


    Let me put it this way: there is no way at all that I would stuff election literature through letter boxes for the Tories, but I would for Labour, but only if they provided serious bona fides. If you can’t get that, then, I think the problem lies with you. It certainly isn’t good behaviour to put words into other people’s mouths. Vote Liberal Democrat. Encourage other people to vote Liberal Democrat. Any other course is simply one of despair, and damaging to our prospects.

  • Paul McKeown 2nd May '10 - 11:05am


    Listen to James Naughtie: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8655000/8655741.stm . Votes matter, even in constituencies that we don’t win, as they provide a powerful argument in favour of changing the electoral system. Pushing Labour into 3rd in the popular vote will make a very powerful argument indeed. We should scrap therefore for every single Lib Dem vote that we can.

    Best Regards,
    Paul McKeown

  • Anthony Aloysius St 2nd May '10 - 11:35am

    “Votes matter, even in constituencies that we don’t win, as they provide a powerful argument in favour of changing the electoral system. Pushing Labour into 3rd in the popular vote will make a very powerful argument indeed. We should scrap therefore for every single Lib Dem vote that we can.”

    So should the Lib Dems stop putting out “It’s a two-horse race” leaflets with “Labour can’t win here” bar charts?

  • Paul McKeown 2nd May '10 - 12:43pm

    No. Liberal Democrats should ask people to vote Liberal Democrat and explain why our philosophy and policies are best for the country. End of.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 2nd May '10 - 12:44pm

    I’m lost. Does that mean they shouldn’t encourage supporters of other parties to vote Lib Dem tactically?

  • Paul McKeown 2nd May '10 - 3:09pm

    I’m sorry that you’re lost; have you tried the Ordnance Survey?

    Tell people that they must always vote for who they think best fit to represent them.

    Explain Lib Dem philosophy and policies. Encourage them to vote Lib Dem.

    Tactical voting is just such a rubbish idea.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 2nd May '10 - 3:46pm


    Well, when all’s said and done, no doubt some people will decide it’s important to vote for their ideal candidate, even if that candidate stands no chance of winning, and others will take a pragmatic view and pick whichever of the genuine contenders they prefer. I think it’s really a matter of personal preference.

  • Paul McKeown 2nd May '10 - 4:21pm

    Okay, Anthony, let’s agree to disagree. Let me leave you with one final thought: there might well be another general election later this year, if a minority Conservative administration decides to press the gamble button. The more people who vote Lib Dem this time around, even in apparently hopeless seats, the better we will be placed for that later election, as more seats will be placed within our range.

  • Paul McKeown 2nd May '10 - 5:05pm

    On the subject of tactical voting, here is something to mull over: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8655000/8655722.stm

  • Paul McKeown 3rd May '10 - 5:15pm

    But if you do wish to vote tactically against the Conservatives (and I disapprove), then look at this: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B7QSRZVRkg-cODQ0OTQ2ZjEtNmJmNS00MzQ5LTkxNWUtMzc4MzMwNzQ5MGJj&hl=en_GB, which is a list of the top 100 constituencies where Conservative chances could be damaged by tactical voting.

    I would prefer it, though, if people just voted Lib Dem.

  • Quiet on here since it became clear that a vote for the Liberal Democrats – ‘tactical’ or not – was a vote for a Tory government. I’m sure people who thought they were voting tactically will be angry enough, but I wonder how people who were encouraged to vote for ‘Lib Dem philosophy and policies’ feel – considering the party has proved happy to ditch them at the drop of a hat?

  • ‘I think if you look at the debate last night, there is just a gulf between what David Cameron stands for and what I stand for – in terms of values, in terms of internationalism, in terms of fairness, in terms of progressive tax reform, in terms of political reform’ Nick Clegg, The Guardian, Friday 30/04/2010


  • “There is a gulf in values between myself and David Cameron…They have no progressive reform agenda at all – only an unbearable sense of entitlement that it’s just their time to govern.” Nick Clegg, The Guardian, Friday 30/04/2010


  • Lauren Walker 12th May '10 - 10:04pm

    Dear Lib Dem, oh how you have dissapointed your voters. I voted with the glimmer of hope in my heart that it might have kept out the tory’s. As it turns out, my vote went straight to the tory’s! Thank you for that. I will give you lot and your slimmy partners a chance but I will never vote Lib Dem again. I should have voted with my heart (green party) and not with my head. I should never have voted tacticly so thank you for teaching me a lesson. Good luck with the journey ahead, it will be a difficult one. Yours, dissapointed Lauren. Peace out!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Michael BG
    Peter Davies, Please can you explain what scheme you are talking about? You write that two people will receive £161.83 extra. Where do you get this figure f...
  • Lorenzo Cherin
    Real humorous stuff from David, agreed! Johnson ought to go. A bafoon. But if he does not, we might get a better govt?! A Labour Liberal one!...
  • James Fowler
    @David Raw. People are, whether we like it or not, acutely conscious of the social signals that their choices emit in all kinds of ways. One of the worst things...
  • Brad Barrows
    @George Thomas You ask a good question. I suppose the answer would be that if there is a ‘right’ to own and carry a gun, why would you need a permit. In ot...
  • Michael Cole
    It should be noted that most Conservative MPs are not unduly concerned whether Johnson is a good PM; their prime concern is whether or not he is an electoral as...