Has anyone on here actually changed their voting intentions due to the campaigning?

[Hibbyradge]

I wonder how successful all these leaflets and hustings are.

I suppose the battle is really for the floating voter and those who haven't definitely made their minds up.

I suppose that I've been influenced a bit because I wasn't 100% certain to vote SNP before the campaign started, but that's what it now says on my postal vote.

Has anyone actually had their intentions changed?

[JeMeSouviens]

lucky and his pals are changing their campaigning intentions due to the voting, does that count? :wink:

[steakbake]

I was going to vote Green, but after weeks of seeing the establishment at Westminster turn on the democratic will of people in Scotland, I'll be voting SNP in Edinburgh North and Leith.

I hope Labour are in ruins in Scotland come 8th May. It's nothing short than they would deserve and arguably, need.

[Moulin Yarns]

I was going to vote Green, but after weeks of seeing the establishment at Westminster turn on the democratic will of people in Scotland, I'll be voting SNP in Edinburgh North and Leith.

I hope Labour are in ruins in Scotland come 8th May. It's nothing short than they would deserve and arguably, need.

Have the courage of your convictions and stay with your head rather than heart. Let the defeatist Unionist parties stick to tactical voting, it is all that is left to them.

[Sylar]

I started out with the intention to spoil my ballot and I've not been convinced otherwise since all of this began.

[Smartie]

I've previously voted SNP at every opportunity.

I thought that the time for independence was at the referendum last September. When the majority voted against it I thought that the chance had gone and that I would consider my options and that it would probably be best to make the best of being part of the Union.

Since campaigning began I've been hurled firmly back into the SNP camp. Not necessarily through anything hugely positive they've done (although they do seem to be the only party capable of/ prepared to answer a question and I have been impressed by Nicola Sturgeon) but more because I've been hugely put off by all of the other campaigns.

As with the referendum debate there is actually a lot of decent debate to be had in pubs, with mates and on forums such as this where you will have sensible, balanced posts put forward by people who may just happen to have a different opinion to your own. The tactical crap coming from the politicians, especially the big 2 where all they seem to want to do is scare people into believing that if you vote for this then you'll get that is tedious, braindead drivel.

[snooky]

I wonder how successful all these leaflets and hustings are.

I suppose the battle is really for the floating voter and those who haven't definitely made their minds up.

I suppose that I've been influenced a bit because I wasn't 100% certain to vote SNP before the campaign started, but that's what it now says on my postal vote.

Has anyone actually had their intentions changed?


I'll have to check my genetic programme to see if I am capable of answering your question. :doh:

[Colr]

I take a pretty keen interest in politics so I have had a clear idea how I would vote for a fair while but a lot of people don't take an interest or pay much heed to the news so I guess they would make up their minds either on the basis of what they always vote or by the parts of the campaigns that hit home.

[Sir David Gray]

My mind has been made up on the basis of a process of elimination in terms of who I won't be voting for (Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrats). None of the leaflets through the door have even been read so they haven't made a difference.

[EH6 Hibby]

My mind has been made up on the basis of a process of elimination in terms of who I won't be voting for (Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrats). None of the leaflets through the door have even been read so they haven't made a difference.

If you haven't even read the other parties leaflets then your choice is not a process of elimination. Sounds more like "I know who I'm voting for and no one is going to change my mind"

[Hibbyradge]

I'll have to check my genetic programme to see if I am capable of answering your question. :doh:

Whoosh...

[Moulin Yarns]

I certainly hope so. Otherwise I have just walked miles leafleting for nothing.

[hibs0666]

I will be voting Labour. The campaign has convinced me that, if I lived elsewhere, I would vote for whichever candidate was most likely to defeat the SNP.

[Sir David Gray]

If you haven't even read the other parties leaflets then your choice is not a process of elimination. Sounds more like "I know who I'm voting for and no one is going to change my mind"

It is a process of elimination. I know where I stand on the political spectrum and I know how closely each party reflects my views.

I don't really have an ideal party to be honest but there are some parties which are so far away from my outlook that I dismiss them completely.

[Pretty Boy]

If anything the Labour camapign has pushed me even further away from voting for them and giving my vote to the SNP, first time in a Westminster election.

I hoped, albeit without much expectation, the the referendum would have been a wake up call to Labour in Scotland. That Yes got to 45% from where they started must have been a worry to them especially considering many Yes voters seemed attracted by the 'leftie' policies in the white paper. Then again the SNP minority government should have been a warning, the collapse pre the last Holyrood election shuld have been a warning and the SNP majority should have been a warning but heads seem to be firmly in the sand.

That this campaign has followed a similar path is bizarre. A collapse of the Scottish vote might be the best thing that can happen to them as it will finally prove they can't continue to take it for granted. As an ex party member and from a proud Labour voting family I'd love to be won back but that's a million miles from happening.

Nicola Sturgeon has shown herself to be an assured, measured, charismatic and intelligent leader thus far in the campaign and she has won my vote based on that. Before this campaign despite being a Yes voter I was unsure who to vote for and, as I said above, desperately wanted something from Labour to convince me. They failed miserably whilst the SNP continue to impress.

[Chip shop Joe]

Have always voted Labour and voted no in the referendum but I am seriously considering voting SNP. Although I ultimately don't believe in an Independent Scotland the more I see of Nicola Sturgeon the more I am impressed with her calmness, her political knowledge and her ability to answer a question! I am afraid that Ed Milliband does not inspire the same confidence!

[BroxburnHibee]

The Labour Party strategy just completely baffles me.

We've had a minority SNP government, a majority government and then the referendum where 45% of the population showed they were not happy with the status quo.

Yet it seems as if they want to completely ignore what a large section of the scottish electorate are telling them.

[Hibrandenburg]

If anything the Labour camapign has pushed me even further away from voting for them and giving my vote to the SNP, first time in a Westminster election.

I hoped, albeit without much expectation, the the referendum would have been a wake up call to Labour in Scotland. That Yes got to 45% from where they started must have been a worry to them especially considering many Yes voters seemed attracted by the 'leftie' policies in the white paper. Then again the SNP minority government should have been a warning, the collapse pre the last Holyrood election shuld have been a warning and the SNP majority should have been a warning but heads seem to be firmly in the sand.

That this campaign has followed a similar path is bizarre. A collapse of the Scottish vote might be the best thing that can happen to them as it will finally prove they can't continue to take it for granted. As an ex party member and from a proud Labour voting family I'd love to be won back but that's a million miles from happening.

Nicola Sturgeon has shown herself to be an assured, measured, charismatic and intelligent leader thus far in the campaign and she has won my vote based on that. Before this campaign despite being a Yes voter I was unsure who to vote for and, as I said above, desperately wanted something from Labour to convince me. They failed miserably whilst the SNP continue to impress.

Here's a really good tongue in cheek article that mirrors many of your sentiments. Like your post it's well worth a read.

https://commonspace.scot/articles/1174/shaun-milne-how-scotland-is-standing-tall-against-the-union-of-hypocrites

[Kato]

The Labour Party strategy just completely baffles me.

We've had a minority SNP government, a majority government and then the referendum where 45% of the population showed they were not happy with the status quo.

Yet it seems as if they want to completely ignore what a large section of the scottish electorate are telling them.

Complete and utter lack of imagination. This and they cannot speak to the Scottish Electorate solely in a GE, they have to pander to middle-England.

[Geo_1875]

Complete and utter lack of imagination. This and they cannot speak to the Scottish Electorate solely in a GE, they have to pander to middle-England.

That's where Scottish Labour fall down. They can promise whatever they want but people know that they will toe the party line every time HQ tugs on the leash.

[Stranraer]

Yes. I was behind the SNP to begin with but I've gone off the idea, partly due to the thought of a minority Government. It may have worked in the Scottish Parliament but I don't think it will last long in Westminster. I will no longer be voting SNP which leaves me in the minority!

[Just Alf]

Here's a really good tongue in cheek article that mirrors many of your sentiments. Like your post it's well worth a read.

https://commonspace.scot/articles/1174/shaun-milne-how-scotland-is-standing-tall-against-the-union-of-hypocrites

enjoyed that, you're right, well worth reading

[snooky]

Here's a really good tongue in cheek article that mirrors many of your sentiments. Like your post it's well worth a read.

https://commonspace.scot/articles/1174/shaun-milne-how-scotland-is-standing-tall-against-the-union-of-hypocrites

That is probably the best article I've read on the whole on-going political shift - past, present & future.

Thanks for the link, Hibrandenburg :aok:

[RyeSloan]

That is probably the best article I've read on the whole on-going political shift - past, present & future. Thanks for the link, Hibrandenburg :aok:

Ya think? Sounded and read like a puff piece for the SNP to me but there you go.

The SNP Policies are hardly any different from Labours yet there seems to be an ingrained opinion that the SNP are something of a revolution. Granted Sturgeon is a million times better than Milliband (and even a million times better is not saying much!) but it's not a presidential election is it?

[snooky]

Ya think? Sounded and read like a puff piece for the SNP to me but there you go.

The SNP Policies are hardly any different from Labours yet there seems to be an ingrained opinion that the SNP are something of a revolution. Granted Sturgeon is a million times better than Milliband (and even a million times better is not saying much!) but it's not a presidential election is it?

Fair comment, SiMar however, I stand by the statement that it's the best article I've read from what I perceive has happened and will happen.

I respect (and suspect) you might have a different viewpoint.
With that in mind, I would be interested in reading an article that you regard as fairly accurate on the same subject.
I think it's healthy that everyone remains open to other peoples' views on what's going on.
Vive la difference :greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

Ya think? Sounded and read like a puff piece for the SNP to me but there you go.

The SNP Policies are hardly any different from Labours yet there seems to be an ingrained opinion that the SNP are something of a revolution. Granted Sturgeon is a million times better than Milliband (and even a million times better is not saying much!) but it's not a presidential election is it?

Considering where both parties started 20 years ago, probably far more recently for the SNP, your 2nd paragraph is a pretty damning verdict of Labours policies. It's not that long ago, certainly comfortably within my teenage lifetime, that Labour were happy to brand the SNP 'tartan Tories'. Having their policies described as not that different would have been a grave insult.

[Mibbes Aye]

Considering where both parties started 20 years ago, probably far more recently for the SNP, your 2nd paragraph is a pretty damning verdict of Labours policies. It's not that long ago, certainly comfortably within my teenage lifetime, that Labour were happy to brand the SNP 'tartan Tories'. Having their policies described as not that different would have been a grave insult.

Times change. Parties would be dead if they didn't change with the times.

I'm sure you described yourself on here as a former member of a socialist party. I'm guessing you don't feel they represent you now with their policies?

Regardless of who you vote for, would you agree with continuing the council tax freeze and a corporation tax cut?

[RyeSloan]

Fair comment, SiMar however, I stand by the statement that it's the best article I've read from what I perceive has happened and will happen. I respect (and suspect) you might have a different viewpoint. With that in mind, I would be interested in reading an article that you regard as fairly accurate on the same subject. I think it's healthy that everyone remains open to other peoples' views on what's going on. Vive la difference :greengrin

Ha ha OK fair comment...all sources are valid and I'll try to read with a more open mind in future :-)

[RyeSloan]

Considering where both parties started 20 years ago, probably far more recently for the SNP, your 2nd paragraph is a pretty damning verdict of Labours policies. It's not that long ago, certainly comfortably within my teenage lifetime, that Labour were happy to brand the SNP 'tartan Tories'. Having their policies described as not that different would have been a grave insult.

It's a good point but who has stolen who's clothes I wonder?

Their manifestos have very similar main themes...mansion tax, 50p rate, increase minimum wage to £8 or so, 100 of thousands of affordable homes etc etc etc..even the IFS said that essentially their spending plans were the same (although to be fair the SNP quickly pointed out that was ridiculous as they would actually borrow more to 'invest')

Is it really just a matter of presentation and the fact that the SNP only have one audience to play to as I'm struggling to find any real difference between the main planks of the their policies (although to be fair and taking in board snooky's feedback maybe I've just not been looking with an open enough mind ;-)!) to explain just why the SNP would be so resoundingly popular just now (if we discount the Indy ref effect)

[grunt]

I think a large part of the reason why the SNP are flying right now is down to Nicola Sturgeon. She's passionate, clear spoken and she is showing up the leaders of the other parties big time. And I'm not even an SNP supporter.

[grunt]

And with my previous post in mind, does anyone else think that Cameron has been advised to turn up the energy and passion? He seems to be on speed this week.

[Stranraer]

I think a large part of the reason why the SNP are flying right now is down to Nicola Sturgeon. She's passionate, clear spoken and she is showing up the leaders of the other parties big time. And I'm not even an SNP supporter.

:agree: She has done well not to get into the mud slinging of the two main party's. And I'm no longer and SNP supporter either!

[hibs0666]

I was going to vote Green, but after weeks of seeing the establishment at Westminster turn on the democratic will of people in Scotland, I'll be voting SNP in Edinburgh North and Leith.

I hope Labour are in ruins in Scotland come 8th May. It's nothing short than they would deserve and arguably, need.

That's fine, and it looks like you will get your wish. But let's be absolutely clear - every vote for the SNP increases the likelihood of a Tory victory.

[bigwheel]

That's fine, and it looks like you will get your wish. But let's be absolutely clear - every vote for the SNP increases the likelihood of a Tory victory.


I suspect it's the complete failure of the Labour party up here to connect with the Scottish people that is the biggest factor in that outcome...

[Mibbes Aye]

I was going to vote Green, but after weeks of seeing the establishment at Westminster turn on the democratic will of people in Scotland, I'll be voting SNP in Edinburgh North and Leith.

I hope Labour are in ruins in Scotland come 8th May. It's nothing short than they would deserve and arguably, need.

Like what?

If you're going to say it, then own it.

[EH6 Hibby]

I suspect it's the complete failure of the Labour party up here to connect with the Scottish people that is the biggest factor in that outcome...

That and the fact that it's never made a blind bit of difference to the overall result how Scotland has voted before.

[weecounty hibby]

That's fine, and it looks like you will get your wish. But let's be absolutely clear - every vote for the SNP increases the likelihood of a Tory victory.
Total and utter nonsense. Refer to elections between 79 and 97. Scotland voted almost totally labour and what did we get??? Tories. After 97 we got almost Tories😉

[hibs0666]

I suspect it's the complete failure of the Labour party up here to connect with the Scottish people that is the biggest factor in that outcome...

That's as maybe, but it will be a pyrrhic victory for the SNP with, as seems likely, a lorra lorra Scottish seats and Cameron running the show.

[bigwheel]

That's as maybe, but it will be a pyrrhic victory for the SNP with, as seems likely, a lorra lorra Scottish seats and Cameron running the show.


that will be a whole lot bigger issue for Labour than it will be for SNP.... A Cameron government will create a perfect "opposition" role for the SNP up here....

[hibs0666]

Total and utter nonsense. Refer to elections between 79 and 97. Scotland voted almost totally labour and what did we get??? Tories. After 97 we got almost Tories

Just do the maths. Once again, and let's be very clear about it, every vote for the SNP increases the likelihood that Cameron gets the keys to number 10.

[weecounty hibby]

Just do the maths. Once again, and let's be very clear about it, every vote for the SNP increases the likelihood that Cameron gets the keys to number 10.
Nonsense. It will be decided in England. You do the maths. 59 seats in Scotland against 500+ in England. Do not dare blame the democratic will of the Scottish people, something I'm sure you wanted to keep in the UK, for Labour failing to get into power

[hibs0666]

Nonsense. It will be decided in England. You do the maths. 59 seats in Scotland against 500+ in England. Do not dare blame the democratic will of the Scottish people, something I'm sure you wanted to keep in the UK, for Labour failing to get into power

I'm not blaming anyone for the way they vote. However the consequence of every vote for the SNP is an increased likelihood of continued Tory rule, of that there is absolutely no doubt.

[Moulin Yarns]

That's as maybe, but it will be a pyrrhic victory for the SNP with, as seems likely, a lorra lorra Scottish seats and Cameron running the show.


Just do the maths. Once again, and let's be very clear about it, every vote for the SNP increases the likelihood that Cameron gets the keys to number 10.


I'm not blaming anyone for the way they vote. However the consequence of every vote for the SNP is an increased likelihood of continued Tory rule, of that there is absolutely no doubt.


I have a larger record collection than you obviously have :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm not blaming anyone for the way they vote. However the consequence of every vote for the SNP is an increased likelihood of continued Tory rule, of that there is absolutely no doubt.

I'd rather have an MP on the opposition benches who'll speak up for Scotland's interests than one in government who sells out his constituents when his master tugs the leash.

[God Petrie]

I'm not blaming anyone for the way they vote. However the consequence of every vote for the SNP is an increased likelihood of continued Tory rule, of that there is absolutely no doubt.

What is the practical difference between a Labour and SNP vote in terms of keeping Tories out?

[stoneyburn hibs]

I'd rather have an MP on the opposition benches who'll speak up for Scotland's interests than one in government who sells out his constituents when his master tugs the leash.

Absolutely

[JeMeSouviens]

That's fine, and it looks like you will get your wish. But let's be absolutely clear - every vote for the SNP increases the likelihood of a Tory victory.

Tories + Lib Dems now = 11

Tories + Lib Dems projected = 0

Stick to parroting the Slimebucket propaganda, cos you sure as hell can't do arithmetic! :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Just do the maths. Once again, and let's be very clear about it, every vote for the SNP increases the likelihood that Cameron gets the keys to number 10.

Is anyone in Labour stupid enough to believe this blatant lying pish or are they just happy to repeat the lie endlessly because they're told to?

Either way, they are thoroughly deserving of what looks likely to be their result.

[Moulin Yarns]

Tories + Lib Dems now = 11

Tories + Lib Dems projected = 0

Stick to parroting the Slimebucket propaganda, cos you sure as hell can't do arithmetic! :wink:

You missed a link :wink: to support your response, so here it is. :greengrin

http://newsnet.scot/2015/04/the-forgotten-fact-that-is-englands-built-in-westminster-majority/

[weecounty hibby]

I'm not blaming anyone for the way they vote. However the consequence of every vote for the SNP is an increased likelihood of continued Tory rule, of that there is absolutely no doubt.
Again I will say it. Total nonsense. A sound bite from Jim Murphy that doesn't stand up to actual historical facts.

[weecounty hibby]

I'd rather have an MP on the opposition benches who'll speak up for Scotland's interests than one in government who sells out his constituents when his master tugs the leash.

10/10. something that Labour just don't seem to comprehend

[Bristolhibby]

That's fine, and it looks like you will get your wish. But let's be absolutely clear - every vote for the SNP increases the likelihood of a Tory victory.

Define victory? Torys being the largest party, does not mean they will be the party that forms the next Government.

J

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/ge2015/courier-general-election-hustings-from-birnam-1.870331


Audience e member tells Tories and Labour to "move on" from referendum. @cllrpeterbarret (https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=cllrpeterbarret) (Lib/Dem) says its "absolutely" about referendum.

This is the Lib/Dem candidate who's party supporters have formed Forward Together to get people across Scotland to vote for whoever has the best chance to beat the SNP candidate. In this Constitency Tory, in Ochils and South Perthshire, it is Labour.

[Just Alf]

Define victory? Torys being the largest party, does not mean they will be the party that forms the next Government.

J


It absolutely does if Labour don't vote with SNP and decide instead to support a Conservative Queen's speech :agree:

[heretoday]

I voted No in the referendum but I am considering voting SNP at this election because Sturgeon comes across as a straight shooter and it would be interesting to see the Westminster establishment shaken up a bit.

But I'll still vote No in the next referendum.

I wonder how many other folk think the same way.

[Just Alf]

I voted No in the referendum but I am considering voting SNP at this election because Sturgeon comes across as a straight shooter and it would be interesting to see the Westminster establishment shaken up a bit.

But I'll still vote No in the next referendum.

I wonder how many other folk think the same way.

You're not alone, quite a few of my mates seem to be the same, although i can sense a bit of anger re some of the stuff getting spouted (yesser's included to be fair)

[JeMeSouviens]

I voted No in the referendum but I am considering voting SNP at this election because Sturgeon comes across as a straight shooter and it would be interesting to see the Westminster establishment shaken up a bit.

But I'll still vote No in the next referendum.

I wonder how many other folk think the same way.

The latest Panelbase poll provides a breakdown by recalled indyref vote. It finds ...

Yes voters are:

SNP 86%
Lab 10%
Grn 2%
Others negligible

No voters are:

SNP 13%
Lab 42%
Con 30%
Lib 7%
UKIP 5%
Grn 2%

So 13% of 55% = 7% of the total electorate are voted-No-but-supporting-SNP.

However, it doesn't give a clue as to how many of that 7% intend to stick with No. They did ask the indyref question and found that 94% of Yes voters would stick with their vote, compared to 85% of No voters (overall vote 49Y 51N).

[Geo_1875]

I voted No in the referendum but I am considering voting SNP at this election because Sturgeon comes across as a straight shooter and it would be interesting to see the Westminster establishment shaken up a bit.

But I'll still vote No in the next referendum.

I wonder how many other folk think the same way.

Better be careful there. According to the media all SNP members and supporters are frothing Nationalists with YES tattooed on their foreheads.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm not blaming anyone for the way they vote. However the consequence of every vote for the SNP is an increased likelihood of continued Tory rule, of that there is absolutely no doubt.

Except there is a lot of doubt.

In my constituency, the battle used to be Con v Lib. I tactically voted Lib. A vote for labour would have helped Lord James Douglas Hamilton, a Tory.

Now the fight is between the incumbent Lib and the SNP. If I vote Labour it will help the Lib who has spent the last 5 years keeping the Tories in power. A vote for Labour, therefore, means an increased likelihood of continued Tory rule, of that there is absolutely no doubt.

I'm voting SNP. It's not a tactical vote, but it would have been, had I not been wooed by the SNP this year.

[hibs0666]

Except there is a lot of doubt.

In my constituency, the battle used to be Con v Lib. I tactically voted Lib. A vote for labour would have helped Lord James Douglas Hamilton, a Tory.

Now the fight is between the incumbent Lib and the SNP. If I vote Labour it will help the Lib who has spent the last 5 years keeping the Tories in power. A vote for Labour, therefore, means an increased likelihood of continued Tory rule, of that there is absolutely no doubt.

I'm voting SNP. It's not a tactical vote, but it would have been, had I not been wooed by the SNP this year.

Not nice situation that one. Would be an abstention for me.

[Hibbyradge]

Not nice situation that one. Would be an abstention for me.

Which would mean an increased likelihood of continued Tory rule.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not nice situation that one. Would be an abstention for me.
I'm in the same constituency. It's Green for me.

[HiBremian]

A few weeks ago I was certain to vote Green. But now I'm thinking there's a tactical vote to consider. I have a vote in Nick Clegg's constituency. His recent anti-SNP, anti-left alliance, pro-tory policy red lines, coupled with the fact the Labour guy here actually works for community renewables, coupled with the fact latest opinion polls put him just ahead of Clegg; then there's the ex-Tory candidate saying "vote Clegg", then there's the Labour effort to decapitate the LibDems here, and anyway there's more chance of Green influence if Labour bag this seat - change of LibDem leadership, possible chance for them to say they made a mistake and try to recover lost votes by moving back to the left - it seems I ought to consider voting Labour.

Any help appreciated!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

A few weeks ago I was certain to vote Green. But now I'm thinking there's a tactical vote to consider. I have a vote in Nick Clegg's constituency. His recent anti-SNP, anti-left alliance, pro-tory policy red lines, coupled with the fact the Labour guy here actually works for community renewables, coupled with the fact latest opinion polls put him just ahead of Clegg; then there's the ex-Tory candidate saying "vote Clegg", then there's the Labour effort to decapitate the LibDems here, and anyway there's more chance of Green influence if Labour bag this seat - change of LibDem leadership, possible chance for them to say they made a mistake and try to recover lost votes by moving back to the left - it seems I ought to consider voting Labour.

Any help appreciated!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you're in Sheffield Hallam, do the right thing and get Clegg out :greengrin

Interesting point about decapitation - if Clegg goes then Tim Farron is a strong candidate for leader and he's closer to your Green leanings than the Orange Book Lib Dem cabal of Clegg, Laws etc.

[Hibbyradge]

A few weeks ago I was certain to vote Green. But now I'm thinking there's a tactical vote to consider. I have a vote in Nick Clegg's constituency. His recent anti-SNP, anti-left alliance, pro-tory policy red lines, coupled with the fact the Labour guy here actually works for community renewables, coupled with the fact latest opinion polls put him just ahead of Clegg; then there's the ex-Tory candidate saying "vote Clegg", then there's the Labour effort to decapitate the LibDems here, and anyway there's more chance of Green influence if Labour bag this seat - change of LibDem leadership, possible chance for them to say they made a mistake and try to recover lost votes by moving back to the left - it seems I ought to consider voting Labour.

Any help appreciated!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Vote Labour in those circumstances.

No question.

[Stranraer]

I
A few weeks ago I was certain to vote Green. But now I'm thinking there's a tactical vote to consider. I have a vote in Nick Clegg's constituency. His recent anti-SNP, anti-left alliance, pro-tory policy red lines, coupled with the fact the Labour guy here actually works for community renewables, coupled with the fact latest opinion polls put him just ahead of Clegg; then there's the ex-Tory candidate saying "vote Clegg", then there's the Labour effort to decapitate the LibDems here, and anyway there's more chance of Green influence if Labour bag this seat - change of LibDem leadership, possible chance for them to say they made a mistake and try to recover lost votes by moving back to the left - it seems I ought to consider voting Labour.

Any help appreciated!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm in a Labour held Tory target seat in the south of Scotland now. The latest Ashcroft polls have the SNP top, Tory second and Labour a distant third! So close to call it's either going to have to be Tory or SNP. And after reading about certain Nationalist candidates I stopped supporting them. Maybe the Tories will get my vote? This will be the first time in 5 years of voting I have changed my mind!

[stoneyburn hibs]

So an SNP candidate (Mhairi Black) has tweeted some inappropriate stuff, and that will stop you voting SNP ? She isn't even in your constituency.
You surely must have regrets about some of the things you have done as a 19/20 y/o ?

[snooky]

I

I'm in a Labour held Tory target seat in the south of Scotland now. The latest Ashcroft polls have the SNP top, Tory second and Labour a distant third! So close to call it's either going to have to be Tory or SNP. And after reading about certain Nationalist candidates I stopped supporting them. Maybe the Tories will get my vote? This will be the first time in 5 years of voting I have changed my mind!

You don't read about other parties' candidates wrongdoings then? :stirrer: :wink:

[JimBHibees]

I

I'm in a Labour held Tory target seat in the south of Scotland now. The latest Ashcroft polls have the SNP top, Tory second and Labour a distant third! So close to call it's either going to have to be Tory or SNP. And after reading about certain Nationalist candidates I stopped supporting them. Maybe the Tories will get my vote? This will be the first time in 5 years of voting I have changed my mind!

Snp or Tory really isn't a hard choice.

[Just Alf]

If you're in Sheffield Hallam, do the right thing and get Clegg out :greengrin

Interesting point about decapitation - if Clegg goes then Tim Farron is a strong candidate for leader and he's closer to your Green leanings than the Orange Book Lib Dem cabal of Clegg, Laws etc.


Vote Labour in those circumstances.

No question.

:top marks

There's your answer

[Stranraer]

You don't read about other parties' candidates wrongdoings then? :stirrer: :wink:

Of course, notoriously UKIP who I would never vote for. I maybe phrased my comment wrong - I was set to vote SNP but I've only ever voted for one party in five years although I did back a YES vote in September. I honestly don't think an increase in public spending is sensible economics.

[JeMeSouviens]

Of course, notoriously UKIP who I would never vote for. I maybe phrased my comment wrong - I was set to vote SNP but I've only ever voted for one party in five years although I did back a YES vote in September. I honestly don't think an increase in public spending is sensible economics.

Interestingly, most economists disagree with you ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/two-thirds-of-economists-say-coalition-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

http://rt.com/uk/221891-austerity-inevitable-next-parliament/

[allmodcons]

Of course, notoriously UKIP who I would never vote for. I maybe phrased my comment wrong - I was set to vote SNP but I've only ever voted for one party in five years although I did back a YES vote in September. I honestly don't think an increase in public spending is sensible economics.

It's sensible if properly managed.

The proposed spending increases are small and the SNP proposal aims to have a fiscal surplus about 2 or 3 years in to the next parliament (i.e. - by 2022/23).

The problem, as I see it, is that continued Tory Austerity will only serve to hit the pockets of those who are already struggling. There is a real problem in our country whereby those trying to survive on low earnings and, dare I say it, benefits are not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel. Running a country has got to be about more than simply looking to balance the books at any cost? More austerity will continue to hurt the poorest the most. There has got to be another way and, despite what the Tories are saying, the SNP proposal has been welcomed by some in the know:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIWNjldV--8

PS - I have placed a bet on the SNP taking your constituency so, if nothing else, you might look to assist a fellow Hibee by not voting for the Bullingdon Boys.

[Hibrandenburg]

Of course, notoriously UKIP who I would never vote for. I maybe phrased my comment wrong - I was set to vote SNP but I've only ever voted for one party in five years although I did back a YES vote in September. I honestly don't think an increase in public spending is sensible economics.

Austerity has one purpose and one purpose alone, to make those less well off in our society foot the bill for those who are better off. The evidence of this is that since these austerity measures have been put in place the mega rich have become richer and the gap between them and the poorer in our society has grown. I've only ever voted for one party in the 32 years I've been eligible to vote, however that party doesn't exist anymore. Labour supporting this policy hardly makes them "the Workers Party" now does it?

[snooky]

Austerity has one purpose and one purpose alone, to make those less well off in our society foot the bill for those who are better off. The evidence of this is that since these austerity measures have been put in place the mega rich have become richer and the gap between them and the poorer in our society has grown. I've only ever voted for one party in the 32 years I've been eligible to vote, however that party doesn't exist anymore. Labour supporting this policy hardly makes them "the Workers Party" now does it?

Please have a little sympathy for a Mr M. Rifkind who apparently couldn't possibly survive on £67k p.a.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964466/Jack-Straw-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind-cash-access-TV-storm-Labour-suspends-former-Foreign-Secretary-following-claims.html

[Stranraer]

Austerity has one purpose and one purpose alone, to make those less well off in our society foot the bill for those who are better off. The evidence of this is that since these austerity measures have been put in place the mega rich have become richer and the gap between them and the poorer in our society has grown. I've only ever voted for one party in the 32 years I've been eligible to vote, however that party doesn't exist anymore. Labour supporting this policy hardly makes them "the Workers Party" now does it?

You're right in saying that Labour aren't the workers party - some would argue they have modernised to appeal to Middle England and I know of one man who left when Michael Foot was in charge for what he called "becoming too right wing".

Voting Conservative would make little sense given that I would rather see more emphasis on tax rises and less on public spending cuts. I do agree with the idea that a Living wage would help the economy but I'm yet to see a costed, sensible alternative to some sort of austerity. Some economists may disagree with me but the IFS said the SNP's plans would lead to austerity anyway...

[Stranraer]

It's sensible if properly managed.

The proposed spending increases are small and the SNP proposal aims to have a fiscal surplus about 2 or 3 years in to the next parliament (i.e. - by 2022/23).

The problem, as I see it, is that continued Tory Austerity will only serve to hit the pockets of those who are already struggling. There is a real problem in our country whereby those trying to survive on low earnings and, dare I say it, benefits are not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel. Running a country has got to be about more than simply looking to balance the books at any cost? More austerity will continue to hurt the poorest the most. There has got to be another way and, despite what the Tories are saying, the SNP proposal has been welcomed by some in the know:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIWNjldV--8

PS - I have placed a bet on the SNP taking your constituency so, if nothing else, you might look to assist a fellow Hibee by not voting for the Bullingdon Boys.

Thanks for that post - very interesting stuff. Arkless is currently ahead of the Tories by 4 points with Brown sitting in third place.

[RyeSloan]

Interestingly, most economists disagree with you ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/two-thirds-of-economists-say-coalition-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion http://rt.com/uk/221891-austerity-inevitable-next-parliament/

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'austerity'...spending £500bn pounds we didn't have doesn't sound like genuine austerity to me!

I honestly think UK governments are given wayy to much credit in terms of how they can genuinely boost economic activity through their spending and I'm yet to be convinced that any plans to tax more, spend more and borrow forever more can ever have a long term benefit to a countries economic outlook.

[Geo_1875]

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'austerity'...spending £500bn pounds we didn't have doesn't sound like genuine austerity to me!

I honestly think UK governments are given wayy to much credit in terms of how they can genuinely boost economic activity through their spending and I'm yet to be convinced that any plans to tax more, spend more and borrow forever more can ever have a long term benefit to a countries economic outlook.

How can taking a couple of years longer to reduce the deficit while maintaining services and opportunity for the more needy in our society be a bad thing? Remember that services are like industries, when they're gone they're gone.

[lord bunberry]

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'austerity'...spending £500bn pounds we didn't have doesn't sound like genuine austerity to me!

I honestly think UK governments are given wayy to much credit in terms of how they can genuinely boost economic activity through their spending and I'm yet to be convinced that any plans to tax more, spend more and borrow forever more can ever have a long term benefit to a countries economic outlook.
It's hardly borrowing for ever more

[HiBremian]

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'austerity'...spending £500bn pounds we didn't have doesn't sound like genuine austerity to me!

I honestly think UK governments are given wayy to much credit in terms of how they can genuinely boost economic activity through their spending and I'm yet to be convinced that any plans to tax more, spend more and borrow forever more can ever have a long term benefit to a countries economic outlook.

It's not about forever, but timing. Keynes wrote about it decades ago - counter the natural cycles of capitalism by borrowing and spending in the downturns and saving and repaying when economic activity increases and generates a surplus. It's not rocket science. The real problem is that this obsession with crap austerity economics misses a crucial failure of the UK economy - stagnant productivity. Also bear in mind the Tories hit the austerity button hard in its first two years of gvt then eased off. Their proposals for more will do the same harm as last time (remember double dip recession?). They have zilch to do with economic competence and everything to do with anti-state ideology.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

It's hardly borrowing for ever more

My comment was not specifically SNP related although I do believe they are rather fast and loose with their figures and are being disingenuous to suggest their extra spending will cause the economy to grow stronger and faster once the money has been 'invested'

It was really aimed at the fact that we have a national debt of around £1.5 trillion that costs tens of billions to service. That's a debt roughly 80% of GDP...that's GDP not of government income!

I'm well aware of Keynes economics but the fact is successive UK governments have ignored the fact that they need to save in the good times, basically every political party has just continued to spend and spend and spend...yet despite all of that spending and over spending for decades we have a situation where we are being told more spending for longer is somehow the magic bullet for Britain's economy and for alleviating rich/ poor gaps and anything and everything else.

As I said I don't buy it and I believe that people are fooling themselves if they believe more (unaffordable) government spending will ever solve the issues they want to be resolved.

The comment above re productivity is a good one...you do have to ask though just what is causing the lack of productivity growth and why anyone would believe more government borrowing and spending would do anything to improve that situation.

[HiBremian]

My comment was not specifically SNP related although I do believe they are rather fast and loose with their figures and are being disingenuous to suggest their extra spending will cause the economy to grow stronger and faster once the money has been 'invested'

It was really aimed at the fact that we have a national debt of around £1.5 trillion that costs tens of billions to service. That's a debt roughly 80% of GDP...that's GDP not of government income!

I'm well aware of Keynes economics but the fact is successive UK governments have ignored the fact that they need to save in the good times, basically every political party has just continued to spend and spend and spend...yet despite all of that spending and over spending for decades we have a situation where we are being told more spending for longer is somehow the magic bullet for Britain's economy and for alleviating rich/ poor gaps and anything and everything else.

As I said I don't buy it and I believe that people are fooling themselves if they believe more (unaffordable) government spending will ever solve the issues they want to be resolved.

The comment above re productivity is a good one...you do have to ask though just what is causing the lack of productivity growth and why anyone would believe more government borrowing and spending would do anything to improve that situation.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5922/economics/uk-budget-deficit-2/

Strictly speaking it's not true that all gvts just spend and spend - there have been brief periods of repayment in the past, most recently 2000/01.

I can understand the frustration, though, but the real drive for spending isn't any love-in with the state but the need for growth. Ironically, as a Green, I'm with you in wanting to reduce spending if that means reducing consumption - the Holy Grail is a sustainable economy on zero growth. And the UK's economy today is built not just on public debt, but absolutely huge private debt too. So feom my view, yes we need to reduce "spending", but not in the way austerity economics suggests. And in today's UK social justice trumps all these issues. Why should the poorest in society pay for the catastrophic mistakes of the richest? Who caused the crisis? Not Labour "over-spending" but the collapse of the banks. In hindsight, Iceland probably had the right idea. Let the banks go tits up. Today the land of Sigur Ros is doing pretty well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

My comment was not specifically SNP related although I do believe they are rather fast and loose with their figures and are being disingenuous to suggest their extra spending will cause the economy to grow stronger and faster once the money has been 'invested'

It was really aimed at the fact that we have a national debt of around £1.5 trillion that costs tens of billions to service. That's a debt roughly 80% of GDP...that's GDP not of government income!

I'm well aware of Keynes economics but the fact is successive UK governments have ignored the fact that they need to save in the good times, basically every political party has just continued to spend and spend and spend...yet despite all of that spending and over spending for decades we have a situation where we are being told more spending for longer is somehow the magic bullet for Britain's economy and for alleviating rich/ poor gaps and anything and everything else.

As I said I don't buy it and I believe that people are fooling themselves if they believe more (unaffordable) government spending will ever solve the issues they want to be resolved.

The comment above re productivity is a good one...you do have to ask though just what is causing the lack of productivity growth and why anyone would believe more government borrowing and spending would do anything to improve that situation.

some good discussion on here... what will we do in a few weeks time?! :confused:

anyways....

Re the bit in bold the IFS recently did an indepth comparison of the 4 "main" parties and they actually thought that the SNP had the tightest [realistic?] figures closley followed by the Lib Dems with both Labour and the Conservatives trailing having the most "fudge factor" in their manifesto's and predictions.

I cant find the link to the original documents just now but these comparison graphs were pulled from the report. [caveat to all this, the report was commisioned by the Nuffield Foundation, whoever they are, so not sure if there is any "skewing" of data involved]

14778

14777

14779

14780

[Just Alf]

sorry re the pics, but found the link.... http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN170.pdf

also to be clear, all 4 get slapped wrists at times in there :agree:

[patch1875]

I was going to vote SNP to keep labour out, but now they are trying to get into bed with them I'm going to vote Conservative(although probably wasted in East Lothian) as I hope they do another term to keep sorting out Labours mess.

[RyeSloan]

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5922/economics/uk-budget-deficit-2/ Strictly speaking it's not true that all gvts just spend and spend - there have been brief periods of repayment in the past, most recently 2000/01. I can understand the frustration, though, but the real drive for spending isn't any love-in with the state but the need for growth. Ironically, as a Green, I'm with you in wanting to reduce spending if that means reducing consumption - the Holy Grail is a sustainable economy on zero growth. And the UK's economy today is built not just on public debt, but absolutely huge private debt too. So feom my view, yes we need to reduce "spending", but not in the way austerity economics suggests. And in today's UK social justice trumps all these issues. Why should the poorest in society pay for the catastrophic mistakes of the richest? Who caused the crisis? Not Labour "over-spending" but the collapse of the banks. In hindsight, Iceland probably had the right idea. Let the banks go tits up. Today the land of Sigur Ros is doing pretty well. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Honestly there is little even I can argue with in that post ;-)

Said before I liked a lot of what the Scottish greens have been saying...maybe I just don't agree on how that might be achieved? Suppose that's why I honestly have no affiliation or association with any of the political parties, none of then really get anywhere close to how I would run the country :-)

[RyeSloan]

some good discussion on here... what will we do in a few weeks time?! :confused: anyways.... Re the bit in bold the IFS recently did an indepth comparison of the 4 "main" parties and they actually thought that the SNP had the tightest [realistic?] figures closley followed by the Lib Dems with both Labour and the Conservatives trailing having the most "fudge factor" in their manifesto's and predictions. I cant find the link to the original documents just now but these comparison graphs were pulled from the report. [caveat to all this, the report was commisioned by the Nuffield Foundation, whoever they are, so not sure if there is any "skewing" of data involved] <img src="http://www.hibs.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=14778"/> <img src="http://www.hibs.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=14777"/> <img src="http://www.hibs.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=14779"/> <img src="http://www.hibs.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=14780"/>y

Achieve to be fair you could argue that the SNP are just that bit closer to admitting governments can't really help themselves but to continue spending, but that's probably only about a 1% move towards the honesty that's needed about how we tax and spend!

To be honest I find all of their manifestos a bit narrow minded...I think we need a proper discussion on what our government is really there to do, where and how it spends it's (our) money and how much it's should tax its citizens to do so. All I hear is the same old same old.

Either that or maybe I'm just getting more cynical as the years go by :-)

[lord bunberry]

My comment was not specifically SNP related although I do believe they are rather fast and loose with their figures and are being disingenuous to suggest their extra spending will cause the economy to grow stronger and faster once the money has been 'invested'

It was really aimed at the fact that we have a national debt of around £1.5 trillion that costs tens of billions to service. That's a debt roughly 80% of GDP...that's GDP not of government income!

I'm well aware of Keynes economics but the fact is successive UK governments have ignored the fact that they need to save in the good times, basically every political party has just continued to spend and spend and spend...yet despite all of that spending and over spending for decades we have a situation where we are being told more spending for longer is somehow the magic bullet for Britain's economy and for alleviating rich/ poor gaps and anything and everything else.

As I said I don't buy it and I believe that people are fooling themselves if they believe more (unaffordable) government spending will ever solve the issues they want to be resolved.

The comment above re productivity is a good one...you do have to ask though just what is causing the lack of productivity growth and why anyone would believe more government borrowing and spending would do anything to improve that situation.

I'm not convinced that austerity will see us through this time though. I keep hearing that the economy is growing and employment is at an all time high, but it doesn't feel that way. With even more austerity coming in the next 5 years I worry that the foundations this so called recovery are built on will collapse

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not convinced that austerity will see us through this time though. I keep hearing that the economy is growing and employment is at an all time high, but it doesn't feel that way. With even more austerity coming in the next 5 years I worry that the foundations this so called recovery are built will collapse

I think you're right.

We've seen secure public sector jobs disappear to be replaced by jobs on less hours, jobs on zero-hour contracts and jobs that are self-employed, with all the risk that goes with that.

[snooky]

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5922/economics/uk-budget-deficit-2/

Strictly speaking it's not true that all gvts just spend and spend - there have been brief periods of repayment in the past, most recently 2000/01.

I can understand the frustration, though, but the real drive for spending isn't any love-in with the state but the need for growth. Ironically, as a Green, I'm with you in wanting to reduce spending if that means reducing consumption - the Holy Grail is a sustainable economy on zero growth. And the UK's economy today is built not just on public debt, but absolutely huge private debt too. So feom my view, yes we need to reduce "spending", but not in the way austerity economics suggests. And in today's UK social justice trumps all these issues. Why should the poorest in society pay for the catastrophic mistakes of the richest? Who caused the crisis? Not Labour "over-spending" but the collapse of the banks. In hindsight, Iceland probably had the right idea. Let the banks go tits up. Today the land of Sigur Ros is doing pretty well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Did Iceland not jail their bankers? We bailed out our bankers & give them big fat bonuses.
Bankers, jailed or bailed? Take your pick.

[HiBremian]

Did Iceland not jail their bankers? We bailed out our bankers & give them big fat bonuses.
Bankers, jailed or bailed? Take your pick.

Well there's an easy question for all our punters out there :greengrin

Going back to the OP, I've been discussing my thoughts about a tactical vote against Clegg in Sheffield Hallam with brother and sister in law, both also voters there who have leafletted FOR the Lib Dems in the past. Interestingly, they were thinking exactly the same and will also be voting Labour :thumbsup:

Also, with all the (bull****) talk from the LibDems about allowing the biggest party a chance to form a government, would it not make sense for SNP voters in certain constituencies where the Labour candidate is to the left on key issues like austerity to "allow" Labour in? Say 10 such Labour candidates held their seats for Labour and threw the current calculations that the Tories will win marginally more seats than Labour. Would still result in the same Labour-SNP numbers, but with Labour being the "biggest party". If I were NS I'd be redirecting resources from a few such constituencies and concentrating on Murphy and his fellow Blairites. Just a thought.

[johnbc70]

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5922/economics/uk-budget-deficit-2/

Strictly speaking it's not true that all gvts just spend and spend - there have been brief periods of repayment in the past, most recently 2000/01.

I can understand the frustration, though, but the real drive for spending isn't any love-in with the state but the need for growth. Ironically, as a Green, I'm with you in wanting to reduce spending if that means reducing consumption - the Holy Grail is a sustainable economy on zero growth. And the UK's economy today is built not just on public debt, but absolutely huge private debt too. So feom my view, yes we need to reduce "spending", but not in the way austerity economics suggests. And in today's UK social justice trumps all these issues. Why should the poorest in society pay for the catastrophic mistakes of the richest? Who caused the crisis? Not Labour "over-spending" but the collapse of the banks. In hindsight, Iceland probably had the right idea. Let the banks go tits up. Today the land of Sigur Ros is doing pretty well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Can you imagine what would have happend if we had let our banks fail. Everyone hates RBS for what happened and rightly so, but just consider what would have happened if millions of people had their accounts effectively frozen and wiped out. It would have been total chaos. Iceland has a population less than Edinburgh, a bank like RBS has 15 million customers. (This is not a defence of RBS but pointing out you could not let our banks collapse in the same way)

[snooky]

Well there's an easy question for all our punters out there :greengrin

Going back to the OP, I've been discussing my thoughts about a tactical vote against Clegg in Sheffield Hallam with brother and sister in law, both also voters there who have leafletted FOR the Lib Dems in the past. Interestingly, they were thinking exactly the same and will also be voting Labour :thumbsup:

Also, with all the (bull****) talk from the LibDems about allowing the biggest party a chance to form a government, would it not make sense for SNP voters in certain constituencies where the Labour candidate is to the left on key issues like austerity to "allow" Labour in? Say 10 such Labour candidates held their seats for Labour and threw the current calculations that the Tories will win marginally more seats than Labour. Would still result in the same Labour-SNP numbers, but with Labour being the "biggest party". If I were NS I'd be redirecting resources from a few such constituencies and concentrating on Murphy and his fellow Blairites. Just a thought.

Good pointm AHF,
However I feel, though tactical voting is done all the time and it's great when it works for you, it's not really bona fide democracy (if a such an animal ever existed).

[HiBremian]

Can you imagine what would have happend if we had let our banks fail. Everyone hates RBS for what happened and rightly so, but just consider what would have happened if millions of people had their accounts effectively frozen and wiped out. It would have been total chaos. Iceland has a population less than Edinburgh, a bank like RBS has 15 million customers. (This is not a defence of RBS but pointing out you could not let our banks collapse in the same way)

AFAIK there was a deposit guarantee scheme in operation back in 2008, wasn't it around £30k per customer? This would have protected a fair number of customers, and the gvt could easily have topped it up - it's now £85k - instead of bailing out the banks. Iceland had a similar fund for Icelandic customers, but foreign account holders had problems, I think.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HiBremian]

Good pointm AHF,
However I feel, though tactical voting is done all the time and it's great when it works for you, it's not really bona fide democracy (if a such an animal ever existed).

I agree, Snooky, PR and voting for what you believe in for me. But with FPTP the result is going to be distorted whatever we do..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[snooky]

Gordon Brown is way, way past his sell-by date. In fact he went 'off' before he became PM.
If I had any thoughts of voting Labour, he would definitely change my mind.
Given his legacy, he has a real brass neck sticking his head above the parapet.

[SkintHibby]

Cant believe their are Labour people on here who will tactically vote Tory to keep the SNP out.:confused:

Surely Labour and the SNP have more in common than the hated tories!

[Hibbyradge]

Cant believe their are Labour people on here who will tactically vote Tory to keep the SNP out.:confused:

Surely Labour and the SNP have more in common than the hated tories!

I don't think there will be many, to be fair.

Labour voters in Thanet have the choice of voting Tory or having Farage as their MP. :shocked:

[Just Alf]

Cant believe their are Labour people on here who will tactically vote Tory to keep the SNP out.:confused:

Surely Labour and the SNP have more in common than the hated tories!

I just don't get it.....

it's a bit like Ed stating he'd rather see the Conservatives in government than so a deal with the SNP....... surely if he got in and then got 80-90% of his manifesto commitments progressed that's better than none? :confused:

[JohnStephens91]

No amount of campaigning will make me change my mind. I read the manifesto of each party, I already have a rough idea of core values of each party and almost exclusively vote for the Liberal Democrats because I believe in many of their policies and I have a lot in common with them ideologically. The only time I have voted for a party other than the Lib Dems was when I voted for the Conservatives in a local council election as the candidate actually tries to better the lives of the people in my area and broadcasts news from the area via a blog.