A hypothetical vote

Hypothetical situation (on which someone with experience of tactical voting may wish to shed some light).

You live in constituency S. There are 5 candidates in upcoming general election (candidates AA, BB, CC, DD & EE). They represent parties V, W, X, Y & Z.

The constituency you live in is currently represented by AA (of party V) whose party are currently the governing party but who look like they are going to lose the coming election. While AA is a member of the governing party, they have shown themselves to be somewhat independent-minded and occasionally voted with their conscience. You don't have a problem with them at all, but don't particularly like the party they represent.

Candidate BB's party W were 2nd in the constituency last time out, and have constantly told you that "only they can win here", despite the last 2 elections in the constituency pushing the party's vote down in the area. You are not keen on these kind of games, don't like that tactic and are generally underwhelmed by the party.

Candidate CC's party X finished 4th here in the last UK election but have proved stronger across Scotland. They have performed creditably in government and look like a party on the up. You strongly support the party's goals but have a particular dislike for their chosen candidate.

Candidate DD's Y party look likely to be the next UK government, but remain a way off winning this seat. While you recognise the strength of some of their arguments (and the charisma of their leader) you are loathe to support them and a local candidate who also rubs you up the wrong way.

Finally, candidate EE's party Z look like facing a struggle to return their deposit, though they showed fairly strongly in the previous (European) election in the area. You appreciate the party's intentions - and have voted for them in the past - but you recognise the difficulties facing them in what is not a PR election and feel that voting for them this time may be a wasted vote.

So, here's your choice reader. Do you:

A) Appreciate the work of your current MP (of party V) and, in your concern that the constituency may be represented by the wishy-washy party (W), lend your support to the incumbent.

B) Vote for the wishy-washy (W) party in the hope that your vote is enough to win the seat for them over the incumbent.

C) Go with the party you strongly support (X) and ignore your feelings about their candidate (increasing their share of the national vote by a minor percentage).

D) Recognise that there is a bigger picture, become a glory-hunter and vote for party Y who won't win this seat but will probably win the election - giving you the opportunity of telling people that yes, you voted in the government.

E) Ignore the fact that your second choice party (Z) have little chance of winning the seat and try to help them secure their deposit.

F) Stay at home on election day.

So there you are reader. The choice, as they say, is yours. Answers on a postcard (or in the comments).

Read more...

20 SNP MPs? Don't think so

A few days ago - prior to the SNP conference starting - Jeff made a list of potential gains for the SNP in the coming Westminster election. No doubt over the course of the weekend he drank in more optimism from the gathered masses in Inverness and feels pretty good about his prediction. Makes sense - conferences are meant to recharge the batteries, invigorate the activists to campaign and deliver some seats. Even so, I still think his list may be somewhat... optimistic. Saying that, I'd love to have some of what he is drinking!

Jeff's list of potential SNP gains (in order of ascending swing required to win):

Ochil & South Perthshire (0.75%)

Livingston (4.55% - from by-election)

Dundee West (7.3%)

Kilmarnock & Loudoun (9.8%)

Argyll & Bute (10.55%)

Aberdeen North (10.6%)

Edinburgh East (11.5%)

Stirling (11.7%)

Edinburgh North & Leith (12%)

Linlithgow & Falkirk East (12.1%)

East Lothian (14.2%)

Gordon (14.5%)

Falkirk (14.75%)

East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow (15.4%)

Plus an extra shopping list of:

North Ayrshire & Arran (12.95%)

Paisley & Renfrewshire North (13.45%)

Midlothian (14.25%)

Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East (14.8%)

Inverclyde (15.55%)

Glasgow Central (16.7%)

Anyway, I'm not sure what kind of national swing Jeff's predictions are based on, but by my reckoning only something in the range of a massive 14% LAB-SNP national swing would see some of the higher ones on the list go. And given the UK level is a straight fight between Labour and the Tories, I'd expect the latter to muscle in a wee bit on the fight in Scotland, grabbing a wee bit of the swing from Labour. In short, I can only see something like a 7 or 8% national swing at absolute best to the SNP from Labour. That isn't to say they won't win a couple of other seats which require a larger swing (as happened in 2007 - they failed to win Cumbernauld on a minor swing but grabbed Gordon & Stirling on massive swings) but I don't expect the "extra list" to come into play... or indeed much of the first list beyond Argyll & Bute. Saying that, there may be a couple of surprises (Gordon?).

Now the main criticism of my analysis here is that the swings are based on an election which will be five years old by the time the election comes round. And that is fair - we've had a Holyrood (2007) and European (2009) election since then, in both of which the SNP have polled remarkably well. Indeed, if the we transpose the European Parliament vote onto the Westminster constituencies, the SNP would end up winning more seats than Labour - from memory, everything north of Stirling, most of Edinburgh and some surprising bits of Glasgow (potentially goodbye to Glasgow South's blogging MP). So yes, there is potential for some shocks - and some big SNP gains.

But I'll return to the reason I'm suggesting some of them are not going to fall to the SNP, and that is that it is a Westminster election. While the party appear to be winning round people in Scotland - at least for Holyrood elections - this is their first real test of popularity as a Government. And I think they'll do fine - just perhaps not quite as well as some people think they will.

Coming off the fence, I'd give them 6 of 7 the seats they currently hold (minus Glasgow East) plus 6 or 7 more... but no more than 13 SNP MPs after the election. And here's a tip - the constituency where they need less than a 1% swing from Labour may be more difficult than you'd think. If Ochil and South Perthshire slips from Labour control, it might just be a Tory Gain rather than a Nat MP for the constituency.

Thoughts?

Read more...

Double-act have no x-factor

Iain Gray and Jim Murphy spoke at the Labour Party Conference yesterday. What's that? No one noticed?

I think the Scottish press did.

The Herald headline reads:

"Scottish Labour leaders (sic) attack political enemies whose 'sole creed is self interest'"

Now, I'm not one for being pedantic (okay Yousuf, I am!) but one must point out the glaring error in their title.

As James will tell you, Iain Gray is the "Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament (LOLITSP). He is not the leader of Scottish Labour. Especially if you ask some Scottish Labour MPs.

Jim Murphy is Secretary of State for Scotland (SoSoS). Which means, at government level, he is Gordon Brown's "holding midfielder" - the link between his defence at Westminster and his attack at Holyrood (see what I did there?). He too, is not the leader of Scottish Labour. Gordon Brown himself is.

But that's just a minor point.

The Scotsman has an interesting take on Iain Gray's speech to Labour conference yesterday. He is obviously their Scottish Labour leader of fancy:

"Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray has signalled he could hold a referendum on Scottish independence if he becomes First Minister, in a dramatic shift from official party policy."

reads their first paragraph. And that's kind of what he said. Except not really. And certainly not in so many words. I checked the speech - not once did he use the phrase "if I was First Minister." Which is a shame, because I always find it funny when he does. Kind of like Fiddler on the Roof's "If I were a rich man," it makes Iain Gray look like a dreamer.

No, his speech was designed to attack. The problem was, he was trying to attack two distinct "enemies" - nationalism and conservatism. Ironic then, that Labour have fallen to third, behind the the Liberal Democrats, in the latest Ipsos-Mori poll. Looks like he was turning his fire in the wrong direction.

Ach well, with the 2010 election looking like a write-off, there's always the 2011 Scottish Parliament election. Just think Gordon Jim Iain, if only you were First Minister...

Read more...

Resolving a tie

I will get round to fulfilling my side of the challenge I made to ASwaS by deadline day on Tuesday. But before I do, I found something - that I don't think will happen, but is interesting nonetheless.

Over at political betting, Morus has found this site which helps you to calculate how the US Presidential election will end up. He has also made a charity bet that the Presidential election will end in an Electoral College tie - 269-296.

Which raises an interesting point. Me indulging in fantasy politics again... but bear with me.

Take the 2004 result as our starting point (Bush win 286-251 against John Kerry). If we give Barack Obama 3 states where polls suggest he will win (Iowa) or may win (Nevada, New Mexico) then he now has 269... as does John McCain - see map above. IF (and it is a bit if) no other states change hands it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the election could end in a tie. Then what?

Well, then the new Congress steps in. The House of Representatives elects the new President (with each state delegation getting one vote) while the Senate votes for the Vice President and requiring a majority (51). I think what that means is that, if it were (in that unlikely event) to be a tie, it is advantage McCain - with the majority of states providing Republican-majority delegations to the House (I think). However, he would probably end up with a Democrat - presumably Joe Biden - as VP, if the Democrats maintained control of the Senate.

[EDIT - Thanks to Sam in the comments, I've done more research. Apparently the Democrats control 27 states' House delegations and that is meant to increase in November according to polls. However, IF it were a tie, the probability is that McCain would win more states - probably by a margin of 30-21 ish. So, how would the states feel if they'd voted McCain in the election then their Congressmen and women voted for Obama? I think this points to one thing, in this case - a huge mess]

As I said, fantasy politics, and unlikely to happen. But always good to know how things work - if democracy fails to produce a winner!

Read more...