Pages

Monday, 30 March 2015

Why anti-SNP tactical voting may not work

Recently, we have seen widespread appeals for non-SNP supporters to unite behind the party best placed to defeat them in the forthcoming General Election.

There are online campaigns, instructing people in various seats how best to use their vote to thwart the SNP. On twitter, there is a politically illiterate movement, using the hashtag #SNPout (quite odd, as they're not actually "in" government in Westminster), suggesting we vote for either the Lib Dems, Labour or the Conservatives to keep the dreadful nationalists out. I'm not sure I could countenance a tactical vote for the Tories simply to keep out a party whose policy standpoints have far more in common with my worldview than the Conservatives do, and I'd imagine many Scots feel similarly.

As a feature of the flawed First Past the Post electoral system, tactical voting is a phenomenon likely to stay with us for some time. However, we have to ask the question: will tactical voting keep the SNP from a significant role in UK government?

The latest opinion poll from The Guardian gives the Conservatives 277 seats, Labour 269, the SNP 53 and the Lib Dems 25. This would mean the Tories remain the largest party, but unable to secure a working majority with any single party other than the SNP. A Tory-SNP deal is hugely risky and difficult for either party to sell; a Tory-Lib Dem-UKIP-DUP alliance is impractical on so many levels. The combined total of 322 for the Labour and SNP combined is just short of a majority (326) but could be workable.

Let's take a look at the current state of play. Prior to the dissolution of Parliament this week, Labour had 257 seats, with the SNP 6. This gives them a combined total of 263, of which 46 are Scottish seats. Focusing on Scotland, let's say for the sake of argument that the SNP does as well as polling suggests and take 36 seats from Labour, leaving them with 4. That still gives a combined total of 46. The seat currently held by "independent" Eric Joyce will assuredly be won by either the SNP or Labour, taking the total to 47.

Admittedly, the SNP are also likely to make gains from the Lib Dems - even if they were to take all of our seats that gives a combined Labour-SNP total of 58. This could be telling. But would anti-SNP tactical voting really prevent the SNP holding the balance of power?

Let's take the 11 Lib Dem held seats out of the equation and focus on the 47 currently held by Labour or the SNP. Neither the Lib Dems nor the Conservatives are seriously targetting these. Voting Labour to keep the SNP out may well prevent the return of an SNP MP in that constituency, but it will do nothing to influence the overall combined total of Labour and SNP seats. It will not diminish the arithmetical probability of a Labour-SNP deal being the most liekly and workable option after the election.

From the pespective therefore of diminishing the potential of the SNP involvement in the next government, voting Labour to keep out Nicola Sturgeon's party is relatively futile. Even if Labour somehow managed to keep two-thirds of its seats in Scotland (about 26) the SNP still look set to reduce the Lib Dems' seats - even if they took only 6 of the 11 that would give them 26 seats - still possibly the third largest party at Westminster.

The seats currently held by the Lib Dems are of greater significance to the overall arithmetic. Any gain by Labour or the SNP will add to the core of 47 seats inevitably won by one or the other, making a deal between those parties more likely. In these seats I can therefore understand the principle of tactical voting to some degree, although I note at least one pro-tactical campaign is suggesting voters in Michael Moore's seat of Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk and Alan Reid's Argyll & Bute constituency vote Conservative - which could allow the SNP to come through the middle. I appreciate that Alex Salmond is clearly a love-hate figure and that Gordon will inevitably see a great deal of tactical voting, but in many other Lib Dem seats Labour will also fancy their chances of unseating our incumbents (e.g. East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West) which complicates the picture further.

What will actually determine whether an SNP-Labour deal is workable is not the strength of the SNP in Scotland but that of Labour in England and Wales. That is the key battleground. The Labour-Lib Dem and Labour-Conservative marginals will prove decisive. The SNP and Labour in Scotland will have a combined total of around 50 seats, but whether they will have a combined strength of anything near to 326 MPs across the UK depends on how well Labour performs - and whether they can persuade people to vote tactically for Ed Miliband.

The Conservatives realise this, hence their anti-SNP rhetoric looking to scare English voters into voting anything but Labour. The evidence is that, while an unintended by-product is the strengthening of the SNP in Scotland, that tactic is working with those it is aimed at. The majority of voters in England, apparently, find a Tory-Lib Dem coalition more palatable than a Labour-SNP one.

There does remain the tantalising possibility of Labour emerging as the largest party with something like 295 seats, and being possible to work with either the SNP or the Lib Dems to achieve either a majority or something very near to the required 326. This is less likely, as it requires both Labour and the Lib Dems to exceed expectations. Even in such circumstances, however, would Labour's instincts be towards the Lib Dems or an SNP whose policy positions are probably more closer to their own? Would they opt for a more formal coalition (as the Lib Dems would prefer) or a looser agreement (which would suit the SNP)? As many within Labour clearly dislike the notion of coalition, I'd put my money on the latter.

No doubt tactical voting will have a huge impact on the UK election - in Conservative-Lib Dem marginals especially - but the idea that any pro-union Lib Dem voters should seek to support either the Labour or Conservative parties (especially in seats where they have an incumbent MP) is an absurd one. There also needs to be a sense of proportion - amongst all the scaremongering about what the SNP, the Greens or UKIP might want to do - about what they can actually achieve. Minority parties cannot simply impose their will upon government - if that was true we'd have had a proportional voting system, an elected House of Lords and a mansion tax introduced in this parliament.

I'm not one for tactical voting, as I prefer to see the General Election in terms of 650 local contests. That said, we all vote with a view to the national picture, and I for one see many worse possibilities than the SNP working with the Labour Party to ensure workable government. But, even if you perceive that as the ultimate nightmare scenario, the real threat to that eventuality is Ed Miliband's inability to project himself as a real alternative to David Cameron.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

But what if Labour win very seat and the SNP end up with nothing!!!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
But what if Labour win very seat and the SNP end up with nothing!!!!

Comedy gold, i'll have a pint of whatever this persons drinking!

Andrew said...

I have to agree with the second anonymous poster.

I don't know if the first comment was aimed at my analysis, or if it is genuine wishful thinking - but frankly the suggestion is laughable.

If Labour keep half (20) of their seats it will be a success - and far better than I expect of them.

Philip Thomas said...

Seats won by Labour from the SNP change the Labour+LD total. Depending on the result elsewhere in the UK, they could change it enough for a viable Labour+LD coalition.
From this perspective, it is voting Tory in England that helps the SNP- it makes Labour+LD less workable. The SNP and the Tories loather each other, but that doesn't prevent them having a common tactical interest at this election.

Andrew said...

Agreed, Philip, on your first point - this allows for that "tantalising" possibility I referred to of Labour being able to choose between dealing with the Lib Dems or the SNP. But I ask, even if Labour and the Lib Dems could form a viable coalition, whether Labour would want to. My guess is that many within Labour would be reluctant to form a formal coalition if minority rule (albeit with SNP support) is a more viable option.

I'm not sure that the SNP need Labour+LD to be unworkable, just less preferable. Voting Tory in England also increases the chance of a Tory + LD coalition, which is hardly of help to the SNP's cause.

Philip Thomas said...

See
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/why-labourlib-dem-coalition-must-still-be-option-and-nick-clegg-neednt-be-price

for reasons why Labour might want to deal with us. My old PPC Richard Grayson's tone is bitter towards his former party- but that makes his grudging support for coalition with us all the more interesting.

Andrew said...

Thanks for that, Philip! it's certainly interesting.

I recognise there are reasons why Labour may well prefer the option of dealing with us...but it's not simply a matter of whether they prefer working with us to the SNP. There's also the question of whether Labour would prefer a loose agreement enabling them work as a minority government with support from a minor party over a formalised coalition. I'd imagine the Lib Dems would be principally interested in the latter, the SNP the former (having already, of course, ruled out coalition).

It could be interesting to see the situation where Labour has to make such a choice...but realistically they'll need around 300 seats which would be something of a challenge given recent polling. Tactical anti-Tory polling in England would help, but whether this will be as significant a factor as in previous years remains to be seen.

DonMack said...

As you are a Scottish Liberal I do not understand your reluctance to label the SNP as an anti democratic party that no other party should do deals with.
In the run up to the referendum the SNP lied, bullied and intimidated its way to nearly tearing the country apart. Their supporters believed claims for a rosy economic future. We need to fight them in a way that is different from our fight with a normal political opponent.

Andrew said...

Don - I'm just being pragmatic. Tactically voting Labour to prevent an SNP-Labour deal is futile.

I also don't like labelling other political parties; as a Liberal I'm also a pluralist and there has been too much intermperate and intolerant language being used in Scottish politics of late.

Whether the Labour and Conservative parties wish to do deals with the SNP is their business. Same goes for UKIP and the Greens.

I'm not going to point the finger at any one side, either - there has been a lot of unpleasantness but it's not been one-sided...and, of course, not all those on the "Yes" side have been SNP members.

We need to treat the SNP as a normal political opponent, as anything other (e.g. the Tories' current scare tactics) simply plays into their hands. There are reasons why the SNP are doing so well in polling, and it's not all to do with their "lies" and the Sturgeon effect.

As for how to defeat the SNP, keeping our 11 MPs would help. Every one we keep is one less Labour or SNP MP. Also, the better we do in England, the less likely a Labour-SNP coalition is.

Anonymous said...

Less SNP MP's less chance of breaking up the UK and years of instability. Tactical voting is the only answer if you want a less inflamed future. In the bud, in the bud...

Andrew said...

Doesn't matter of there are 15 or 55 SNP MPs if they hold the balance of power. That's what I mean when I suggest tactical voting may not work.

Not that I'm convinced that a Labour-SNP deal would break up the union, although I suspect a confidence and supply arrangement might not do much for economic stability. I also think such a deal poses more problems for the SNP that they appear to realise...but that's another issue.