Tactical voting to stop Defence Cuts - Pass on the message

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BlueBeret, Apr 18, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. If folks are going to vote tactically against Labour's Defence Cuts then it's not just your own vote that counts but your friends and family.

    Basically the message has to get round.

    Here's some links from Save the Regiments which indicate what is the best party to vote for to either defeat Labour MPs or substantially cut their majorities.




    Or check out this BBC site I was given to see who was second last time.


    Only by passing on the message and asking others to pass on the message to vote tactically will the message really get through.

    Please pass the message on or it will just be votes wasted on poor third and fourth placed candidates which will have no effect on how government's think.
  2. Thanks Blueberet, and welcome to ARRSE.

    More on tactical and strategic voting here: OPERATION STEEL VOTE

    IMHO tactical voting recommendations are perfectly legitimate. Others may disagree.

    I would just caution "tactical voters" to consider carefully whether voting recommendations for their particular constituency, on any particular website, would actually achieve the effect they want.

    For example Blueberet, the link you posted for Scottish constituencies (which I also posted myself) recommends voting SNP in a particular constituency. I do understand the reasons why eg Save Our Scottish Regiments have endorsed the SNP candidate in this case, but the SNP candidate is thought likely to come third in the contest. I am not making a party point, but the fact is that diverting extra votes to the SNP could very well result in the sitting Blair-loyalist Labour MP being returned instead of the strong Lib Dem challenger.

    Also, the BBC link which you posted is for the unadjusted results from the 2001 election, which could be misleading to voters who are thinking about tactical voting in the new Scottish constituencies. I think the BBC also had a page predicting how the 2001 results might translate into the new constituencies, producing very different results in some cases. Perhaps that page has now been removed as being too 'political' now the election is officially under way?

    You might like to dig around, Blueberet, and maybe post another link showing the 'adjusted' predictions.
  3. Hackle is correct when he says that you need to look at the figures to see who was second last time and by how much.Another thing to look at is "historical voting"...who was in before and why they were out of the race last time.
    In my area there is a change in the electoral boundaries which needs to be looked at too.
    All that said I intend to vote tactically this time around.
    I hope as Blue Cap said, that you ask every family member,distant cousins, long lost pals to Vote tactically this time.
  4. Thanks, Roman.

    I haven't yet been able to find a source of the 2001 results as adjusted for the new constituency boundaries. (NB boundary changes are not only in Scotland.) The BBC website did give predictions, which may now have been removed.

    Perhaps another way of looking at it is to check out WIKIPEDIA's unofficial prediction as to which are the top 20 target marginals for each of the 3 main parties. Clickable link - scroll down to 'TARGETS'. Wikipedia's list apparently does allow for boundary changes, but I accept that it omits any marginal seats where other parties such as the SNP are considered the main challenger to the incumbents.
  5. Hackle, listening to a debate about the save the regiments campaign on radio scotland at dinner time, i think the reason they chose the SNP guy over the limp liberal (that one was for PTP! :wink: ) was that the liberals have made no firm commitment to reverse the amalgamation of the scottish regiment whereas the nationalists have.

    Blueberret, nice to see another save the regiments campaigner on arrse. Welcome

    Agent smith
  6. Thanks arhimedes,

    can i redirect you all to Hackles previous post concerning the tactical voting resources?

    Op steel vote

  7. Angus and Dumfires & Galloway are two serious chances going by the alba site quoted by Archimedes.

    To your duties .......
  8. Hackle,

    If you mean Inverness it's not really thought locally that it's a straight fight between Labour and the Liberals. Many folk see the SNP as the main challengers and with 75 of the seat from the old Inverness East seat the bulk of the voters think along those lines. Also the Liberal vote in Inverness east is too volatile to make a firm prediction on them. It's been bumping between third and fourth for about 8 years now.

    The remaining 25% takes in a part of Inverness where many people from the east side either move into or move from and theye have that idea as well. Charlie Kennedy was also not associated with being an Inverness seat and didn't work much in that area of his constituency.

    I guess Save the Scottish Regiments have taken those factors into account to make call.

    The academic stats the Liberals are playing up are not a prediction and even the compilers admit that. The Liberals used a similar academic notional result in 1997 which had them first. They came third when the votes were counted. It's troo risky voting for the Liberals as the main contenders.
  9. Tactical voting? I don't think so.

    General elections are the only time that I get to have a say and I'm sorry, but my one vote every four years is going to support the party that I believe in, not used as a tactical tool by a party I might despise.

    My forefathers haven't fought and died for democracy just so that people can prostitute their vote to send the removal vans round to number 10. The idea is that you tell the country, and the world, what you believe in, not what you don't believe in.
  10. Awol, whilst i normally wholeheartedly agree with you on most points, this time i would have to disagree.

    I quite understand that you have the convictions to vote for your party regardless (and my eyes that is very courageous), but what you must remember is that a LOT of people want labour out, and sometimes the only way to do that is to look at what is happening locally.

    In my neck of the woods, there is a labour candidate (who is quite a good guy actually) in power. As you will already know, i am naturally alligned with the tories, and would love to vote for them come may 5th. The problem is that in my constituency, they have as much chance of winning as the Scottish socialists (ie none!) but i so desperately want labour out that i am willing to vote for the party most likely to push them out (which in my area happens to be the SNP).

    Just my 10 cents
  11. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    yeah Awol....wouldn't it be great to be able to vote for people whose views did not change with the wind and whatever Rupert Murdoch's rags told them to ? try this:

    Call to punish parties over Iraq

    Every Labour and Conservative candidate should be held to account by voters over the Iraq war, Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has argued.
    Mr Kennedy said Tony Blair had taken the UK into an illegal war and voters could deliver "justice by the ballot box" at the general election.

    Tory leader Michael Howard says the war was right but Mr Blair lied about it.

    Mr Blair says he was given clear advice the war was lawful and argues he is not asking voters to endorse his decision.

    The prime minister also called for a halt to attacks on his integrity.

    With 10 days to polling day, Labour focused on its efforts to regenerate cities. The Conservatives have published their manifesto for businesses.

    The Lib Dems were alone among the three main parties in opposing the war, and on Sunday Mr Kennedy said the election could be a "referendum" on it.

    The party took advertisements in Monday's Daily Mail and Daily Mirror newspapers underlining its opposition to the stance of Mr Blair and US President George W Bush.

    The adverts show a smiling picture of the two leaders with the slogan "We oppose: Bush and Blair on Iraq. We propose: never again."

    Tony Blair

    Mr Kennedy said foreign policy was not usually a major theme of British elections, but would be this time after Mr Blair misled people over the war.

    He said: "Iraq does deserve to be a central issue in this election, not only because of what has happened, but because of what may yet come to pass.

    "Every Labour candidate should answer for the government's rush to war. Every Conservative candidate should answer for their party's supine support."

    Asked whether he would have left Saddam Hussein in power, Mr Kennedy said weapons inspectors should have had more time in Iraq.

    Jack Straw,
    Foreign secretary

    Mr Kennedy again demanded an inquiry into "how and why" the UK went to war in Iraq, including examining ministers' judgements.

    He also urged the prime minister to rule out future military action against Iran.

    The Lib Dems and Tories are pressing ministers to publish Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's advice on the legality of the war.

    The Mail on Sunday said a leaked memo showed Lord Goldsmith had given six reasons why military action might not be legal.

    Lord Goldsmith has insisted he advised military action was lawful with his spokeswoman saying it was "his own genuinely held independent view".


    Foreign Secretary Jack Straw refused to confirm or deny the newspaper report.

    He was challenged on BBC Radio 4's Today programme over why Mr Blair had not seen advice from Foreign Office lawyers who thought the invasion was illegal without new UN backing.

    Jon, Enfield

    He replied: "The fact that there was a disagreement amongst lawyers - internationally and nationally - was extremely well known."

    Pressed over Lord Goldsmith's advice, Mr Blair said. "It's not a question of changing his mind. The advice of the attorney general was very clear."

    He denied Downing Street had pressured Lord Goldsmith, saying: "You can go on forever trying to prove there was some conspiracy: there was not.

    "There was a judgement. The judgement might be right, it might be wrong. I had to take it. I believe I made the right judgment, I believe the world is better with Saddam in prison and out of power."


    Mr Blair urged people to listen to Iraqis who now saw hope for their country's future.

    He accused his opponents of focusing on the issue because they had nothing to say about Britain's future.

    Mr Howard accused Mr Blair of lying but said removing Saddam Hussein had been the "right thing to do".

    Michael Howard

    He told Sky News' The Boulton Factor that the government's "dodgy dossier" on Iraq and Mr Blair's later characterisation of intelligence was lying.
    He said the intelligence had been described as "extensive, detailed and authoritative" when it was in fact "sporadic, limited and patchy".

    But he told Sky News the war had "probably" been legal, although he would have had a Cabinet meeting on the attorney general's full, written opinion.

    Story from BBC NEWS:


    The only problems I have Charles Kennedy into number 10 are
    1) Not sure how far it is to the nearest Oddbins.....
    2) Not sure Britain actually requires yet another Jock as PM
    3) it would confuse the hell out of people in Massachusetts....

    Le Chevre
  12. Not sure of of your point Goatman, obviously the parties are tying themselves in knots over Iraq. My point is that our vote is the only thing we have that makes a difference and even then it's only every four years. Whilst I can see the practical advantage to tactical voting (Smithy), I think that this is one time we should follow our instincts, otherwise we are never going to get the society we deserve.

    Actually, probably best to ignore me, I'm just an idealistic fool.
  13. Nothing wrong with being idealisitic mate. In an ideal world if i voted for my choice of MP and govtr i would get it, but seen as how the majority dont agree with my choice, i have to use my vote wisely to minimise labours majority as i cant bare to think of another 5 yrs of a huge labour majority :evil:

    keep it up mate, someone has to :D