A number of Labour hacks have appeared on television and informed us that, taking the Lib Dem and Labour votes/seats together, there is a progressive majority and that the Lib Dems should break out their life support apparatus and apply it to the Labour patient.
This analysis is suspect. I doubt is there is a progressive majority. In many areas the Lib Dems encourage anti-Labour voters to vote Lib Dem as being the only way to keep Labour out. This encouragement is directed at people who would otherwise vote Conservative.
A classic example of this is Chesterfield (which ironically was won by Labour from the Lib Dems). Some years ago the Lib Dems replaced the Conservatives as the main opposition to Labour in Chesterfield. It is beyond the bounds of credibility to suggest that Tories in Chesterfield voting Lib Dem to keep Labour out should then be counted as part of the Labour/Lib Dem progressive majority.
I have seen no research into the breakdown of the Lib Dem vote. Clearly some people vote Lib Dem as they support the Party's policies, others because they have no stomach for the Tories or Labour. But how many vote Liberal Democrat as a tactical vote? One of the few benefits of PR is that there is every reason to vote for the Party you support as the more votes your Party receives the more seats it gains. There is no need, indeed no point in voting tactically.
My hunch is that a lot of Lib Dem votes are tactical votes. Should the Lib Dems lose these votes under a PR system the result could be worse for them than the current system. I acknowledge that other parties also are the beneficiaries of tactical voting, but I doubt if it is anywhere near to the extent of the Lib Dems.
No comments:
Post a Comment