JENNY Hjul's long-standing antipathy to the SNP is in overdrive in her article ("Tactical voting can be crucial in uniting against the SNP", The Herald, March 3) urging voters to support the newly emerging party, the Lab-Tory-LibDems, or the Laboratory Party.
This experiment in non-democracy counsels voters to forget any reasons to support policies of their own party, but to unite behind any candidate who is not SNP. Even if this means putting Ed Miliband into office, a man she regards as "possibly the most unsuitable prime minister material since Michael Foot".
Now the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, Gisela Stuart, has called for Labour to consider a deal with the Conservatives after May's General Election: "I think you should not dismiss the possibility of a grand coalition in terms of the regrouping of the main parties," she suggests.
The Liberal Democrats (those still standing after the election) will, of course, join anybody.
What Ms Hjul, and others of a like mind, seem to forget is that it was the cosy alignment between the amigos that alienated so many voters in Scotland, and the polls by Lord Ashcroft have caused a certain frisson in the ranks of the Westminster chums. As she didn't write, aren't free-thinking voters tiresome?
Hamish McPherson,
13 Beech Avenue,
Dumbreck,
Glasgow.
IT'S confusing, isn't it? I read Labour supporter Jenny Hjul's article exhorting people to vote tactically to get rid of the SNP and then Labour List drops into my inbox with Luke Akehurst saying: "It's naive for Labour activists to encourage people to vote tactically for other parties
I'm pleased I stopped voting Labour in 2003 when they invaded Iraq.
Patricia Fort,
D/12, 160 Bothwell Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article