And at the last election tactical voting amounted to 9 per cent of voters and cost the Conservatives around 10
And at the last election tactical voting amounted to 9 per cent of voters, and cost the Conservatives around 10 seats. But second, and more importantly, because it looks as if the direction of tactical voting might be shifting. At each of the last two elections, according to the British Election Study, Lib Dem supporters who voted tactically were more likely to end up voting for the Conservatives rather than for Labour. Rather than being used to Get Rid Of Them - the title of a group trying to organise anti-Conservative tactical voting this election - it has just as often been used to keep "them" in.The pattern might well be different this time. ICM found that 56 per cent of Lib Dem supporters would switch to Labour if they were convinced that the Lib Dems could not win in their constituency. Similarly, 66 per cent of Labour supporters would vote Lib Dem if the choice in their seat was between the Lib Dems or Conservatives.The traffic is not all one way.
About a quarter of Lib Dems and 12 per cent of Labour supporters say they would switch to the Conservatives. And around 10 per cent of each party's supporters say that they would stick with their party come what may.Overall, however, the picture remains a good one for Labour Their poll lead appears to be holding up. Regional and constituency factors appear to be working in their favour. And should they manage to coax them, it appears as if a large chunk of Lib Dem voters are ready to fall into their arms in order to eject the Conservatives.They remain on course for an impressive victory. Just how impressive remains unsure.The writer teaches politics at the University of Hull.. Even now, after a week of mature reflection and with a heavy lump of perspective fastened to each ankle, it is difficult not to go soaring over the top in any discourse on the subject of Eldrick "Tiger" Woods. Neither does a lifetime of peering into deep holes in search of fallen hopefuls deter the thought that the only mistake to be made about young Tiger at the moment is to underestimate him.
We did that, big-time, before Augusta and, apart from the bewildered superstars he left in his wake, those who most keenly felt the wind of the error were the bookmakers. Punters aplenty waded in to take the 25s and 16-1 against him being offered for a week before the US Masters. Four months earlier, Ladbrokes had him at 5,000-1 for the Grand Slam of the four major championships - the Masters in April, the US Open in June, The Open in July and the US PGA in August. Those odds had reduced to 1,000-1 just before the tournament and, very smartly, to 100-1 immediately afterwards. Ladbrokes say their liabilities on the Grand Slam are so huge they have now chopped the price down to 33-1. This has long been regarded as one of the least attainable targets in world sport so the original 5,000-1 fell far short of generous; even for the remaining three legs 33-1 is ludicrous, tempted by it as one might be.As for the individual majors; Woods is 4-1 for both The Open and the US Open and 9-2 for the US PGA. These are the shortest odds ever recorded against a golfer at this stage of the season.