Advice from on high
Isn't that an intriguing echo from Labour today: the ?
An echo? It's eerily, if only partially, reminiscent of a hint from Alex Salmond on the day he launched the SNP manifesto in Glasgow.
Mr Salmond said then that it was a "legitimate and proper thing" for voters in England to contemplate tactical voting in order to deny an overall majority to Labour or the Tories.
Two differences. Firstly, Mr Salmond insisted that he was not directly counselling the good and sensible people of England to vote for the Lib Dems (although newspaper coverage suggested it amounted to much the same.)
Secondly, the SNP actively seeks a hung parliament - and has done so since the outset of the campaign. Indeed, it has been its permanent theme: that, in such a parliament, the Nationalists and Plaid conjoined could extract concessions.
By contrast, Labour would much prefer - you guessed it - a straightforward Labour majority.
Unlike the SNP, they don't want to keep out both the Big Parties (will we soon have to drop that phrase?) Just the Tories.
'Expert advice'
The Lib Dems call the appeals "desperate" - even though they might potentially benefit if folk pay attention to Messrs Balls and Hain.
The Lib Dems do not want to be seen as thirled to any one of the Big Parties. (Let's give it another go for old time's sake.)
The Tories? They say it proves that voting LibDem could mean a Labour government by the back door. You know, vote Clegg, get Brown. (Thus explaining the LibDem caution still further.)
I suspect that the voters can make their minds up without expert advice from on high. They will base that choice on local calculations which they are best placed to make.
I suspect further that the voters dislike being guided by those who have partisan motivations.
Which, of course, is why Alex Salmond took pains to insist that he was only offering remote analysis, not guidance, still less direction.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.