THE first week of January each year sees the resumption of political hostilities after the festive break, and this time it has the added tension of a looming Westminster election.

 

So in the last few days the two biggest UK parties have started firing accusations and counter-accusations at one another - and so far it has mostly been about the cuts.

The Tories have far more austerity planned for the next parliament.

And because so much of UK politics these days is an exercise in mimicry, with each party trying to neutralise their own identity and appeal to the bland middle-ground, Labour have been proudly showing off their own pro-austerity credentials.

No sooner had the Tories published a so-called "dossier" of Labour's alleged spending commitments, than the Labour press team started issuing denials and proud boasts of their own plans to cut public services and spending.

Not to be left out, the LibDems held a press conference to confirm that they would be happy to go back into government with basically anyone ... in the unlikely event that the voters give them the chance.

However, Nick Clegg seemed a little unclear about the democratic principles involved, stressing how great it would be for his own party to hold the balance of power at Westminster, but alleging that it would be "mayhem" and "unfair" for any other party to do so.

For someone who claims a commitment to a fairer voting system he seems very uncomfortable with one of the natural consequences: much more diverse multi-party politics than we have today.

Scotland's political landscape is quite different of course, even if the UK media often fails to understand that.

The potential for seats to change hands in Scotland seems all the greater after the referendum, and the election may have much to do with whether all those newly engaged voters turn out on election day.

Huge numbers of people who voted in September have been ignoring elections for many years.

If they stay involved in the political process, it could transform the result.

One campaign tactic we're seeing from many parties risks undermining that potential for wider political engagement: the promotion of tactical voting.

Vote SNP and you'll let in the Tories, say Labour.

Vote UKIP and you'll see Labour in power, say the Tories.

Vote for anyone except us and you'll split the "pro-Scotland" vote, say the SNP.

In a system as unfair and unrepresentative as a Westminster election there will, sadly, always be an element of tactical voting.

But it should never be promoted above the principles and ideas a political party stands for.

When that happens, it suggests to me that the party in question has forgotten what those principles and ideas were in the first place.

As the Green MP Caroline Lucas has shown, even a small party can make the breakthrough when it is clear, committed and hardworking.

And as Caroline's track record has proved, the only wasted vote is a vote for something you don't really believe in.