How to vote tactically (spreadsheet)

There aren't any "known" consequences as it hasn't been done before, so not sure what she would be able to say to be fair. What is certain though is that the EU needs to be dismantled for so many reasons and it will. I for one want to put up with any consequence to get out and trade as a sovereign state once again.

The way I see it, voters handed the government a blank cheque on 23rd June last year. Nobody really knew what Brexit meant (even the people who were going to be in charge of it) and most of still don't.

Hopefully, May does have an idea where she's heading, but few other people do. Before Article 50 was triggered, she did her best to keep decisions away from Parliament, never mind asking any of the plebs.

I seriously think she should have gone back to the country at that stage and stated very clearly and honestly what was achievable and what the known consequences would be. I wouldn't have wanted a big campaign, but a simple question, such as "Do you want us to go ahead with this under any circumstances, given what we know?"

After the smoke and mirrors campaign (not to mention the downright lies) I feel that we've been cheated and a mockery has been made of democracy.

As for Labour...hmm...they really don't seem to have a clue. So far they've been the wagging tail on the Tory dog. My guess is that the Tories will use Brexit to abandon commitments on the environment, workers' rights, etc, which Labour wouldn't - but who knows? There probably wouldn't be much difference between the Conservatives and Labour on the actual relationship with the EU. The EU very much has the upper hand and is likely to retain it.

Labour would possibly be softer on immigration, but it seems that immigration is unlikely to fall significantly anyway.

This election isn't about a clear mandate on the EU, however much May claims it is, because people will vote for one party or other, which complicates matters.

I just think the whole thing is a mess, which could have been avoided.

DD i agree, and the view I have come to is that, to the extent Labour has said anything about immigration, it has been that there will be some controls - which suggests their Brexit would be as hard as TMs, unless the EU softens its stance. But I wondered whether I had missed anything given that Corbyn etc. do harp on about how terrible it will be to sufffer a Tory hard Brexit (actually I agree with him on that, but I'm not keen on a Labour hard Brexit either).

PS. Unrestricted (or limited) free movement of people would make "Soft Brexit" more likely, because EU negotiators would be more likely to compromise on the single market.

May has admitted that migration is unlikely to fall after Brexit without turning the country into a third world economy, so she will hopefully use that as a negotiating tool. In which case, one has to ask oneself what it's all been about. There is no way that the UK will be in a better position that it is now.

I'm not a Labour supporter,so I can't answer. However, the way I see it Labour has a real problem with Brexit. Labour has two main areas of supporters: London and the big cities and the Northern former industrial towns. London and the cities are strongly Remain; the Northern former industrial areas voted Leave. That's a nightmare for Labour strategists.

Labour has some excellent Remain MPs so, hopefully for them, people will vote for the person rather than their stance on Brexit.

A good strategist and communicator would have possibly come up with some spin to square the circle, but unfortunately Corbyn is neither.

I keep trying but no Labour supporters seem to want to discuss Labour's stance on Brexit negotiations. Is Labour stone cold for unrestricted freedom of movement? If not doesn't that mean hard Brexit??

Oh heck! I'd better buy a case of Bolly and let Whitewave have some too - accompanied by finest Beluga caviar.

Oh varian! If we have a handful of "Portillo moments" I'll spend my life savings on a bottle of Bolly and share it with you.

It would lift my spirits!!

I don't think the candidates for Hunt's constituency (Surrey South West) has been announced yet, but in the 2015 elections, there was really only one candidate :-(.

These are the results:

General Election 2015: South West Surrey[9] Party Candidate Votes % ±
Conservative Jeremy Hunt 34,199 59.6 +0.9
UKIP Mark Webber 5,643 9.8 +7.2
Labour Howard Kaye 5,415 9.4 +3.4
National Health Action Louise Irvine 4,851 8.5 +8.5
Liberal Democrat Patrick Haveron1 3,586 6.3 −23.9
Green Susan Ryland[10] 3,105 5.4 +4.2
Something New Paul Robinson 320 0.6 +0.6
Majority 28,556 49.8 +21.3
Turnout 54,014

It would take something more than tactical voting to get rid of him, so it would make sense for anybody protesting against the treatment of the NHS to concentrate effort on one single candidate.

A "Portillo moment" - if only!

Unseating the current MP for Maidenhead would make my day!

Both are MPs for Remain areas, so they're not respecting the "will of the people" in their constituencies.

I hope the LibDems put a really strong cadidate in Liam Fox's constituency. I have heard rumours that might happen. Wouldn't it be brilliant on election night to have a "Portillo moment" starring Liam Fox?

PS. I would rather have PR, but that's not going to happen.

Neither. I think the idea is to target austerity and hard Brexit, because supporters of both don't have a voice in Parliament. It's becoming increasingly obvious that there isn't an effective opposition, so the smaller margin between the Tories and the total of other parties could, at least, cause May a few headaches.

I think (again, because I could be wrong) is to prevent May having such an overwhelming majority that she can do what she wants.

One of the reasons (apart from Corbyn) that the Conservative majority in the polling is so huge is that the Conservatives have adopted Ukip policies, as Ukip itself has collapsed.

The LibDems and Labour have refused to form a leftish pact, so they won't stand down candidates to give another party a clear run, so the only alternative if you want a leftish agreement in Parliament is to vote tactically. That doesn't mean that the LDs and Labour will form a coalition, but they could block really hard-right legislation in Parliament by voting against it. The Lords currently has an anti-Tory majority.

The losers with tactical voting are likely to be Conservatives, because there are so many LD/Conservative marginals, where LDs have held the seat in the past and about 20 seats, where there was a Remain majority, but the Conservative MP supported Leave.

An example: If you live in a Plaid/LD marginal and strongly support Remain more than any other issue, it probably doesn't matter how you vote, because both support Remain BUT if there is any chance that the Remain vote is split and the Conservatives sneak in, it would be a good idea for people to decide which one to vote for.

Rigsby, are there only two candidates in Hunts constituency? I have no idea what is expected with this tactical voting , a very large majority for labour or
Libs?

3.8 million UKIP voters will be voting Conservative.

A couple of Labour seats, such as Vauxhall (Kate Hoey),are being targeted too.

All power to their elbow rig

I agree with you too Fitzy. It will possibly produce some very strange results and some "Portillo moments".

I do wonder at how some of this self righteous indignation would play out if it weren't Tory seats being targeted?

Good post fitz that's exactly how I feel.

Certainly no apology sought or needed, but I do think tactical voting, and encouraging the practice, is entirely fair and principled. It may be that someone feels that it would truly be very bad for the country if a particular party gets into power and that no other party has a hope of winning. I kind of think that the least principled action (most selfish might be another way of putting it) would be to waste the vote on a hopeless cause and thereby help the party the voter feels should not win. In any event, I think this election isn't about who wins, but really just the size of the margin.

* AB* I'm seeing friends this evening who live in Jeremy Hunt's constituency. It's a very real possibility that the LD's could win - how on earth could any self respecting Labour voter in that constituency vote anything other than LD?

dd that's exactly what Miller is arguing for. Democracy!!!

I think for the reasons you have stated whitewave it is an excellent idea to vote tactically to try and stop the Tories and I only wish it was feasible in my constituency. In our so called democracy there are many like me whose vote is in effect wasted because of the area in which they live and until there is a type of proportional representation this will always be the case. I am not a huge Corbyn fan but the thought of giving the Tory Party carte blanche to continue to wreak havoc on our public services, NHS and schools, fills me with despair.