What’s wrong with Best for Britain’s Tactical Voting site — and what can be done to put it right

The problem

I live in Wigan, and my local MP is Lisa Nandy. Back in the 2016 referendum, Lisa and I stood shoulder-to-shoulder, campaigning for Remain. As we know, Leave won that vote, and won heavily in Wigan.

Now, perhaps, being the MP, Lisa found it necessary to start making compromises with the Leave campaign which, as an activist for an avowedly pro-Remain party, I haven’t felt the need to make. But still, it hurt when she voted to trigger Article 50. It hurt when she published article after article opposing calls for a People’s Vote, and it really hurt when she went on national television and impugned the motives of those supporting one. And it was just plain exasperating when she voted for Boris Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement Bill at Second Reading last month.

So I was surprised to discover that Best for Britain’s tactical voting website, GetVoting, endorsed voting for Labour — and, by extension, Lisa Nandy — arguing that doing so “is the best chance of electing a Pro-EU MP and stopping Brexit,” despite the fact that Lisa Nandy is now not a pro-EU MP and has no wish to stop Brexit. The site notes that we need a majority of MPs against Boris Johnson’s Brexit plans, but proposes that Wiganers vote for an MP who backed them. So right away, anyone who knows Lisa Nandy’s record will be confused.

The site intones that tactical voting works, but then produces two graphs, one projecting the outcome of the election without and tactical voting; and another projecting the outcome if 30% of Remain supporters vote tactically. Two graphs, projecting two different scenarios, but with one thing in common: they both project a Labour (and Lisa Nandy) win, undermining the case that tactical voting is important here.

It’s not just Wiganers receiving this confusing message: Sarah Champion is the Labour MP for Rotherham. She also voted for the WAB at Second Reading and even said that if it was a choice between No Deal and Remain, she’d back No Deal (a prospect that Lisa Nandy has, at least, blanched at). Best for Britain recommend voting for Labour — and, therefore, for Champion — on the basis of tactical voting, despite Labour coming out on top without it according to their own projection.

Rosie Cooper, MP for West Lancashire, also voted for the WAB. Best for Britain is also endorsing her on a tactical basis, despite tactical voting (or a lack of it) impacting the outcome her seat according to Best for Britain’s projection. The same is true of Mike Hill, in Hartlepool. And Dan Jarvis, in Barnsley Central. And Emma Lewell-Buck, in South Shields. And Grahame Morris, in Easington. And Jo Platt, in Leigh. Interestingly, the model projects that Laura Smith, MP for Crewe and Nantwich who also voted for WAB, is set to lose whether Remainers vote tactically or not, but still asserts that tactical voting works in Crewe and Nantwich.

So the data may show that these sitting MPs are best placed to defeat a Conservative challenger in December. But the analysis of the data in those constituencies misleadingly claims that voting for a particular Labour party candidate is voting for a pro-EU candidate when that isn’t the case, and it implies that voting tactically will make an impact, when the truth is, it won’t.

The analysis — why is this a problem?

Firstly, if all the aforementioned MPs are like mine, who interpreted the loss of Labour votes to the LibDems and Greens in the Local and European Elections as a sign that she needed to compromise more with Leavers on Brexit, then they will cast their re-election on a larger vote share than would otherwise be the case as vindication of their pro-Brexit votes. What Remainers surely need to do is send a clear, unambiguous message that they do not agree with these MPs’ position, and give them a fright. A slashed majority and a surge for pro-Remain parties will present a situation that even Lisa Nandy cannot misinterpret.

Secondly, the launch of GetVoting has been a PR disaster. By producing the recommendations before it released the data, and by recommending LibDem votes in seats currently held by genuinely pro-Remain Labour MPs, Best for Britain enabled the likes of Owen Jones to erroneously claim that the site was a LibDem wheeze. This antagonised some supporters, and the social media response — increasingly defensive, chippy tweets — alienated supporters who felt let down by the site even more. At a time when the People’s Vote campaign has descended into personality-based warfare, for another Remain group to anger its own support base was bloody stupid.

Thirdly, this exercise is data driven, but it only uses one data set and ignores other variables, such as a Labour MP being willing to go along with Boris Johnson’s Brexit. By only analysing one factor — public opinion, and not the positions of the candidates — Best for Britain have done half a job. The data is incomplete. Therefore, the data is faulty. Therefore, arguments based on that data are faulty.

Finally, and most importantly, with users like me being able to call out questionable results on social media, the shortcomings of the tool get published very, very quickly. Bad advice to voters like me undermines other voters’ confidence in good advice published for other constituencies. Trust, when lost, is hard to regain.

The solution — what can be done?

Firstly, I recommend taking the site down until nominations have closed. Primarily, giving voters advice on how to vote before you even know which parties are going to be on the ballot paper, and who’s going to represent them, seems very foolish indeed. But also, if some sort of non-aggression pact between the Tories and the Brexit Party does materialise (this looks unlikely as I write this), the paradigm of the election will shift and seats that were safe will suddenly move in play, or vice versa. Given that we don’t know for sure who people will be able to vote for, giving them advice on how to vote is premature. Premature advice is bad advice.

Secondly, and it bothers me that I even have to say this, Best for Britain need to sensecheck the data. Telling voters that tactical voting works in seats where the graphs you’re showing them demonstrate that it has no ultimate impact is not the path to persuading them that you know what you’re doing, and undermining confidence in the organisation like that will cost Best for Britain dear should there be a new referendum: “Are they the muppets who asked me to vote tactically for a Brexitty MP when I didn’t have to?” is not a question I want to ask when I get an email from them. It is now a question that I will ask.

Thirdly, and given that they don’t have a small army of people to drill down into all potential candidates and their utterings on Brexit in their office, I can see why they haven’t done this yet, but sooner or later they will have to research the candidates. Tell people who don’t have to vote tactically that they don’t have to, and make it clear that a Labour MP who is willing to go along with Boris and with Brexit is not worthy of your vote. In places like Stoke where tactical voting will make a difference, but the choice is between two different shades of Brexit, be honest and explain that you’re asking voters to choose the lesser of two evils. This will take work, but that small army does exist in their supporters up and down the country. Asking some of them to look into the record of local candidates would get that information, and help complete the missing data.

There’s no doubt that the stakes in this election are high, and Best for Britain are trying to do a good thing. But they’ve not gone about it in a good way, and so they’ve undermined the support and confidence that they’ve won since 2016.

If we’re to secure — never mind win — a new referendum, we can’t afford mistakes like this. We’ve made amazing progress since 2016 just to get the idea of a People’s Vote back into public discourse, and we must not throw it away. But we can get back on track, if we let common sense back into what we do. I hope that these suggestions make sense to people, we can go forward with more confidence in what we’re all doing.