Local tactical voting advice (Debate)

Mon 8 Jul, 10:20 (last edited on Mon 8 Jul, 10:24)

Have started a new thread instead!

Fri 5 Jul, 08:55

All of the above (except perhaps for compulsory voting)

Fri 5 Jul, 08:24 (last edited on Fri 5 Jul, 08:29)

Tactical voting has made a massive difference to the election result in terms of seats. The Labour share of the overall votes cast is up 2% and Liberal Democrat up 1% . 

Is it finally time for electoral reform in this country? 
Electronic voting?

Lower voting age?

Proportional Representation?

Compulsory voting?

Tue 2 Jul, 09:34

The Mirror article also includes a postcode checker which gives their estimate of who best to vote for if one wants to vote tactically to get rid of the Tories. 

Filling in a Charlbury postcode gives the result: Vote Labour. 

It's still a seat that could go either way. I was told last week that it is the top 13th constituency in the country for engagement between Labour Party canvassers and those being canvassed.  

Tue 2 Jul, 07:36 (last edited on Tue 2 Jul, 07:57)

Let's hear the advice from the Daily Mirror, the one surviving national newspaper that unashamedly - and more or less consistently - supports Labour.

In its July 1 advice on tactical voting, it recommends:

- the seats where LibDem voters should vote Labour to get rid of a Tory: Over 40 seats, none of them in or near Oxfordshire.

- the seats where Labour voters should vote LibDem to get rid of a Tory. Just 10 seats - of which 3 are Witney, Woodstock/Bicester and Henley/Thame. 

The reality is that opinions, and likelihoods to vote, for the July 4 election are in constant flux. Newspapers and websites don't make the same claims to scientific accuracy as MRP-based projections (whose reliability on a constituency basis hasn't yet been demonstrated). But reputable papers (a category I'd put the Mirror into when it comes to real politics) base their views on far more recent contacts than most published polls. I've been relying on the paper to help form my views since my grandad used to read me its advice over 70 years ago.

Since he didn't get the right to vote till his 50s, how to exercise it mattered to him. Which is why he'd probably take the Mirror's advice today: if you live in the Witney or Woodstock (or Henley) constituencies, vote LibDem however you'd vote normally. If you live in the Banbury constituency, vote as you would normally.

Though grandad would undoubtedly have added "as long as it's against the Tories".

Mon 1 Jul, 14:03

After hearing so much about SW going in with the Tories in Cherwell, I did some digging - hard to find given the decimation of local journalism. However, what I found is, unsurprisingly, not the same as what has been spouted on this Forum as fact.

In 2023 and 2024, the Tories lost their majority on the Cherwell Council. In 2023, there was a Progressive Alliance made up of the LDs, Greens and Independents. In 2024 that Alliance seems to no longer be active. 

At both times, Labour went into negotiations with both the Progressive Alliance and then the LDs. Both times, Labour refused to join both in a coalition.

In 2023, Labour decided not the join due to the Progressive Alliance not backing more houses being built in the area. Then in 2024, Labour had the following to say:

"However, during those discussions we (Labour) made it clear that we could not support their agenda on important issues like the Local Plan. They also do not share Labour’s priorities of getting more homes built to tackle local need and for continued investment in Banbury town centre." 

This quote is from SW, which you can argue is not independent, however, the LD's do not rebutt his claim at the bottom of the article.

So it's not that Labour sided with the Tories, but that they refused to side with the LDs and the Progressive Alliance for very valid reasons concerning housing and regeneration of Banbury centre.

Mon 1 Jul, 13:57 (last edited on Mon 1 Jul, 14:29)

It was known in advance, and indeed Liz Leffman posted the news that SW wouldn't be at the Banbury Hustings on 22 September under the Hustings thread.

The organisers of the Banbury Hustings didn't allow replacement candidates -- at least as I understand the situation -- so avoiding the type of replacement of Liz Adams by Liz Leffman that caused the rather shirty exchange between Liz Leffman and Emily on the Hustings thread.

Mon 1 Jul, 13:19

Report from the Banbury hustings:

https://www.banburyguardian.co.uk/news/people/banbury-candidates-answer-questions-at-town-hustings-but-labours-major-contender-stays-away-4685894

Sat 29 Jun, 09:46

Charlie, you can call me all the names you want.  I don’t care.

Labour’s manifesto embeds underspending in the NHS (read the independent Nuffield Trust) and other public services that have been broken by the Tories.  So, in one sense, it doesn’t matter if Woodcock votes with Labour or with his Tory friends - the outcome will be identical.

As for Lib Dems being pro-Brexit - you’d better make sure whatever you’re on doesn’t react badly with the beer at the Beer Festival, that’s all.

My issue with the Labour candidate is him leading a group that votes not with progressive Lib Dems and Greens, but with the Tories.  I judge him by his actions.

Sat 29 Jun, 09:38

Prentis's Apprentice, you mean like the Liberals did in 2010? After I wasted my vote on them? And so it was the Liberals who were the catalyst for the years of Austerity, and eventually BREXIT! 

Double standards Prentis's Apprentice! Don't make me LAUGH!!

Sat 29 Jun, 09:28

Charlie, shout at me all you want, but I’m not voting for a candidate who casts his vote with the Tories on a regular basis.  I am at risk of repeating myself here.

Not much point replacing one Tory with another.  Sean Woodcock votes with Tories as a councillor.  He might as well be one.

Sat 29 Jun, 09:25

"Doesn’t make it look any better" to whom?

All the statistics, and all the opinion shows that the BEST way of getting the Tories out of Banbury is to vote LABOUR! Yet you persist with support for someone who will - at best - be no more than a "vote splitter" for the Tory opposition! As I said before, in all the black years of being represented (?) by the Witney Amoeba, I would bite my lip and vote Liberal. Now it is your turn to do the same, and vote Labour ...

... unless, of course, you are Prentis's Apprentice ...

Sat 29 Jun, 08:54

Doesn’t make it look any better though, Charlie. 

Sat 29 Jun, 06:37 (last edited on Sat 29 Jun, 06:49)

It was already known that the Labour candidate could not make the hustings in Banbury! 

I refer you to your Liberal colleague's posting in the "Hustings" thread ...

... I mean the one who "stood in" when the Liberal candidate could not make the hustings in Charlbury! Or does that not matter?!

Fri 28 Jun, 22:10

I’m told the Labour candidate didn’t show up to the hustings in Banbury.

Fri 28 Jun, 14:58 (last edited on Fri 28 Jun, 14:58)

Hi Emily, the minimum age to get married has recently been increased to 18

Fri 28 Jun, 11:55

According to latest poll in yesterday’s Oxford Times, the Banbury constituency is very close between Labour and Conservatives, less than 1% between them apparently. 

Fri 28 Jun, 09:27

I strongly believe that if you're old enough to pay tax, then you should have a right to vote on how that tax is spent. Maybe though we ahould keep the voting age at 18 and let 16 and 17 year olds work tax free to build up some savings for later life. And yes to compulsory voting on a Saturday.

Fri 28 Jun, 09:14

At 16 you can have sex and have a child (optional), get married with a parent or guardian's permission, you are given a NI number, you can open a bank account, you can start working full time (and obv be taxed) and you can join the armed forces, with parent or guardian's permission.

I personally think it's crazy that you can do ALL these things, but not have a right to vote, when all the above are affected by government policies.

Empowering 16 and 17 year old's to vote, who are often the most active politically and socially, is such a positive thing and I really hope Labour stands by this pledge. 

Thu 27 Jun, 20:57

Not much hope of electoral reform through voting Labour: https://x.com/Labour4PR/status/1806002089455202378

Thu 27 Jun, 09:28 (last edited on Thu 27 Jun, 09:29)

Lowering the voting age to 16 in Scotland seems to have been a success in a variety of ways. The young people who were first eligible to vote in any referendum or election at age 16 or 17 were more likely to participate in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections, compared to those who experienced their first election at age 18 or older. 

See here for an Edinburgh University report on the change in voting age in Scotland: https://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/assets/doc/Votes%20at%2016%20in%20Scotland.pdf

I am less convinced about compulsory voter registration and note it's not yet official Labour Party Policy. Not sure how it could be made to work. Also not sure whether such a passive mode of registration would increase voter turnout.

Thu 27 Jun, 04:41

If you want to use a tanning booth, buy cigarettes or fireworks, or get a tattoo you now need to be 18. It seems odd to suggest that people are responsible enough to vote at 16, but not buy sparklers.

Wed 26 Jun, 20:07

Agreed Charlie. We should do it how the Australians do it. Voting on a Saturday, compulsory and make it into a community event. 

I just thought this was a good positive step, plus giving 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote. A long time coming

Wed 26 Jun, 20:01

I'm not sure about that one. What is clearer to me is the need for compulsory voting ... but with the addition of a "No Candidate" option on the ballot paper. If "No Candidate" `won the most votes, any party who won more than 5% of the vote would have to choose a new candidate for the ensuing by-election. Sadly this is unlikely to have prevented the election of the "Witney Amoeba", but it might make it easier to remove some candidates imposed by the "big" parties!

Wed 26 Jun, 18:36

If true, how brilliant would this be: “Labour is planning to introduce automatic registration for voting under plans to add millions more people to the electoral roll for future elections, especially young people, the Guardian has learned.

Automatic voter registration (AVR), which exists in several European countries, would come on top of planned reforms already announced by Keir Starmer’s party such as extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds. Together, they could significantly shake up the voting franchise if Labour gets into power next week.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/26/labour-automatic-voter-registration-reform-plans

Mon 24 Jun, 23:10

As Mark points out, getting the Tories out is no done deal yet. Ignore the narrative that Labour are heading for a huge landslide and beware of the "shy Tories".

Many thanks to the very well informed Oxford Clarion for pointing out there was an actual local by-election in Oxfordshire…

Long post - click to read full text

Mon 24 Jun, 20:29

David Carver - Data Editor at the Times was reporting today that Labour is on course for one of the most "efficient" election wins of all time. Previously the Labour party would pile up votes in safe seats. This time the votes are more evenly spread.

David observes that polls point to a huge majority. But if just 130,000 voters nationally in 100 seats switched to the second-place party, there'd be a hung parliament.

Mon 24 Jun, 11:45

The Cassi Bellingham interview features the call-out quote: ‘The Tories won’t win. So nobody should be voting tactically.’ This is disingenuous.

For once we're in a constituency that is hosting a genuine contest, rather than a foregone conclusion. Realistically, this contest is between two candidates, not eight.

Sun 23 Jun, 23:22

The difference between Wellington and Nelson as leaders was that Wellington could afford to call his army 'the scum of the earth, enlisted for drink,' but Nelson couldn't because he was on the same ship.   

(I've spent years looking in vain for the source of that quote).   

Sun 23 Jun, 18:20

In the interests of balance, I suspect independent Cassi Bellingham’s interview here will resonate with a few people here.

Sun 23 Jun, 11:51

From today. 

Fri 21 Jun, 18:51 (last edited on Fri 21 Jun, 22:18)

I've just voted (tactically) by post. 

I'm not remotely enthused. I'd like to see a party talking about Single Market, Customs Union or at the very least youth mobility. 

I want to see electoral reform so my vote will actually count. I want to see votes for settled EU citizens who live amongst us and pay their taxes. I want to see much more zero-carbon, public housing built for young people.

I want a political party which will reform the over-stuffed commons, and the creaking and ridiculous upper chamber. 

I want to see a party that will set what it will do, rather than setting red lines explaining about what it won't.

Most of all I want to see honest discussion about trade-offs between taxes (income vs wealth), growth, sovereignty, single market/CU, climate change, demographic pressures, migration and our ever declining public services. 

I'm not seeing any of this. With hard choices ahead, this leaves me very uneasy because of the inevitable disappointments and a volatile public mood. 

Fri 21 Jun, 10:52

Am with you Richard!  I was never as one with the late 'Wedgie' Benn politically but one reason I admired him was his insistence on playing the ball not the player.  

Just two short points:

If you are elected as MP on a party ticket, you will be subject to that party's rules and won't last long if you vote with another party in parliament, whatever you may have felt necessary as a local councillor. 

It's our system of voting that leaves people feeling disenfranchised.  But we can for now only work within that system.  To try to put the question in a different way to before, do you want to have a Tory MP after 4 July?  If not, (and Reform aside) it's surely imperative to vote for the party most likely to win even if not your first choice, as to vote otherwise is to risk the Tory's re-election. Simples. Didn't someone describe politics as the art of compromise?

Fri 21 Jun, 09:50 (last edited on Fri 21 Jun, 09:58)

Let me spell this out fairly (very) bluntly.

I am not paid for this shit. 

I run the rest of the website because there is a social benefit for Charlbury in having a website which can publicise news, events, groups, enable people to buy/sell stuff, etc. etc. There is absolutely no social benefit to the Debate board, it exists merely as a means to shunt off conversations that would otherwise detract from the social benefit of the site.

If I have to spend my days moderating the fricking Debate board and answering endless emails about it, I am going to just shut it down and you can go and briefly cause a headache for Chris on Facebook instead, who will have exactly the same amount of truck with all of this (i.e. 0).

There is a real live Debate this evening and your energies will be much better directed there!

Fri 21 Jun, 09:02 (last edited on Fri 21 Jun, 09:05)

I’ll dial it down when certain people stop lying, Richard.

Perhaps the main offender would like to remove the demonstrably false statement she made?

Fri 21 Jun, 08:28

Can we calm it down a little bit please, folks. Thank you.

Thu 20 Jun, 23:27 (last edited on Thu 20 Jun, 23:51)

Liz, stop talking nonsense.

Bicester & Woodstock is very clearly a Lib Dem/Tory contest, as set out by YouGov, Electoral Calculus, New Statesman, The Guardian this week which has visited, not to mention the ElectionMaps website and every single tactical voting website (including Compass, Best for Britain, Carol Vorderman’s stopthetories.vote).  Survation’s poll with somewhat dubious results in many places also has the Lib Dems ahead.  Labour has not a single councillor in the constituency.  The bookies also have the Lib Dems ahead, with nobody staking money on a Labour win.  (Feel free to change that).

The Economist’s prediction being ramped to death by Labour activists who cannot deliver a single leaflet in Bicester & Woodstock comes with its own health warning: ‘a modelling exercise based on individual constituency-level election results between 1959 and 2019 and specifically states that "Our model does not take into account the local effects of parties' campaigns in individual constituencies nor tactical voting."’  In other words, it bears zero resemblance to the situation on the ground.

When talking about blowhards, perhaps look in the mirror first (or donate one to Stonesfield Manor).  But when seeking the tactical votes of supporters of progressive parties, perhaps as an officer of the Labour Party you shouldn’t lie about them, smear them and make risible false statements that anyone with half a brain can rebut, eh?  Just a thought, Liz.  You do your party no credit.

Oh and remind me, how well did Labour do here the last time actual ballots were cast?

Thu 20 Jun, 22:42 (last edited on Thu 20 Jun, 23:02)

Gareth, maybe read the Economist article and check the stats before you start defaming your neighbours?

Anyway nothing's guaranteed even at this late stage, but the winds of change are certainly blowing hard in one direction...

Thu 20 Jun, 22:18

Melissa, you need to ask Liz Puttick why she is lying about Bicester & Woodstock.

Thu 20 Jun, 21:46

So...they're like double agents?

Thu 20 Jun, 21:28

Melissa - that is the voting record of the Labour candidate at this election.  (And clearly Liz Puttick’s intention is to help the Tories in Bicester & Woodstock by spreading misinformation in her Labour Party role.  The Labour Party locally isn’t exactly putting itself in the best light, oddly because Witney’s Labour councillors are nice people.)

Thu 20 Jun, 20:54 (last edited on Thu 20 Jun, 20:54)

Well, according to Gareth Epps, if you vote Labour in our constituency you are *literally* voting for the Tories. 

Thu 20 Jun, 18:54

Interesting discussion on Jeremy Vine today about whether people should give a sympathy vote to the Conservatives to prevent their complete obliteration, as the size of the predicted Labour landslide is now so large that there’s a risk there will be no effective opposition. 

Thu 20 Jun, 17:56

Thu 20 Jun, 17:23

Emily, let me remind you that in 2010 the combined Labour and Lib Dem MP total would have been outvoted by the Tories.  So you posit a false position (repeatedly…..).

Liz Puttick is telling lies, as many Labour people have regarding their no-hope candidate in Bicester & Woodstock.  The polls (such as Yougov here) and the tactical voting sites are all clear that Lib Dem Calum Miller is the contender.  In fact, Yougov have Labour fourth.  The Labour members I canvassed in Bicester today all admitted Labour have no chance there, which is more honest than Ms Puttick.  Two of them took posters for Calum and one prompted for a Calum poster alongside the Labour one they were coerced into having.

The deliberate dishonesty of Labour people here confirm that the only principled choice for Charlbury in this election is Lib Dem Liz Adams, rather than a Tory or a Labour candidate who votes with the Tories.

The Economist is a dreadful right wing rag.

Thu 20 Jun, 15:14 (last edited on Thu 20 Jun, 15:15)

If anyone can't access The Economist website because its paywalled, I've got a subscription and can put the relative portions up here.

Interesting ... is it a conundrum? A 3-Way Marginal? Electing a whole-population Traitor representative of the 5% on less than ONE FIFTH the vote would be a strong argument for a PR system --- and multi-member constituencies as in local government.

Though personally I am persuadable that the length of time politicians can serve in life is limitable as "lifetime careers" lead to so much. For example, for arguments' sake, 3 5-year Parliamentary: Learn Ropes. Second Ministerial period, learn ropes deeper. Senior Minister. Prime Minister? - one or two sessions.

Coupled with things like Peoples' Assemblies as used in Ireland quite recently, have seen some quite persuasive writing from knowledgeable persons around such themes. We need to combine local connections with a better way of getting persons with Nation State level abilities into "high" office. Looking at the current personnel of His Majesty's Government gives the distinct impression the HR Department has the wrong CV criteria. Historical comparison makes a hard taskmaster.

Thu 20 Jun, 14:06 (last edited on Thu 20 Jun, 14:14)

This is a modelling exercise based on individual constituency-level election results between 1959 and 2019 and specifically states that "Our model does not take into account the local effects of parties' campaigns in individual constituencies nor tactical voting." 

Thu 20 Jun, 13:33

Interesting how the picture keeps changing. Over in Bicester & Woodstock where the LibDems were well backed, Labour have now surged ahead under the leadership of Veronica Oakeshott (sister of Charlbury resident Isabel Oakeshott but poles apart politically!) and are now needing only 488 votes to beat the Tories.

Summary here with link to the Economist forecast.

Thu 20 Jun, 07:26 (last edited on Thu 20 Jun, 07:29)

Lesley and Emily - you are spot on. For those of us you want to see a change of government from this lot, Labour is the only possible vote in the Banbury constituency.

Methinks that anyone suggesting voting for the Liberals in this constituency is probably a closet Tory who does not have the courage to actually suggest voting for them ... which is understandable, given the terrible damage that they have inflicted on this country. 

Sadly I will miss the hustings due to a family matter. I hope that the people of Charlbury will give the candidates the third degree!

Wed 19 Jun, 23:49

Gareth, she never mentioned Sean; she mentioned Starmer and Labour’s policies.

And again, I refer you to 2010 when the LD’s had the choice between Brown and Cameron. 14 years ago yes, but that election set the ball rolling on austerity, Brexit and many other awful policies that we are still left with today. As someone who liked and agreed with the LD’s under Kennedy, I find Clegg’s betrayal of not only the country but his own party to still be disgusting today. I assume most LD’s would feel the same and admit to that colossal misstep. I hope the LD’s win in Bicester and Woodstock, and I hope Labour wins in Banbury. The less Tory MPs the better.

Wed 19 Jun, 22:13 (last edited on Wed 19 Jun, 22:37)

Nice try Lesley - as Labour’s candidate here is principally known for voting with Tories and voting for them, it seems to me that voting for him is (quite literally) giving your vote to the Tories.

As I’ve said before, he is a quite extraordinary choice of candidate.  There is evidently going to be a change of government anyway - the main question is the scale of the Tory defeat.  So I’m very happy supporting people who are much more reliable and likely forces for progressive change.

Wed 19 Jun, 20:59 (last edited on Thu 20 Jun, 02:08)

Yes, Lesley, I know you are right. But a lot of us oldies, especially from our years in London (though not native Londoners, small rural hometown unemployment repelled returning "home" - such as it was from poverty, poverty makes no homes, a forgotten aspect of the many dimensional depths…

Long post - click to read full text

Wed 19 Jun, 20:08

I don't believe Starmer is perfect Malcolm, but he's a damn sight better than what we have now. 

To be honest he will not know the extent the mess that's been left, or what he can or cannot achieve until he gets into No.10. I would much rather him under-promise than over-promise and then have to backtrack. 

If you vote anything less than Labour in Banbury you're just giving your vote away to the Tories. A lot of people literally cannot afford to do that.

Wed 19 Jun, 18:10 (last edited on Wed 19 Jun, 18:13)

As sibs who went to school hungry and had no tea either, no TV, a 25 watt light bulb and no heating at home on return (I hid in Town Library for warmth and stave off boredom until chucked out) until could get (a really rare) after school job 5-10pm (more like 11pm to finish up*) that literally staved off imminent homelessness (twice before happened). 

Starmer, Dave Evans et al deliberately not eliminating two-child Poverty Monger children ban major cause is nigh on treason to so many millions of The British People.

* Try fitting in that schedule with O and A levels "studies" (ha effing ha) on those hours every day and 9+ hours both weekend days. 

The world got a bit better, really, for a bit after '97, then in 2010 the Revenge happened to those who forgot their place and the rest ensued.

Wed 19 Jun, 17:46

I am sure all the people in Charlbury who have to use the food bank or send their children to school hungry, will be relieved to see a Labour MP here.

Wed 19 Jun, 16:14 (last edited on Wed 19 Jun, 17:09)

Well as a Liberal voter when we were in the Witney seat, I am looking forward to voting for Shaun the excellent Labour candidate now Charlbury has been moved into the Banbury seat. I don’t want to wake up on the morning after and hear the Tory candidate has scraped in by a vote or two.

Wed 19 Jun, 14:07 (last edited on Wed 19 Jun, 17:42)

I’m actually really excited to vote Labour, Liz. I’m sure a lot of people are.

Wed 19 Jun, 12:56

Helpful!

Wed 19 Jun, 12:06

well said Liz

Tue 18 Jun, 22:19

That kind of advice illustrates how so many voters are disenfranchised. I'll be voting for what I believe to be right and necessary.

Mon 17 Jun, 13:53

For those who are missing the discussion on the debate section, tactical voting recommendations were released today by getvoting.org -  one of the leading tactical voting polling companies who correctly called 97% of the results in 2019.

I appreciate that not everyone wants to vote tactically but their recommendation is to vote Labour in our new constituency of Banbury to help guarantee a change of government. They have the Conservatives currently leading in Banbury by less than 1% and say:

“Banbury's boundaries have changed and demographics have shifted, making it a Labour target for the first time. The Conservatives narrowly led in the May 2024 local elections, with Labour second and Lib Dems third. The latest general election voting intention polling shows the Conservatives leading by less than one percentage point. Neither the Lib Dems nor the Greens are targeting the seat, but their vote share could split the progressive vote and allow the Tories to hold the seat. Tactical voting could be crucial in Banbury.”

Their current polling for the Banbury constituency (which now includes Charlbury) is: Cons 28.49%, Lab 27.82%, Lib Dems 17.65%, Green 13.89%, Reform 10.93%

Interestingly, they recommend voting Lib Dem in all other constituencies in the Oxfordshire region (discounting Oxford city itself), i.e. Bicester & Woodstock, Witney, Henley & Thame, Didcot & Wantage, although some of the contests do appear very close between Labour and the Lib Dems.