Why you should vote tactically, and how to do it.

In this election we have a choice. We can choose a party led by an inveterate liar, which is happy to appeal to the racist or xenophobic vote, happy to take us out of the EU with no deal with all the consequences for public services that entails, happy to see ever longer waiting times for GPs and A&E, happy to see more homeless people on the streets and more food banks.*** Instead we can choose a hung parliament with a Labour minority government that may not even be led by Corbyn, with their power curtailed by the smaller parties, including the Liberal Democrats, that can actually do something about the problems we face. But we can only make that choice by voting tactically.

But I have an ethical problem with voting tactically

There is one serious argument against tactical voting. It is the idea that if you have a choice between voting for a good party, a not so good party and a terrible party you should always vote for the good party. (The ranking is what matters here, not my description.) The argument is that if you vote for the not so good party, you are in some senses endorsing the bad things that party or its leaders have done in the past.

That argument applies to those who prefer to vote Liberal Democrat because of Labour’s antisemitism problem, or those who think they cannot vote Liberal Democrat because they were part of the austerity Coalition. Both arguments are wrong, because they simply do not apply in a FPTP system when the only two possible winners in the constituency you live in are the not so good party and the terrible party.

In a FPTP system your vote for the good party will simply have token value. However you could have done something towards preventing the terrible party coming to power, but you chose not to. In that way you become responsible, in a small way, for what happens when the terrible party comes to power. By your inaction, you will have contributed to the terrible party coming to power.

If you vote for the not so good party, will you be responsible for the not so good things happening if that party wins? No, because all you could have done differently is let the terrible party win. There is no way your voting for the good party will influence anything. It is a wasted vote because you will have wasted an opportunity to make the world a better place. The Kantian ‘do no evil’ idea does not apply because doing no evil actually means allowing more bad things to happen.

You may say this is a consequentialist argument, and your philosophy is different. You might think about the fact that your philosophy would allow tyranny to come to power, just because you had some problems with the opposition to tyranny. If you think that is far fetched, you need to note that part of their manifesto gives the Conservatives a mandate to change our constitution so that the executive has complete control over parliament.

There is a weaker argument for voting for the good party, and that is thinking about your vote as part of a repeated game. The argument suggests that by voting for the not so good party, you are encouraging it to remain not so good. But this fails for the obvious reason that if you do not do everything you can to stop the terrible party coming to power, you are encouraging the terrible party.

And if all that doesn't convince you, use https://www.swapmyvote.uk/ where you can actually help the party you prefer win something. 

But who should I vote for. It’s so confusing.

For most people its not. Have a look at this website, for example: https://tactical.vote/compare or https://dontsplittheremainvote.com/. You will see in most cases there is total agreement about who to vote for tactically. Of course some constituencies are such safe Tory or Labour seats that your vote is highly unlikely to achieve anything. But my rough list of constituencies were tactical voting matters (England and Wales only I’m afraid) is as follows (with the party to vote for in brackets). It is a long list because I have been deliberately pessimistic about what the two parties could lose and optimistic about what they could gain, because there are always surprises in any General Election.

Why did I bother doing this you might ask. It is just a by-product of some work I did out of my own curiosity looking at marginals, and I thought I might as well share it. I have waited until now to make these suggestions because I think a lot of confusion has been caused by sites that have made calls earlier on in the campaign and then had to revise them. Many a LibDem bar chart has been based on that misleading information. Fine if the polls don’t move, but they were always going to move to the two main parties in this election.

Aberconwy (Lab)

Alyn and Deeside (Lab)

Ashfield (Labour)

Barrow and Furness (Labour)

Bassetlaw (Lab)

Bath (LibDem)

Battersea (Labour)

Beaconsfield (Independent - Dominic Grieve)

Bedford (Lab)

Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Lab)

Birmingham Edgbaston (Lab)

Birmingham Northfields (Lab)

Bishops Auckland (Lab)

Blackpool North (Lab)

Blackpool South (Lab)

Blyth Valley (Lab)

Bolsover (Lab)

Bolton North East (Lab)

Bolton West (Lab)

Bradford South (Lab)

Brecon and Radnorshire (LibDem)

Brentford and Isleworth (Lab)

Bristol North West (Lab)

Burnley (Lab)

Bury North (Lab)

Bury South (Lab)

Calder Valley (Lab)

Camborne and Redruth (Lab)

Canterbury (Lab)

Cardiff North (Lab)

Carlisle (Lab)

Carmarthen West and South (Lab)

Carshalton and Wallington (LibDem)

Cheadle (LibDem)

Chelsea and Fulham (LibDem)

Cheltenham (LibDem)

Chingford and Wood Green (Lab)

Chipping Barnet (Lab)

City of Chester (Lab)

Clwyd West (Lab)

Colne Valley (Lab)

Copeland (Lab)

Corby (Lab)

Crawley (Lab)

Crewe and Nantwich (Lab)

Croydon Central (Lab)

Dagenham and Rainham (Lab)

Darlington (Lab)

Delyn (Lab)

Derby North (Lab)

Dewsbury (Lab)

Don Valley (Lab)

Dudley North (Lab)

East Devon (Independent)

East Worthing and Shoreham (Lab)

Eastbourne (LibDem)

Eastleigh (LibDem)

Enfield Southgate (Lab)

Esher and Walton (LibDem)

Filton and Bradley Stoke (Lab)

Gedling (Lab)

Gower (Lab)

Great Grimsby (Lab)

Guildford (LibDem)

Halifax (Lab)

Harrow East (Lab)

Hastings and Rye (Lab)

Hazel Grove (LibDem)

Hendon (Lab)

High Peak (Lab)

Hyndburn (Lab)

Ipswich (Lab)

Keighley (Lab)

Kingston and Surbiton (LibDem)

Lewes (LibDem)

Lincoln (Lab)

Loughborough (Lab)

Mansfield (Lab)

Middlesbrough South (Lab)

Milton Keynes North (Lab)

Milton Keynes South (Lab)

Montgomeryshire (LibDem)

Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lab)

Moreley and Outwood (Lab)

Newcastle under Lyne (Lab)

North Cornwall (LibDem)

North Devon (LibDem)

North East Derbyshire (Lab)

North Norfolk (LibDem)

Northampton North (Lab)

Northampton South (Lab)

Norwich North (Lab)

Oxford and West Abingdon (LibDem)

Pendle (Lab)

Penistone and Stocksbridge (Lab)

Peterborough (Lab)

Plymouth Moor View (Lab)

Portsmouth South (Lab)

Preseli Pembrokeshire (Lab)

Pudsey (Lab)

Putney (Lab)

Reading East (Lab)

Reading West (Lab)

Richmond Park (LibDem)

Rossendale and Darwen (Lab)

Rother Valley (Lab)

Rushcliffe (Lab)

Scarborough and Whitby (Lab)

Scunthorpe (Lab)

Shipley (Lab)

Shrewsbury and Atcham (Lab)

South Swindon (Lab)

Southampton Itchen (Lab)
Southport (Lab)

St Albans (LibDem)

St Ives (LibDem)

Stevenage (Lab)

Stockton South (Lab)

Stoke-on-Trent North (Lab)

Stoke-on-Trent South (Lab)

Stroud (Lab)

Sutton and Cheam (LibDem)

Telford (Lab)

Thurrock (Lab)

Totnes (LibDem)

Truro and Falmouth (Lab)

Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Lab)

Vale of Clwyd (Lab)

Vale of Glamorgan (Lab)

Wakefield (Lab)

Walsall North (Lab)

Warrington South (Lab)

Warwick and Leamington (Lab)

Watford (Lab)

Weaver Vale (Lab)

Wells (LibDem)

Welwyn Hatfield (Lab)

Westmorland and Lonsdale (LibDem)

Winchester (LibDem)

Wirral West (Lab)

Wolverhampton North East (Lab)

Wolverhampton South West (Lab)

Worcester (Lab)

Workington (Lab)

Wrexham (Lab)

Wycombe (Lab)

York Outer (Lab)

If I have made any mistakes or bad judgements in this list, do let me know.

There are a few marginal seats which are so safe that you get a choice. In Arfon, or Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, you can vote Plaid or Labour without any fear of letting the Tories win. In Ceredigion the same applies between Plaid and the LibDems. In Bermondsey and Old Southwark, or Cambridge, or Leeds North West, or Sheffield Hallam you could vote for Labour or the LibDems.

Then we have eleven difficult seats, all in England, where both Labour and the LibDems have a claim to be the party to vote tactically. It is important to remember here that over the last months the national polls have been moving from LibDems to Labour, so polls or recommendations made in early or even mid November should be treated with caution. However the latest poll of polls suggest Labour are still below their 2017 total, and the LibDems are significantly above, with little movement over the last few days.

One issue I found it hard to assess was the finding in some local polls that Labour voters are more open to tactical voting than Liberal Democrats. I would hope this does not apply to any Liberal Democrat voters who might take any notice of what I say, because if it does they have not been reading my other posts. An argument that should have equal weight is that, if Johnson is not to romp home, the polls need to be a little biased against Labour because they underestimate the youth vote.   

Berwick-upon-Tweed A poll at the end of November had LibDems slightly ahead of Labour (which makes sense given 2017 result and subsequent national movement) but the Tories winning easily. More recent B4B MRP poll puts Labour ahead. TV sites split. So Recommendation Labour

Broxtowe (Lab) Anna Soubry was the Tory candidate, now running as an Independent with the Liberals not standing. But this is a Tory/Lab marginal, so Recommendation Labour

Cities of London and Westminster TV sites are split. A poll on 23 November had Chuka Umunna ahead of Labour. However although B4B are suggesting voting for the LibDems, their polling shows Labour ahead. Jon Worth suggests LibDems. So close to call. Recommendation Labour but watch out for any new information. Postscript - new poll has LibDems slightly ahead, so my Recommendation is now LibDem.

Colchester All the TV sites are recommending Labour, So Recommendation Labour.

Finchley and Golders Green I think the large Jewish vote here makes this impossible for Labour, and the TV sites and local polls agree. So Recommendation LibDem

Kensington Narrowly won by Labour last time. A poll in mid November had LibDems a bit ahead of Labour, but the national polls have moved since then. TV sites split, and B4B are on the fence. Too close to call, so I would go for sitting MP. Recommendation Labour but watch out for any new information. Postscript - new local poll has Labour in the lead. 

St Austell and Newquay Both Labour and LibDems have a strong presence here. B4B’s MRP poll puts Labour ahead here in a Leave voting constituency. Recommendation Labour

These two Cambridgeshire seats are similar.

South Cambridgeshire

South East Cambridgeshire

They are Tory seats where Labour were second, but LibDems had a significant vote as well. B4B’s MRP puts LibDems in front, and the only positive recommendations from TV sites are LibDem. Recommendation LibDem

Wimbledon

Polls for Wimbledon show LibDems ahead, but there has been a movement away from LibDems towards Labour nationally since then. TV sites split. B4B MRP poll has LibDems ahead. Recommendation LibDem

Wokingham

Polls for Wokingham show LibDems ahead, but there has been a movement away from LibDems towards Labour nationally since then. TV sites that make a positive call all say LibDem. B4B MRP poll has LibDems ahead. Recommendation LibDems.

Again happy to be corrected on any factual errors. If you want to swap your vote use https://www.swapmyvote.uk/

Other useful sites

https://tactical.vote/compare
https://dontsplittheremainvote.com/

Jon Worth at https://jonworth.eu/2019-uk-general-election-tactical-voting-guide/

https://tacticalvote.getvoting.org/

https://public.tableau.com/profile/christabel.cooper#!/vizhome/GE2019Constituencydata/START

Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/08/tactical-voting-guide-2019-keep-tories-out-remain-voter-general-election

***Postscript: Not a complete list. I should have added "that is happy to see climate change increase unchecked".

Tactical voting advice for December 2019

According to a survey commissioned by the Electoral Reform Society, around a quarter of voters plan to vote tactically in the forthcoming General Election. That is a lot of voters, although I would argue the number should be higher. This raises the obvious question, which is who should I vote for in my constituency?

For many it is a good question, because the current polls suggest that the result is not obvious. Take, for example, the seat of Kensington in London. If you look at the last election the answer seems obvious. In 2017 Labour just won with just over 42.2% of the vote, with the Conservatives on just under 42.2%. The LibDems got just over 12% and the Greens 2%. So if you are inclined to vote LibDem or Green it seems obvious to vote Labour.

There is a website that effectively tells you that. Tactical vote 2019 tells you who won your seat last time, and then tells you who to vote for to ensure the Tories do not win. This website is slightly more sophisticated in allowing you to enter your party preferences in rank order, but for Kensington, when I put in LibDem as first choice, it also tells you to vote Labour. There may be other sites I’m not aware of.

But there is a problem. The current polls are very different from 2017. Taking the latest poll tracker from the Guardian Labour now have 25% of the vote, down from 40% in 2017. The Liberal Democrats are now on 17%, which is over double their 2017 performance of 7.4%. Apply those differences to the Kensington vote and the LibDems have a very small lead over Labour, with the Tories winning comfortably.

Best for Britain (B4B) has just launched its tactical voting site that tries to take into account this change in the polls. (I’m not sure if this is instead of or in addition to the People’s Vote’s tactical voting exercise.***) It is more sophisticated than that, because it also applies multilevel regression and post stratification to map national or regional polling into seats. Either because of different timing or different polls, or because of this additional analysis, it suggests that current polling would imply an even bigger LibDem lead in Kensington. As a result, B4B gives a tactical voting recommendation to vote LibDem.

As you can see from the link I wasn’t too happy when I saw this. I am still not happy, but I think as a result of conversations and more thought I’m clearer about what the problem is with what B4B are doing. Needless to say there was a lot of negative reaction to their launch: see here, and here are just some examples. It is completely wrong to think such a reaction is predictable so B4B shouldn’t worry about it. To get people to vote tactically you have to persuade them it is the right thing to do, when they might naturally vote for a different party. (I did hope to do a more systematic analysis of the match between analysis and recommendations, but B4B did not respond to my request for a full list of these.)

This was the major failing of B4B. It looked too much like “the computer says”, with no explanation of why the numbers they came up with are what they are, and why B4B were or were not just following them. There were a number of obvious things they could have done better. First, they could have given the national percentages for the poll on which the analysis was based, so we could see how that related to current polling. This is particularly important given the wide and systematic (i.e. persistent) spread between polling companies right now, due to how they treat their data.

Next, they could have given some indication of why any constituency swing was bigger or smaller than the average swing implied by the numbers they were using. Put the two together and I might have some idea why their predicted swing, towards the LibDems and away from Labour, was greater than the one I calculated earlier. Let me stress that I am not doubting the methodology or implying bias. It is simply that if you are going to persuade people to vote in a way they would rather not, you have to do more than just say "the computers says" and it has worked in the past. You have to give people some understandable reasons.

However, even if it had done all this, I still think its recommendation is wrong. We saw in 2017 that the polls can change dramatically. You can certainly give plausible reasons why that could happen again. Given that uncertainty, the call I would have made for Kensington is ‘too close to call’ at this stage. Anything else will only lead to trouble when you are recommending voting against a sitting Labour MP this distance from the election. (For some of the factors peculiar to Kensington, see this from Ailbhe Rea.)

It would have been much better if B4B had kept its options open in places like Kensington, and instead focused on seats where who to vote for tactically was much clearer (like Canterbury or St. Ives), and in particular on the subset that could make a difference to the result. That would have been far more useful, and less contentious, and actually helped the cause of tactical voting at this early stage. If Labour’s position in the polls improved compared to the LibDems, as it could well do, they will avoid looking foolish. If the polls don’t move or move the other way, they will have broken Labour voters in to the idea of voting LibDem gently.

Does the criticism of B4B invalidate the idea of tactical voting? Of course not. Tactical voting is probably the only thing that can save us from five years of a Johnson government and a very hard or no trade deal Brexit. What it shows is that in a few places, who to vote for at this very early stage in the campaign is unclear. If you happen to be in those constituencies, all I can suggest is watch this space. 

***Postscript (03/11/19) This article describes what happened to the independent People's Vote tactical voting campaign. 

Corbyn stakes everything on tactical voting by Remainers

Those who argue that a Corbyn led Labour party can never win a general election need to remember the days after the 2017 election, when Labour were ahead in the polls. Contrast Corbyn’s and May’s reactions to the Grenfell fire, and don’t imagine Johnson would be much better than May. Grenfell itself was a consequence of a ‘let’s end red tape, private sector knows best’ culture that is still rife in the Conservative party, and will not change if a Conservative is Prime Minister after the next election, whether that is a majority or minority government.

In those days Brexit was still relatively new, its impact on the economy had only been partially felt, and frankly it’s stupidity not fully realised. The implications for Ireland were not yet widely understood. Brexit seemed inevitable, and the Remain movement was very young. Labour were successfully triangulating over Brexit, and so the leadership’s position on the issue was compatible with the membership. But I could see back in 2016 that this was the position Corbyn himself was too comfortable with: respecting the referendum result by enacting some sort of soft Brexit. For whatever reason (his own previous views, genuine belief that the referendum has to be implemented, influential people around him) he would be very reluctant to move from that position.

As it became clearer that May was determined to implement a hard Brexit, and that parliament was unlikely to pass it because members of the ERG were determined to go for No Deal, and as the Remain movement grew, attitudes within the Labour membership began to change. As time went on it became clearer that the Leave campaign had lied about almost everything, and especially about the deal we could get from the EU. As people changed their minds and it became clear there were many different Brexits and the referendum was not a mandate for any particular one, the need for a second referendum became clearer.

The argument that Labour had to support Brexit to win any general election, that was plausible in 2017, became less and less relevant as Remain opinions hardened. Evidence began to accumulate about the flaws in that position. While most constituencies Labour needed to win might have had in 2016 a majority that voted to Leave, most Labour voters in those constituencies voted Remain. Furthermore, as many poorer Leave voters began to change their minds about Brexit, the number of marginals that were Remain came to equal those that were Leave.

The implicit belief among many was that Remainers had nowhere to go beside Labour. But this was never true. When I wrote this in December 2018 I did not anticipate the exact form in which Labour voters who were Remain would stop voting Labour, but it was clear from polls it would happen. But too many in Labour dismissed the Remain movement as a centrist plot, a continuation of the battle for power within Labour. Of course anti-Corbyn people would use any means to attack him, but the fact was Remain was a mass movement that contained many Labour members that had elected Corbyn, and voters who had chosen Labour in 2017, all of whom Labour were in danger of ignoring.

The rest, as they say, is history. An additional fatal mistake was for Labour to spend too much time in negotiations with May in a futile attempt to find a Brexit they could agree on. This spooked Labour Remain voters, and they turned to the Liberal Democrats and Greens at the European elections. The polls from December became actual votes, and turned out to underestimate the extent voters would abandon Labour. Both Labour and the Conservatives had to respond to those elections. The Conservatives did so by becoming the Brexit party, and gained back much of their losses from the European elections. Labour moved an inch, and did not gain enough.

The Labour leadership, by refusing to move with Labour members on Brexit, have single-handedly revived the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats. In a straight fight between Johnson and Corbyn, Corbyn would win. But with the LibDems attracting vital votes in Labour/Conservative marginals, the result is unclear. That already means that Corbyn's stubbornness over the summer on Brexit has put the election at risk. Without additional tactical voting, the current polls suggest the Conservatives would get an overall majority, and No Deal or the hardest of Brexits is bound to follow. This is Johnson’s and Cummings' central plan.

The move to guarantee a People’s Vote is important and should be retained. But although some voters are prepared to vote tactically to get it, others like voting for a party that reflects their view. The image of Corbyn holding out for Brexit is now well and truly planted in many people’s minds. Yet it was never too late for Labour to declare itself a Remain party. The shadow Chancellor, the shadow Foreign Secretary and even the shadow Brexit minister understand that, and have been open about campaigning for Remain in any referendum. If Corbyn had changed his position before the party conference he could have persuaded enough trade unions to back a policy where Labour always campaigns for Remain in any referendum for it to be carried on the conference floor. A show of unity around that position at conference would have sent a powerful message. It is a message that the LibDems and Conservatives feared.

Instead we have the party going into an election promising a People’s Vote, but telling voters that who they will support will be announced later. A party that overwhelmingly campaigned for Remain in 2016 is now sitting on the fence. I listened to the Brexit debate, and for the most part it was as if the Liberal Democrats did not exist, and the european elections had not happened. The main argument those rejecting the Remain motion had was that conference needed to support Jeremy Corbyn. They may have sung Oh Jeremy Corbyn in the hall but the parties that will be really rejoicing at this result are the LibDems and the Conservative party.

So Labour will go into the next election saying vote for us and on the crucial issue of the day, the issue that has dominated the last three years, and we will let you know what our policy is around 3 months after we win. They are hoping what happened in 2017 will happen again because Remainers in marginal Lab/Con seats understand that they gain nothing by not voting Labour. But as I've tried to point out, many things have changed in the last two and a half years. Corbyn's strategy is a huge risk, an immense risk, and one that has been taken because of one man alone, and for an overwhelmingly Remain party a needless risk.

It is needless and pointless because a Corbyn government can never enact Brexit. Corbyn may be able to carry the conference hall, but even if he wins an election with an outright majority he will never carry enough MPs to back whatever soft Brexit deal he comes up with. The Conservatives are bound to vote against, as will LibDems, the SNP and at least half Labour MPs. If it gets to a referendum he will fail because Remainers will back Remain and most Leavers will fail to vote for a policy the Brexit press will brand as making the UK a vassal state. Brexit will die under a Labour government, but we may not get a Labour government because Corbyn refuses to admit it.

Some observations on tactical voting in the forthcoming General Election

The first and most obvious is this. If you say you are a Remainer, or if you understand the nightmare that No Deal will create, or want to end the threat to democracy this government is, you have to vote tactically. The converse is also true. If you don’t vote tactically, you by your actions are supporting a No Deal Brexit. You will be partly responsible for a No Deal Brexit.

If you want a Brexit that does not involve crashing out, you might tell yourself that the only way of getting a good deal is to keep No Deal on the table. But it is obvious by now that Johnson has no intention of even trying to get a deal, because he knows the EU will not budge on the need to prevent a hard border in Ireland. Amber Rudd in her resignation letter made that clear, as have many other Conservatives. If Johnson wins an election you can be sure we will leave with No Deal.

Tactical voting is second best. The first best thing to do is for Labour and the Liberal Democrat/Green alliance to cooperate, much as Farage will almost certainly do with the Conservatives. There are tons of seats where Labour have no chance to win, and plenty where the Liberal Democrats cannot win. In the current poll of polls, Labour are static on 25% and the LibDems are static on below 20%. The idea that during an election the LibDems and Labour could swap places is fantasy, and in contrast there are good reasons for thinking Labour may make some gains during the campaign. It makes no sense for the LibDes not to cooperate, and then end up with a government that will crash us out of the EU because people voted LibDem in lots of Lab/Con marginals.

Equally the potential gains to Labour in cooperating are huge, as this FT article shows. Under current polling Labour would get about 220 seats and the Tories just under 350. If the LibDems stood down in Lab/Con marginals Labour could get nearly 300 seats, beating the Conservatives. A belief that Labour will make similar gains during the election campaign as they did in 2017 is almost certainly false. May ran a terrible campaign, Cummings will not. He will employ all the social media tricks he used to win the EU referendum vote and more. In contrast to 2017, many will not vote Labour because of the antisemitism issue. Why risk the certainty of gains under cooperation for more risky options?

Unfortunately I see no signs that this kind of cooperation will happen. The Conservatives can cooperate with the Brexit party because the Brexit party is under the complete control of Farage and the Conservative party is now under the complete control of Cummings/Johnson. Both Labour and the LibDems are more democratic, and resistance to cooperation remains high. 

In addition the LibDem leadership fears that because Tory voters believe the 'Corbyn as devil' meme, they will not switch to the LibDems if they cooperate with Labour. It does not matter that non-cooperation means far more Labour seats will be lost than LibDem seats gained, increasing greatly the chances of a Johnson victory: party advantage is more important than stopping No Deal. So we have to presume that cooperation between the LibDems and Labour over seats will not happen. (In contrast, LibDem cooperation with expelled Tories seems acceptable.)

Which is why voters are going to have to do what politicians will fail to do, and vote tactically. The People’s Vote and other Remain campaigns understand that, and will be campaigning and helping with tactical voting. In most cases what to do is obvious: vote LibDem where the LibDems can realistically beat the Conservatives and vote Labour where Labour are more likely to beat the Conservatives.

The key point that I want to make is that the goal has to be to elect a Labour government, which realistically will be a minority Labour government. If that victory is more than marginal, Brexit will end one way or another. Those who say they cannot trust Corbyn on Brexit, or that Corbyn is really a Brexiter, are falling for media propaganda. There is no way Corbyn, even if he wanted to which I doubt, could go back on his commitment to hold a referendum. The trick is to hold a referendum in such a way that Remain are sure to win, and that means not having No Deal as the other option.

In contrast a minority Conservative government would do everything it can to avoid that outcome, and with Labour Leave MPs they will probably have the votes to do so. In that case Remainers would be relying on the patience of parliament and the EU which will be severely tested over five years.A more probable outcome if Labour do badly is a majority Johnson/Cummings administration. Every LibDem attacking Labour are encouraging this outcome. 

This point is important when deciding who to tactically vote for in difficult cases. If the contest is between a Labour Remainer and an independent, where the former can realistically win, then it makes sense to vote Labour because it increases the chances of a Labour government. However if that Labour MPs supports Leave, the decision is reversed, because we need a majority of MPs supporting a referendum whoever is in power. In a contest between a Leave Labour MP and a Conservative Leaver, then it is obviously important to vote for the Labour MP, because they increase the chance of a Labour led government.

Whether enough voters vote tactically in this way will determine the future of Brexit. We have, at last, a sure way of ending this nightmare of the last three years, and I fear if we don’t take it all those campaigns and every march will have been for nothing. I also fear for democracy under this government, which has shut down parliament to stifle accountability and will no doubt do so again. This could be the last chance to end Brexit and save the United Kingdom as we know it. We have to take that chance.