How I’m voting to Labour to Remain in Battersea and why I’ve done a tactical vote swap to help the Lib Dems. Post Reply

[GuyD73]

 Given we’re all wondering how best to use our votes in the forthcoming General Election, I thought I’d throw my 2ps worth in here in case it’s helpful to any fellow remainers, and I’m interested into how people are thinking.   For background, I voted Tory in 2015, thinking the coalition had done a reasonable job of protecting the economy during the financial crisis and while I think they overdid austerity and don’t support many of their policies, I thought it was a socially liberal and pragmatic party. Not being terribly engaged in politics, I didn’t appreciate at the time just how unhinged and toxic people like Andrew Bridgen, Nadine Dorries and Bill Cash were/are.  I have real difficulties with Jeremy Corbyn and worry about his more extreme policies but, despite that, I voted tactically for Labour in 2017 in Battersea for Marsha de Cordova, to give us precisely the sort of Parliamentary arithmetic that’s prevented Brexit from happening. Even though in the manifesto, Labour promised to respect the result, many of their MPs were massive remainers and as it became more obvious from the Treasury forecasts, the damage Brexit would do, it was always clear to me that the policy would shift towards a peoples or confirmatory vote, and so it has proved.  Now I’d like a fairer and more equal society and I’d like companies like Amazon and Facebook to pay more tax but the prospect of Corbyn with a majority worries me. However, if you look at Corbyn’s personal ratings (the worst of any LOTO for decades), there’s ZERO chance of him getting a majority. He might end up in no.10 but he’d be reliant on the Lib dems to get anything through Parliament. So I think it’s incredibly important to communicate to people that a vote for Labour doesn’t necessarily express any support for Corbyn whatsoever.  Now my passion for remain and generally centrist stance on many things would make the Lib dems my natural home, and I do think there will be a strong Lib Dem surge with them primarily taking seats from Tories. However, I’ve spoken to the Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) in Batttersea, Mark Gitsham, and Putney, Sue Wixley, and while they are both nice, capable, articulate people, I simply don’t think they have the profile to win these seats. Fleur Anderson, the Lab PPC for Putney is well known from her time as a councillor and is a fervent remain campaigner. So I’ll again be voting tactically in Battersea for Labour, but I think the Lib dems have a shot in Wimbledon with Paul Kohler (remember the chap was horribly beaten up in his own home), so I’m going to help their campaign there. While I am grateful to Stephen Hammond for the way in which he’s voted on several occasions over the last 3 years, he’s nailed his colours to the mast as a Brexit tory now, so I hope he loses in solidly remain Wimbledon. I’m also considering campaigning for some of the other candidates such as Nicola Horlick, standing for the Lib dems in Fulham against the Tory Greg Hands.  So, given I’m not voting for my party of choice, I thought I’d see if I could achieve a vote swap with someone similarly minded. So I put a post on a Lewes (town near Brighton in Sussex) facebook group asking if there were any die-hard labour voters who would consider voting for the Lib dem candidate there (Oli Henman)in exchange for my vote for Labour in London. A really nice female, labour voter and climate activist said she would. We’ve chatted a bit to establish trust and I totally trust her to honour our agreement, as will I. Sadly the post got taken down but it achieved its purpose and sufficient people saw it that I hope some of them will be considering trying it too. I chose Lewes because we visit frequently and I’ve friends there, but more importantly, it’s very close and a straight fight between LDs and the incumbent Tory Maria Caulfield. I reckon LDs will win. Also really pleased that the Liberal Democrats are talking of standing down in Brighton Pavillion where Caroline Lucas is the MP.  Other tactics one could use include adopting a brexity bulldog type personality online and encouraging people to vote for the Brexit Party. Personally I’m delighted that Farage is standing candidates everywhere and banging on about a clean break, as it will split the vote on the right nicely and let in Labour or LD candidates.  This isn’t a post designed to create any debate about Brexit itself, but I’d be very interested to hear how people are approaching this.  If you’re a strong remain Tory, can you ‘hold your nose’ and vote for a strong remain labour MP? Or are you more Tory than you are remain, so you’ll vote blue in all circumstances.  If you’re a remain Labour voter in a seat where your candidate has no chance (Richmond Park for example), would you vote LD to get rid of the Tory brexiter Goldsmith?  If you’re an LD supporter but your candidate hasn’t a hope, would you consider a vote swap, like I’ve done? Interesting article from Best for Britain here https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

[bigbrownbear3]

Over 150 people have viewed this post. Please tell me that I am not the only one to think that, even though this has been going on forever, this is totally and utterly immoral?

Like the majority of my friends and family, I voted to remain in the EU and deeply regret the decision that was made by 52% of the electorate. But this was the decision that was made, whether rightly or wrongly is a personal matter; I don’t think that anyone can deny that the country is in a bit of a mess. That said, and this is probably too simplistic a take on it, but it is the way I see it, the result of the Referendum reflects just how many disillusioned people there are across the UK, who want change and better lives for themselves and who believe that their needs would be best served outside the EU. Like all of us, they were given an opportunity to vote and they took it. To swap votes with people of a similar social standing, and to even suggest holding a second Referendum, is in my view about as undemocratic as it comes and I really really hope that most voters have higher moral standards.

[chorister]

...... to even suggest holding a second Referendum, is in my view about as undemocratic as it comes and I really really hope that most voters have higher moral standards.

I didn't bother to plough through the original post, but I do find it really odd why anyone thinks that checking whether people may have changed their minds could be considered undemocratic.  If there were a second referendum (whether you want one or not) and 35m people turned out to vote, would that be a democratic exercise or not?

[Janet14]

I completely agree. To never be allowed to change your mind, even four years later and with the full information you didn’t have before is in my mind the undemocratic option. Since when is voting again undemocratic? Simoly ignoring the result would be, giving another vote to make sure people are certain now they have the facts is just common sense...

[fanofcats]

We have all gone through three years of pain and anguish PRECISELY because the result of the 2016 referendum has been respected!!  It makes me very angry to be told that just because I am in favour of a second referendum, now that we know the shape of a deal to leave (which imho is deeply problematic), I am undemocratic.  And, BTW, it is disingenuous to say that 'getting Brexit done' is the only way to stop the awful self-destruction that we have seen in recent years - the Johnson deal will lead to at least a decade of further negotiations with knife edge bully-boy tactics on our side and increasing frustration on the European's side. 

The reasons people voted Leave in 2016 are many and varied and we need to understand all of those properly and then address them. The quickest way to do that is in reality to revoke Article 50 and get on with improving things here, but that would be undemocratic, so getting on with a second referendum is clearly the only way forward with Johnsons deal as the alternative to remaining.  The result of that makes a clear direction for parliament. This election is unlikely to solve the division since some folk (like the thoughtful author of the original post above) voting on Brexit matters and others will vote on wider issues (many of which will not be relevant if we leave since we will a) have less public money and b) have our civil service tied up in knots doing all the negotiating) and both major parties are deeply split on europe still, despite both having had a bit of a clear out recently.

[Bookymummy]

The concept of a 'second Referendum' is completely undemocratic because it invalidates and negates the first Referendum.

This is the first vote in our history where, because the losers of the first vote cannot accept their loss, the entire Country is being held in limbo for years, every effort being made to frustrate the original vote with the ultimate aim of negating it.

There is no democracy in that.

And please don't come back to me with a load of nonsense about numbers on buses and funding of election campaigns, and all the rest of the rubbish that Remainiacs try to use as an excuse to de-legitimise the original vote. The vote was held, no-one discussed any of these issues before the Referendum, therefore the outcome of the vote can, and should, stand.

I await the rantings of the psychotic loser who uses this forum as a mental health therapy session.....

[chorister]

The reason the country has been in limbo is quite simple and has nothing to do with Remainiacs or whatever other epithet you choose to use - it is simply because Brexiters ie the ERG wouldn't vote to leave because the deal on offer, which would have taken us out of the EU, wasn't pure enough for them.

I think the first vote was completely legitimate, but do remember that it was a leading Brexiter, David Davis, who said that a democracy was not a democracy unless people could change their mind.  Why not check whether or not they have?

Finally - you say ".... a 'second Referendum' is completely undemocratic ...." - does this mean that if one occurred (which I understand you don't want) then you would regard 35 or so million people turning out to vote as 'undemocratic'?

[Janet14]

Oh if it were only that simple Bookyyummy but unfortunately it’s not.....

[Bookymummy]

T May's 'Deal' was not Brexit. It was (and remains) a Document that would have made the UK a vassal state of the EU.

In the UK we have never held a public plebiscite where the outcome has not been implemented before re-running the vote. Anything other than this is an abomination, a travesty of Democracy, and an insult to every single person who voted in the original Referendum. And of course, we still do not get an answer to what happens if we get the 'wrong' answer in a second Referendum?

[Janet14]

It’s not a matter of a ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ result, it’s a matter of an informed decision and an uninformed decision. We now have all the facts, if it’s still the ‘will of the people’ then we will get the same result and so be it, at least we then know it is definitely the will of the now informed people. There is absolutely nothing undemocratic about letting people vote again and what I don’t understand is if Brexiteers are so sure it was the ‘right’ decision as they say then surely they believe we would get the same result again but we can then at least know it was based on the facts. God forbid we lived in a world where we could never ever change our mind, do you apply that to all your decisions? If someone recommended you had an operation, you agreed to it and signed paperwork should you be allowed to change your mind if you later found out it was a really bad idea?!

[juliantenniscoach]

If a second referendum, to vote on what exactly is on offer, is undemocratic, why do we have elections?  

[Janet14]

Indeed, we’re allowed those every four years! The only conclusion you can come to with all the opposition to a second referendum by Brexiteers is they think it might not have the same result so therefore they are also thinking that maybe now we know all the facts people don’t think it’s such a good idea after all and I’m fact it is no longer the ‘will of the people’....if it is however the same result then i’m pretty sure most remainers would finally accept it and we could finally crack on.....

[GuyD73]

Well let’s see shall we. The central premise of the EU ref was that there was all this extra money we give to the EU which we could spend on public services in the UK, in short there would be MORE money. But sadly that just the first lie. Our membership of the single market is worth many many times our net contribution to the EU, so there will be considerably LESS MONEY.

 The central premise of the leave campaign was a blatant lie, and one that was only properly debunked by Treasury forecasts of 2017 which showed us all the truth – info we didn’t have in 2016 I might add.

 When you add to that that Vote leave were found guilty of breaking the law multiple times, and dropped their appeal, effectively admitting guilt, and the govt’s own QC’s admission that had the referendum been binding, it would have been ruled null and void by the cheating, then it doesn’t look remotely legitimate does it?

 So Booky Mummy, nice of you to pollute this forum with your pathetic insults of calling me a ‘psychotic loser who uses this forum as a mental health therapy session’, managing to be deeply unpleasant while ridiculing people with mental health issues – what a nice lady you must be. Hopefully admin will be having a word.

 So I agree with Janet, many more facts are known now and a second referendum would need to be on an achievable deal rather than the totally undeliverable endless list of unicorns that was presented first time. Leavers are simply terrified of another vote because they know it is unlike to go their way. Let’s hope we get one, vote tactically everyone! And if you’re a Labour supporter, please put pressure on your MP to force Labour leadership into a Remain alliance and stand down in certain constituencies, reciprocated by the Lib dems in others.


Good news, the Lib dems have just got the ball rolling in a Welsh seat, Bravo!  

https://nation.cymru/news/plaid-cymru-a ... at-cairns/

[Bookymummy]

Why would Leavers have any 'fear' as you call it of a second Referendum? The precedent would have been set for them to refuse to accept the result and demand a re-run as everyone didn't 'understand the issues'; 'didn't know what they voted for'; and had 'changed their minds'. Or are you not allowed to change your mind if you vote Remain?

Aside from all the hysteria, NO-ONE on this forum has answered my question as to why this plebiscite would be the ONLY one in our history where the result would not be implemented before a re-run of the vote. If we get a Jeremy Corbyn government (as if, lol!) can Tories refuse to let him take power until we've had a second 'confirmatory' vote? If not, WHY NOT?

Hysterical, psychotic ranting is the default position for Remainiacs, who are people who CANNOT accept the Democratic process and other people's right to express themselves through the ballot box. I was singling out no-one in particular, but, hey, feel free....!

[chorister]

And one person hasn’t answered the question as to why 35 million people turning out to vote in a second referendum would not be democratic. After all if they thought it was a dangerous precedent etc they could stay at home.

Sit quietly with a drink and channel David Davis ... “if a democracy cannot change its mind, it’s not a democracy”.