Why tactical voting will not stop Reform at the next general election
The latest craze on the British left is the idea that “tactical voting” can save the country come the next general election. I say “latest” mostly in jest - this idea constantly turns up every few years, like a really poor service bus. And just like every other time it’s been , it will not work the way the left think it will.
What set it off this time was the Caerphilly by-election, where Reform were thought to be cruising for victory, when Plaid stormed in and won it handily instead. “Tactical voting saved us from Reform” said many pundits in the aftermath, and the British left have lapped that idea up. Sounds so simple - if everyone just votes for the best party to beat Reform, then they can be stopped, whatever their polling advantage nationwide.
Part of the theory here is based on the idea that Labour won in 2024 largely through tactical voting. Except when you actually look at the psephological data, it turns out to be nonsense. I will explain.
First, let’s take seats that Labour won off the Tories. Now, I haven’t poured through every single seat in the country, so there probably is some seat somewhere that you can point to and say tactical voting seems to have made some sort of difference. Yet I’ve looked through a lot of Labour to Tory seats at the last election and it is difficult to detect this in any of them I’ve examined. In most of the Red Wall seats, the Lib Dem and Green votes have been pretty marginal anyhow of the last decade, so there was very little for Labour to squeeze. Mostly it seems, people who voted Tory last time voted Labour this time in the majority of cases. So, not tactical voting, just voting.
There are in fact scores of examples of seats where the incumbent Tory hung on by dint of the fact that the tactical voting was pretty much non-existent, meaning Labour and the Lib Dems got in each other’s way and let the Conservative candidate squeak through. The most notable of these is probably Fareham and Waterlooville, where Suella Braverman managed to keep this seat with a mere 35% of the vote because the Labour candidate took 23% of it and the Lib Dem 19%. If tactical voting had been a success at the last election, Braverman should have lose her seat for certain.
As for the Lib Dems getting 72 seats and this being the work of tactical voting, the case for that is even weaker. I’ve been through all 72 and cannot see a definitive example of tactical voting at play. In fact, I see a lot of cases positively against tactical voting having been a factor in the Lib Dems picking up loads of seats at the last election. The main factor they did well - which it always is when the Lib Dems make large gains - is that the Tory vote crashed.
Let’s take two seats to illustrate. First, Bicester and Woodstock, won by Lib Dem candidate (and now MP) Callum Miller. Now, this was a redrawn seat, but notionally, this would have been a very safe Tory constituency if it had been contested in 2019. How did the Lib Dems win it? Was it tactical voting? No, it wasn’t. The Labour vote in the area was almost eerily steady comparing it to 2019, so difficult to see any transfer from Labour to Lib Dems. The Green vote actually went up since 2019, so nothing there to cling to. No, the Tory vote was eaten from the right by Reform (who got over 5,000 votes), and certainly some Tory to Lib Dem switchers. So, not Labour and Green voters voting Lib Dem to kick the Tories out then.
Next, let’s look at Cheltenham, a very different seat in terms of history. It was Lib Dem held between 1992 and 2015, when the Tories took it in the great post-coalition wipeout. In both 2017 and 2019, the Tories narrowly held onto it, scraping by the Lib Dems who went at it hard. So why did the Lib Dems win it in 2024? Tactical voting? You know where we’re going here by now. In 2019, the Greens did not even stand in this seat, but in 2024 they did and managed a respectable 3,160 votes. So, no tactical voting involved there. Labour? The Labour vote hardly changed, going down by a mere 68 votes from 2019. Again, no evidence of Labour or Green voters tactically voting for the Lib Dems.
Labour won the election so handily in 2024 mostly because the Tories did very, very, very poorly, not because people tactically voted for them. The tactical voting myth exists for the same reason on the left as the idea that a proportional voting system would mean left-wing governments forever - it’s not that the left is doing things wrong, you see, it’s that system is against them. They think they can defeat first past the post by “gaming it”, which is what tactical voting is. Except that the voters never play along. Most people just do not vote like that. They see the candidate they like and yes, who might win plays a factor of course, and then they vote. The idea that most people spend time online trying to figure out who is the best “progressive” candidate to beat the Tories or Reform or whoever is absurd. It is a Westminster bubble obsession.
Look, I would admit that tactical voting might have a shot next time out if there was any evidence that it had worked last time. Only, as far as I can see, looking at the actual data, it seems to have had virtually no effect and in fact, failed miserably in the places where it might have made the most difference, like in Braverman’s seat. Stop thinking tactical voting is going to save you from a Reform government. It will not work.
The "data" on tactical voting is of course by its nature difficult to interpret accurately due to its nature, and your article does approach it from a very "Westminster" perspective, where they clearly see tactical voting as a way to game the system in potential swing seats.
However there is another element rarely talked about by those in Westminster and the data is simply not there, so I admit what I am about to say comes from personal experience in a Labour stronghold that has never historically ever looked like being anything but Red. At the last National election and certainly at local elections too many people who were dissatisfied with Labour and really woul liked to withhold their vote or direct it to a centrist or left leaning alternative instead "tactically" chose to still vote Labour as certainly here in the North East of England for many was Ill have to vote Labour to keep Reform out who have had a huge surge of support here. Indeed our Labour MP had an increased overall share of the vote however, if the Tories had strategically stepped aside for Reform it would have been damn close.
Knowing as I do so many people who voted Labour to block Reform and feel the Labour government has failed them, many who have admitted are now saying things like "they take it fir granted" maybe if we had voted Liberal or Green or not bothered at all we'd have been stuck with a Reform for a term but maybe it would have gotten Labours attention and opened their ears, and woken them up.
Even now there is a council by-election and the majority of things being posted by Labour councillors is "anti Reform" not Pro Labour... They know on the ground the best chance is to get people to vote to block Reform not support Labour.
Tactical voting has a long history. Whether it is successful or not, people will discuss possibilities, setup websites on how best to do it, etc. Your post is a strawman argument. Did anyone seriously claim tactical voting caused the 2024 landslide? You say they did then knock that strawman down.
You seem to believe it's only the left that is clinging to this idea, but tactical voting can work for the right too. The 2019 election was fought on "getting Brexit done", and people were certainly talking about voting tactically to ensure there preferred Brexit outcome one the day. I think this helped explained the very high share of the vote the Tories got at a time when the Government was not at all popular. Labour voters voting Tory in the Red Wall was clearly tactical voting.
I don't doubt on the left will vote tactically at the next General Election to try to head off a Reform win, and Tory voters will vote for Reform candidates if they think the Tory candidate won't win. It's a gamble but it is forced on us by our undemocratic voting system.