One hundred ways to thwart Reform

How tactical voting could stop Nigel Farage becoming prime minister

YouGov and The Times have done more than they may have realised to show how Labour could stay in office – and the Tories return from the dead.

On November 5, the paper published details of a poll which explored voters’ willingness to vote tactically at the next election: how they would if “in your constituency the only two parties that appeared to have a chance of winning were…”

a) Reform UK and the Conservatives

b) Reform UK and Labour

c) Reform and the Liberal Democrats

d) Conservatives and Labour

e) Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats

The poll reveals something remarkable. Most supporters of all five Britain-wide parties – not just a worried minority – are willing to vote tactically. This matters. Our first-past-the-post voting system is really designed for local two-party contests. YouGov finds that, faced with a five-way choice, millions of voters are keen to make sure they don’t waste their votes on candidates with no chance of winning. A look under the bonnet of YouGov’s data shows that the impact on the next general election could be decisive.

The Times reported the overall figures fully, fairly and accurately. It said that Reform would suffer, but not by how much. The report stuck to the poll findings; it declined to take them into the world of speculative number-crunching. This post is less inhibited. It shows how YouGov’s figures could play out. Beware, this is an illustration, not a prediction.

Let us first look at YouGov’s results. The table below shows net movements. For example, consider a constituency where voters reckon the local battle is effectively Reform versus Labour. Forty-five per cent of Conservatives say they would switch to Reform, while 12 per cent would vote Labour. Their net effect, shown below, would be a 33-point boost for Reform over Labour (that is, 45 minus 12).

Here are three examples of how this might work. In each case, I have taken YouGov’s latest MRP projection for each seat, and then applied the tactical adjustments reported by their new survey. For the purpose of this exercise, I assume that the top two parties in each seat gain tactical votes from supporters of the other three parties.

Labour v Reform. Last year Labour’s Mohammad Yasin held Bedford with 45 per cent of the vote. YouGov’s MRP projects that his share would tumble to 29 per cent. Reform, with 25 per cent, would be snapping at his heels. Would he be defeated by anti-Labour tactical voting or saved by anti-Reform voters?

YouGov’s new poll suggests that, of the 15 per cent who now back the Tories, 7 would switch to Reform and 1 to Labour. Again in percentage points, Lib Dem tactical voters would divide Labour 8, Reform 2; Greens would divide 5-0 in Labour’s favour (0.3 before rounding}. So overall, Labour would gain 14 and Reform 9. Yasin’s lead would rise by five percentage points. He would hold the seat with a clear 9 point majority: 43-34 per cent.

Reform v Labour Last year Labour’s Tom Collins won Worcester with 40 per cent of the vote. YouGov’s MRP survey now has him trailing Reform by four points, 24-28 per cent. But, on YouGov’s tactical voting figures, he could expect to gain 16 points, compared with 8 for Reform. Instead of losing by four points, Collions would win by the same margin: 40-36 points.

Reform v Conservative. Lincoin Jupp held Spelthorne for the Tories last year with a majority of just 1,590 over Labour. Reform came fourth. It would seem that Lib Dem and Green supporters should pile in behind Labour at the next election. However, YouGov’s MRP figures show Reform gaining the seat, with a two-point lead (27-25 per cent) over the Tories, and Labour trailing a distant third.

The best way to prevent Reform winning Spelthorne would be for left-of-centre voters, including Labour supporters, to vote Conservative. This would allow Jupp to hold the seat with a 10 per cent majority. Spelthorne is one of the 52 seats where tactical voting for the Tories would keep Reform out – but tactical voting for Labour wouldn’t.

When we apply the various permutations of tactical voting to every English seat (YouGov did not include the Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru in their survey), we find that Reform loses 100 seats that YouGov’s MRP projected them to win. Instead, these seats go to…

So Reform sheds seats in roughly equal numbers to right- and left-of-centre. The Tories make significant gains because enough labour, Lib Dem and Green supporters are more determined to keep out Reform than to defeat the Conservatives. You may very well think, “thank goodness”. I couldn’t possibly comment.

In Wales, though the data does not include Plaid Cymru, tactical voting looks likely to cost Reform Brecon, Radnor & Cym Tawe (to the Lib Dems) and Caerphilly (to PC). That brings the total of Reform’s tactical losses to 102.

Scotland is much harder to judge, without data on the extent to which SNP would gain or lose tactical votes from or to other parties. I have not assumed any changes from YouGov’s MRP projections north of the border. These show SNP winning 37 seats, Labour 9, Reform and the Lib Dems 5 each, and Conservative 1.

What about all the other seats that YouGov says Reform won’t win? According to the same party-by-party tactical voting calculations, not a single seat ends up with a different winner. Labour’s majority would be higher than its MRP projection in almost all of its seats. Likewise for the Lib Dems. Of the 45 seats where YouGov projects a Conservative victory, tactical voting would mean a higher-than-MRP majority in the 33 seats where Reform is currently running second, and make too little difference to affect the result in the five where Labour is second or the seven where MRP puts the Lib Dems in second place.

If we combine all these factors, here is the overall result.

** Instead of being just 15 seats short of a majority, Reform would fall 117 seats short.

** Instead of a combined Con-Reform total of 356, and an overall majority of 62, their combined figure of 306 would mean a 16 seat lead for the left-of-centre parties. Putting together a viable coalition would be tricky, to say the least. But a Farage premiership looks unlikely.

To repeat the point I made earlier: this is an illustration, not a prediction. Here are four reasons why the figures on election night will be different.

1. YouGov’s seat-by-seat MRP projections will not be exactly right.

2. The overall national vote shares will be different by the time of the next election

3. YouGov’s figures for the willingness of the supporters of different parties to vote tactically will vary from their current figures, a) nationally and b) seat-by-seat.

4. In some constituencies it will not be obvious which are the top two parties. Effective tactical voting in these places is less likely.

The point of this exercise, then, is not to play Mystic Meg. It is to explore a) the potential for tactical voting to influence the outcome of the next general election, and b) the likely direction in which tactical voting will move the dial. It indicates the structure of tactical voting, not the precise amount.

At present, it is clear that Reform would be the only party to suffer significantly – that is, to make fewer gains than they might hope for any given level of national support. Whether tactical voting costs Reform 100 seats, or more, or fewer, the number could well be substantial. And, just now, the Tories could benefit at least as much as Labour from anti-Reform tactical voting.

It follows that tactical voting could play a vital role in keeping Farage out of Downing Street. Last year, such voting helped both Labour and the Lib Dems defeat the Tories in seats around Britain. Websites and social media helped to make it happen.

Next time, the rise of Reform will muddy the waters, as the example of Spelthorne shows. As a general rule, unless Farage’s party slumps back nationally, the best anti-Reform tactical voting advice in seats currently held by a Tory MP will be to vote for their re-election. Any that lose are far more likely to be replaced by the Reform candidate than by any other. Elsewhere, very few Tories will be the best tactical choice for stopping Farage.

The wider point is that for tactical voting to have the maximum effect, advice to voters will need to be carefully judged. Sometimes it will be counter intuitive. Moreover, this is one time when, against the conventional wisdom of economists, competition could do more harm than good. The more that different tactical voting websites agree their advice for each seat, the better the chances of thwarting Reform.