Do you know what's Best for Britain?

[Dr Rock]

bring back blakes 7

[Sebastian Cobb]

The original series of V seems to be where we are right now.

[NoSleep]

A bit of a ruck has developed in the People's Vote campaign group; focussed around this Best For Britain website's "tactical"* voting advice. The Guardian, here disingenuously mentioning Best For Britain as if they are presenting the most effective advice for voters ("the main tactical voting site currently operating, run by the Best for Britain campaign") compared to other tactical voting sites:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/03/civil-war-in-peoples-vote-puts-at-risk-tactical-voting-for-referendum

Cunts

*get the Tories back in power

[Ferris]

I don't know why someone hasn't thought of this before, it's a genius piece of shithousery: always suggest voting for one party regardless. It's advisory so I doubt they're breaking any rules, and their argument can be "well, every vote counts so no such thing as a lost cause, and we think you should always vote for Party XYZ".

It'll spread like wildfire among the quasi-informed Emma Kennedy twitter set, and maybe 15% of people will figure out it's rigged after a few months. Who cares? We'll all be MPs by then!

[Paul Calf]

The logic is all in the front end.

Oh my fucking god. What a useless bunch of cunts.

[NoSleep]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-latest-tactical-voting-vince-cable-stop-brexit-boris-johnson-a9182371.html

Vince Cable suggesting a more nuanced approach there, whilst the Best For Britain people don't mention that their dumb script just defaults to LibDem in marginals even when Labour stand the better chance of toppling the Tories.

[New folder]

Pastebin dump of their code. The logic is all in the front end. It's a chain of if statements.

https://pastebin.com/rK9Tct0t

Guess what it defaults to if you're in a tory marginal.

The lack of talent in the Lib Dems runs so deep that they don't have a single person who knows what a dictionary is.

[greencalx]

Pastebin dump of their code. The logic is all in the front end. It's a chain of if statements.

Not sure that's true - seems to get the recommendations from a file on the server called NewData.json unless I missed something.

[Johnny Yesno]

Have they changed this article, as it now reports on the LibDem bias and is headlined "Tactical voting website criticised for 'bogus' advice"?

Yes, they have, the sneaky bastards. Normally, they list the changes they've made when an article has been updated. Mind you, the list would be longer than the article in this case.

[olliebean]

Just found this little nugget on the getvoting.org site: "Some candidates have been asked to sign our pledge before we can recommend them." So there you have it - they're not recommending the candidate who they believe has the outright best chance of beating the Tories; they're recommending the candidate who they believe has the best chance of beating the Tories who has also signed their mysterious pledge. It doesn't seem to say anywhere what that pledge is. But I suspect it sheds some light over why some of their recommendations seem to be be somewhat more biased in a particular direction than one might expect.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Best get the lens cleaner, these optics are covered in shit.

[holyzombiejesus]

It directed me to Labour, which was a surprise. Dunno if they've tweaked it.

[gib]

Still telling me to vote Lib Dem.

2017 here was Con 53.7, Lab 29.8, Lib 12.2.

[Dr Rock]

Still lyingly telling me to vote LibDem in Hendon, where it's neck and neck between Tory and Labour (about than a thousand votes difference last time) and LibDems are nowhere (got about a thousand votes last time).

[gib]

Just noticed there's a little graph.



Oh well that completely makes sense now i can see where they're getting their info from. I'm off to get a Swinson tattoo.

[Dr Rock]

Oh same here



in 2017 they got 3.8% of the vote. They are saying that's going to go to 27%. And 13% of those votes will come from the Tories (who got 47% vote share in 2017). Madness.

[Pinball]

Swinson will be PM, oh yes. Her panties are soaked in her wet dream, and orgasm will commence shortly, like the Queen in See. Praying for success via mutual masturbation. It is indeed the blind leading the blind.

[NoSleep]

People's Vote are sending bogus tactical advice out as well (tells me to vote LibDem even though Labour came an easy 2nd at the last election):

https://www.tactical-vote.uk

EDIT: Just tested some other areas and they are suggesting to vote Labour where it's important. Have no idea why they have got my constituency wrong (safe Tory, pro-Brexit area anyway).

[greencalx]

Tactical voting is not difficult. You remove the candidate you can't support from the list, and vote for the one who got the most votes in the last election. This is the only rational way to do it, as everyone is working off the same information.

If these websites counter common sense, they will do more harm than good. Although I suspect that is their intention.

[olliebean]

People's Vote are sending bogus tactical advice out as well (tells me to vote LibDem even though Labour came an easy 2nd at the last election):

https://www.tactical-vote.uk

EDIT: Just tested some other areas and they are suggesting to vote Labour where it's important. Have no idea why they have got my constituency wrong (safe Tory, pro-Brexit area anyway).

They're recommending Lib-Dem here as well, which seems to be the standard recommendation for this constituency despite them getting less than 7% in 2017. I think the Lib Dems have distorted the results of polls all over the place to make their chances look better. A lot of the polls recently seem to be including these "What if only these two parties had a chance of winning" questions - they ask about pairings other than Con/LD as well, but Con/LD is always in there, and that's presumably the result that finds its way onto the Lib-Dem's leaflets.

I see they've designated Finchley & Golders Green a "top target," despite it being one in which the most likely result of voting Lib-Dem is to split the anti-Con vote and increase the chances of a Conservative hold.

[gib]

They doing this shit everywhere, they only care about increasing their vote share a bit and it's going to fool plenty of busy people.

[olliebean]

Just had a look on another tactical voting site; https://www.remainunited.org/, the one set up by Gina Miller. That one recommends Lib-Dem or Labour here, on the grounds that it's too close to call - the predicted results, using the same method as the two sites that unequivocally recommended voting Lib-Dem, are Con:42%, Lab: 29%, Lib-Dem: 28%. Which looks to me like if the Lib-Dems stood down, Labour would have a decent chance of winning; and also that by targetting this seat specifically, the Lib-Dems have pretty much destroyed any chance of unseating the Tory incumbent. It's stuff like this that makes me think they are more concerned with preventing a Labour win than a Tory one.

[greencalx]

Berger, I think, said as much yesterday in an interview.

[olliebean]

Just had Berger on the doorstep; the line seems to be that the reason they won't support Labour is because Labour isn't a Remain party. Seems somewhat disingenuous when the only realistic chance of ending up with Remain is to support Labour. She absolutely ruled out a coalition with the Conservatives but didn't seem to have any answers about what will happen if neither the Conservatives nor Labour have enough support to form a government without Lib Dem support.

They're really pushing that poll that puts them ahead; talking up the fact that it's a constituency poll whereas all the others are based on national polls, and talking down the fact that it's only 400 people. I wish I'd thought to mention that it named the wrong Labour candidate.

[Dr Rock]

When it was LibDem policy to have a second referendum, did they ever say what the choices would be? Like 'May's Deal vs Remain'?

[Huxleys Babkins]

Just had Berger on the doorstep

I bet you did, you dirty etc.

[olliebean]

I bet you did, you dirty etc.

CaB, you didn't disappoint.

[olliebean]

When it was LibDem policy to have a second referendum, did they ever say what the choices would be? Like 'May's Deal vs Remain'?

"Whatever the Tories are willing to give us in exchange for another ride on their coat-tails."