0:00

Warm up your winter with blazing fast

0:02

internet speeds from BreezeLine. Act now and

0:04

get internet for just $19.99 per

0:06

month for two years. Switch today and you'll get

0:09

a free modem and install. Plus free Wi-Fi your

0:11

way for 360 degree whole home coverage. Wi-Fi

0:15

your way also blocks cyber threats and

0:17

protects your network. Keep all your devices

0:19

connected and secure this winter with this

0:21

special offer. Terms and conditions apply. Offer

0:24

ends March 18, 2024. Learn

0:26

more at breezeline.com The

0:33

polls are predicting a Tory wipeout and a Labour

0:36

landslide. But not a single vote has yet to

0:38

be cast. In spite of

0:40

the fact it feels like this election has been going on for 17 years.

0:43

So how do we make the most of our votes in

0:45

a broken electoral system? I'm Nish Kumar. And

0:47

I'm Coco Khan. And this is PodSafe the UK.

0:50

Today we're joined by polls to Joe

0:52

Twyman, the Electoral Reform Society's Jessica Garland

0:54

and political activist Fermi Oluwolek. But first.

0:57

You didn't care, did you? No,

0:59

I cared deeply. Then why didn't you stay? As

1:02

I said, the itinerary for these events

1:04

was set weeks ago before the general

1:07

election campaign. I participated in events both

1:09

in Portsmouth and in France. And having

1:11

fully participated in all the British events

1:13

with British veterans, I returned home before

1:15

the international leaders event. That

1:18

was a mistake and I apologise for that. That's

1:21

Rishisounak speaking to Sky News' Sam Coates,

1:23

in possibly the most painful moment of

1:25

the campaign so far. Now,

1:28

many of our listeners will have heard about

1:30

this story already, but it's really worth turning

1:32

it over. This is a catastrophe for the

1:34

Tories. So, yeah, it's been

1:37

a second disastrous week

1:39

for, I think, maybe

1:41

the worst campaign I've

1:43

ever experienced. In

1:45

2017, Theresa May went into that election

1:48

that she called with such kind of

1:50

boisterous confidence, because the polls were saying

1:52

she was going... And then she ran

1:54

such a bad campaign that she kind

1:56

of squandered all of her political

1:58

advantage and ended up... narrowly

2:00

winning the election by having to go into a kind

2:03

of confidence and supply arrangement with

2:05

the DUP to prop up her alien government.

2:07

This campaign is even worse. So just to

2:09

summarize, for people perhaps outside of the UK

2:11

or for people who've just buried their head

2:14

in the sand and are trying to not

2:16

engage with this at all, Rishi

2:19

Sunak decided to ditch the

2:21

D-Day ceremonies in Normandy last

2:23

Friday and instead pre-record an

2:25

interview with ITV News. So

2:27

he attended the British

2:29

events in the morning but then there

2:31

was a huge international celebration which was

2:34

a pretty significant deal because it's widely

2:36

assumed to be the last D-Day celebration

2:38

where there will be people who were

2:40

actually on the beaches attending. Emmanuel

2:44

Macron was there who himself

2:46

is not short of a couple of political

2:48

problems at home but he managed to make

2:50

the time. Biden was there. Sunak

2:53

left David Cameron and instead who

2:55

is, let's face it, the

2:57

ultimate substitute teacher. Keir

3:00

Starmer actually remained and there were lots of photos

3:02

of him with Vladimir Zelensky looking very much like

3:04

the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It

3:07

was a catastrophic piece of political

3:10

miscalculation. Last week we were talking

3:12

about how the problems with

3:14

Diane Abbott and Faisal Shahim were overshadowing Labour's

3:16

policy pledges basically. They couldn't really get any

3:19

other messaging out. That seems to have kind

3:21

of curtailed and in a way this is

3:23

the Tories answer to it. However we're on

3:25

D-Day 6 now. I have a feeling this

3:27

is going to roll on and get bigger

3:29

and bigger and bigger. So the reason that

3:31

he skipped the D-Day celebration was to do

3:33

an interview with ITV which is actually going

3:35

to air tonight. We're recording this on Wednesday

3:38

morning. That interview will air tonight. ITV

3:40

and the journalist Paul Brand who

3:42

gave the interview have repeatedly reminded

3:45

the public that D-Day

3:47

was the only time they were offered by

3:49

the Conservative Party to interview the Prime Minister.

3:51

So Paul Brand has got out of his way to tell

3:54

us, look we didn't even want

3:56

to do it then. Yeah yeah yeah it's

3:58

the only time we were offered by the

4:00

Conservative Party and listen if there's

4:02

one golden rule in British politics you

4:04

don't fuck with World War two. So on

4:07

Tuesday night ITV began trailing the

4:09

interview here's a taster. Hi Minister.

4:11

Good to see you. Very nice to

4:13

see you. Sorry to have kept you.

4:15

No not at all. Yeah it all

4:17

just ran over. It was incredible but

4:19

it just ran over everything. I'm sure.

4:21

So apologies for keeping you.

4:24

ITV they are absolutely

4:26

loving sticking the boot in. That's

4:29

the sound of Rishi Sunak entering the interview

4:31

room and telling the interviewer that the event

4:33

had run over. It was incredible but it

4:35

had run over. You skipped most of it

4:38

mate. There

4:41

were some other tasty morsels in the interview you

4:43

probably would have heard people talking about how Rishi

4:46

Sunak has been saying he had some sacrifices that

4:48

his family had to make when he was younger.

4:50

One of them is they didn't have Sky TV

4:52

which is obviously very rough. It is worth pointing

4:54

out that Rishi Sunak is currently richer than the

4:57

king though. Yes it's quite

4:59

an extraordinary line to not have

5:01

a prepared response to. Only

5:03

because it's probably one of the most

5:05

famous facts. I'd venture that there's our

5:09

international listenership a lot of them know that

5:11

Rishi Sunak is richer than the king of

5:13

England. It's a line that's consistently trotted out

5:15

about him in his personal wealth and it

5:17

is sort of vaguely incredible that

5:19

nobody within his campaign team has thought

5:21

we should probably have an

5:24

answer for that. Yeah. And instead he said

5:26

well we had to give some things up

5:28

we didn't have Sky TV. I didn't have

5:30

Sky TV when I was younger but nobody's

5:33

gonna paint me. No the people didn't have

5:35

Sky TV. I can't go around going the

5:37

hardship of my childhood. Truly

5:39

it was hard. That doesn't portray

5:41

you as being Oliver Twist. Well

5:44

he is out of touch I think we

5:46

can all agree on that. And anyway yeah

5:48

like we said you know this week the

5:50

Tories were attempting to sell their manifesto. Yeah.

5:53

It's not been a good week for them to get those

5:55

messages out but don't worry because if you missed it

5:57

in all the D-Day drama we're gonna be talking about

5:59

it this week. weekend we've got a massive

6:01

manifesto breakdown episode coming your way. But

6:03

for now polling data suggests

6:05

that the Tories will be facing a wipeout.

6:08

The latest poll from Sky News and YouGov

6:10

on Tuesday showed the Tories at 17%. That's

6:12

only one point ahead of

6:15

reform at 16. The Lib Dems polled

6:17

at 15%, suggesting that the parties are

6:20

now in a three-way race. What we're

6:22

potentially facing is a conservative wipeout. So

6:24

the Tories have been trying to shore

6:27

up support from defecting voters across the

6:29

week. Here's

6:38

Rishi Sunak making his case to voters

6:40

while speaking to BBC's Nick Robinson on

6:42

Monday evening. There's only going to

6:44

be one of two people who's Prime Minister,

6:46

Keir Starmer or myself. A vote for anyone

6:48

who's not a conservative candidate is just making

6:51

it more likely that Keir Starmer is that

6:53

person. Alright so what's actually going on here

6:55

is Sunak encouraging the public to vote tactically,

6:57

not necessarily voting for the candidate you want

6:59

to vote for. That is a symptom of

7:02

first past the post and to learn more

7:04

about it I had a chat with Jess

7:06

Garland from the Electoral Reform Society. So

7:09

Jess, explain it to me like

7:11

I'm five. What is first past

7:13

the post? Well it's taken

7:15

from horse racing, right? So

7:17

it's the first horse to get across

7:19

the line so it basically means that

7:21

the winner is the candidate who's got

7:24

the most votes but that only needs to

7:26

be a plurality, doesn't need to be the

7:28

majority of the votes. They can have one

7:31

more vote than the second place candidate or

7:33

they can have thousands more votes than the

7:35

second place candidates, whichever way it goes. It's

7:37

the person with the plurality that wins and of

7:39

course that means we do get a lot of

7:42

people winning on 30-35% of the

7:44

vote which

7:46

is pretty low when it comes to an

7:48

election result. No one's talking about changing

7:50

to the first past the post system

7:52

because it is so flawed in so

7:55

many ways and most countries, not just

7:57

in Europe but around the world, are

7:59

using some form of voting. proportional system.

8:01

And so because we have this

8:03

system where you can become prime minister and

8:05

your party can form the government with 30%,

8:09

35% of the votes, it's

8:11

probably not surprising that tactical voting

8:13

has emerged. If you wouldn't mind

8:16

again for our international listeners and

8:18

for me, the little five-year-old inside,

8:21

what exactly is tactical voting? Well,

8:23

tactical voting is basically defined as

8:26

someone who's going to vote for

8:28

not their first choice of candidate

8:30

or party, but another party in

8:32

order to keep out a party

8:34

or candidate that they dislike more.

8:37

So, you know, and this kind coalesce

8:39

around different sort of areas

8:42

or policies. But essentially, it's

8:44

like, you know, hold your nose voting. It's

8:46

weird when you explain tactical voting, the hold

8:48

your nose approach, because, you know, quite often,

8:51

the idealistic view would be that you vote for

8:53

the person or the party that inspires you the

8:55

most. But under that system, you vote for the

8:58

one that you hate

9:00

the least, or certainly one that

9:02

is not the one you hate the most. It

9:04

seems to be a system that requires

9:06

a villain and a bogeyman. Does that sound

9:08

right? Yeah, absolutely. If it feels

9:11

like, I think that's a really good description, it

9:13

feels like quite a negative vote, you know, you're

9:15

kind of, you're not voting with your heart, you're

9:17

trying to make a sort of strategic choice to

9:19

kind of an effect and outcome. And of course,

9:21

when you're making all those decisions, it

9:23

might not actually have the effect that you think

9:26

it's going to. And of

9:28

course, you know, whether tactical voting then actually

9:30

has an impact on results relies on so

9:32

many things going in a particular direction that,

9:34

you know, you can be going to the

9:36

polling station, not voting with your heart, voting

9:38

in a way, as you say, to hold

9:40

your nose, and still not leading to the

9:42

outcome that you want it to. So there's

9:44

a lot of risk in that approach, as

9:46

well as it being quite a negative thing

9:48

to be doing. So I mean, you know,

9:50

on this episode, we're going to be looking

9:52

at tactical voting in depth. And I just

9:55

suppose, in a nutshell, do

9:57

you think it's a good idea? Well,

10:00

I think people shouldn't feel like they have

10:02

to cast a tactical vote and it's so,

10:04

you know, easy and straightforward to make it

10:07

a non-issue by having an electoral system where

10:09

people can go and vote for exactly who

10:11

they want to and vote on the basis

10:13

of that party's policies, not on some strategic

10:16

choice. We've

10:19

got the current system we have and so

10:21

obviously it's, you know, if voters want to

10:24

make those choices, that is entirely up to

10:26

them. So it sounds like our electoral system

10:28

certainly needs reform, as you would know, but

10:31

why is it taking so long to move

10:33

this up the agenda and what is the

10:35

resistance from the mainstream parties? Well, the big

10:38

issue here is of course that, you know,

10:40

the government needs to change the system

10:42

or bring forward legislation to change the

10:44

system and our governments necessarily have just

10:46

won an election under the previous system.

10:49

So there's a bit of an inbuilt

10:51

bias, which means that even, you know,

10:53

certainly in other countries where there's been

10:55

big reform movements, even parties like promising

10:57

reform when they get into power, get

10:59

into power under that system and then sort

11:01

of start rethinking whether they're just as keen

11:04

on it as they were before. So where

11:06

you've seen change, you've seen more of a

11:08

cross-party approach to it, or sometimes you've seen

11:10

one party pick up the mantle of another

11:12

party when they get into power. But I

11:15

do think there are really strong reasons to

11:17

do so. And I think everyone

11:19

who gets into power needs to be thinking about not

11:21

what does the next four years look like, but what

11:24

does the next decade or two decades look like? Jason

11:45

Isaacs plus discover powerful new series

11:48

like Three Little Birds and the

11:50

return of BAFTA winning drama Time

11:52

starring Belo Ramsey, Tamara Lawrence and

11:55

Jodie Whitaker. Stream the best of

11:57

British TV only on BritBox. a

12:00

free trial at britbox.com. Joining

12:11

us in the studio now is the

12:13

writer and activist Femi Oluwole and Joe

12:15

Twyman, co-founder and director of Delta Pole.

12:17

Welcome Femi and Joe. Joe,

12:19

you're really kissing up to our parent

12:21

company by wearing a crooked media t-shirt

12:23

on the podcast. Yes, this was a

12:25

gift from an American admirer. I'm

12:28

a big fan of their podcast.

12:32

Wow, somehow it's managed to be both a

12:34

kiss-ass and a dick from Joe. Joe

12:37

is wearing a friend of the pod t-shirt for the benefit of

12:40

everyone listening. But crucially, not our pod. I'm

12:44

completely neutral. I'd like to make that

12:46

clear from the outset. I have no

12:49

strong opinions either way. Yeah, that's fine.

12:51

You're allowed to be partial about US

12:53

politics. Yeah, well, I don't necessarily think

12:55

that's true. Femi,

12:58

you've had a busy couple of years since 2016. How

13:02

involved are you and what sort of

13:04

form is your campaigning taking in this

13:06

election? Right now we're really focusing on

13:09

A, getting out the votes and B,

13:12

the discussion around tactical voting, which is

13:14

a massive discussion, especially among

13:16

Gen Z on TikTok, because a

13:19

lot of people are disillusioned with labor. They've seen

13:21

the direction that it's gone and aren't happy. But

13:23

at the same time, after 14, 15 years, the

13:25

Tories, you've got to get them out. And so

13:27

there's a huge battle going on there. So I'm

13:29

just trying to keep the peace. Well, this is

13:31

a perfect segue into what we're talking about today.

13:33

This is perfect. Yeah, we want

13:35

to discuss this idea of tactical voting.

13:38

I mean, instinctively, Femi, just taking out

13:40

the context of it, just instinctively on

13:42

a personal level, how do you feel

13:44

about tactical voting? Tactical

13:46

voting is a sign that our democracy isn't working

13:48

because you shouldn't have to vote tactically. The only

13:50

reason why you have to vote tactically is because our

13:53

voting system is broken. If

13:55

in your town, let's say 30% vote Labour, 30%

13:57

vote Green and 40%. percent

14:00

vote Tory, then even though 60% of

14:02

the people in your town want, generally

14:04

speaking, progressive, left-leaning policies, you'll have a

14:07

Tory MP. So the 60% of votes

14:09

won't have any effect. If, however, the

14:11

people in that constituency all tactically vote

14:13

for the same party, the 60%, then

14:16

they can oust the Tory, that sort of thing.

14:18

That shouldn't happen. We should have a situation where

14:20

if one party gets 30% of the votes, they

14:22

get 30% of the seats. But

14:24

unfortunately, we have a first pass the post system,

14:27

which doesn't allow that. Joe, as

14:29

opposed to looking at the numbers, how

14:31

does tactical voting stack up with reality?

14:33

I mean, does it actually work? Well,

14:37

it depends what I mean by work. Does

14:39

it change the overall result of an

14:42

election? That's really difficult to test. If

14:45

you go back to 2017, when

14:48

it was really close between the Conservatives

14:51

getting a small majority and ending up

14:53

with the minority that they can see.

14:56

Actually, when you look at it, the

14:58

number of votes that needed to change

15:00

hands was fewer than 100. And

15:03

if that happened among the right people

15:06

in the right constituency, that's the difference

15:08

between a Conservative majority and a Conservative

15:10

minority. So it can make an impact.

15:13

But generally speaking, it tends to

15:15

be talked up a lot more

15:17

than actually warrants, given that when

15:19

you look at the data, as

15:21

we do, the potential for impact

15:23

is there. But the reality is

15:25

something different. OK, let's hear some

15:28

voices on both sides of the

15:30

argument around tactical voting. So first

15:32

up, the longtime proponent for tactical

15:34

voting, Carol Vorderman, talking to Politics

15:36

Joe. My mission is

15:38

to absolutely eviscerate them, not just

15:41

that they lose, but that they

15:43

can't even form the opposition. This

15:46

is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

15:48

And tactical voting is the

15:51

methodology with

15:53

which we can deliver the absolute

15:55

swipe, wipe them away, because

15:57

that's what they deserve. Okay,

16:00

so Joe, obviously you're a neutral person.

16:03

Your t-shirts have their own mind

16:05

of their own electorally. But is

16:08

Carol right? And is this, you know, because listeners

16:10

to this show will, and

16:13

have had various questions about what the best way

16:15

is to remove the Tory government, is Carol Vorderman

16:17

correct? Also, just follow up and say, she says

16:19

this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I

16:21

thought tactical voting has been going on for

16:24

decades. Well, it's certainly been a once in

16:26

a lifetime opportunity. If you've never voted in

16:28

an election and you intend to die before

16:30

the next one, which may not be completely

16:32

outside the realm of possibility, but every

16:35

election is that once in a lifetime

16:37

opportunity. The reality is somewhat different. We

16:39

ask people how interested they are in

16:42

tactical voting, but we also ask them

16:44

if tactical voting will play into their

16:46

decision to vote. Around about 13% of

16:49

respondents, so fewer than one in

16:51

seven, said they

16:53

are explicitly intending to vote

16:55

tactically. And then you have a further 11% to

16:58

just over one in 10, who say they prefer

17:00

another party, but it stands no chance of winning

17:02

in their constituency. So in

17:05

other words, tactical voting by another name.

17:07

So you have roughly a quarter of

17:09

people who are open to the potential

17:11

of tactical voting. But that's only one

17:14

element of it, because in order to

17:16

vote tactically, you then need information about

17:18

your constituency in order to come to

17:20

the quote unquote right conclusion about who

17:23

to vote for tactically. And

17:25

back in October, on the

17:27

old constituencies, we ran a

17:29

study asking respondents about the

17:31

knowledge they had of their constituency.

17:33

And only 3% of

17:36

the people we spoke to in a

17:38

nationally representative survey can say who came

17:40

first, who came second, and the margin

17:42

of victory. In other words, those three

17:44

things that you need for making an

17:47

informed choice. And that was before the

17:49

boundaries changed. And so now it's very

17:52

different. And so if people

17:54

are going in not informed, then tactical

17:56

voting is going to be largely neutralized

17:58

again. I remember reading about who votes

18:00

tactically and as I understand it, it

18:02

tends to be older voters and it

18:05

tends to be wealthier voters and it

18:07

tends to be people who are university

18:09

graduates. And that made me wonder. But

18:11

they're the people who say they vote

18:13

tactically. Right, I think. But there is

18:15

a question about whether on this basis,

18:17

whether they're actually voting tactically or whether

18:19

they just believe they're voting tactically. Right,

18:21

I see. It's one of those nuances

18:24

of public opinion research. So Femi, is

18:26

that the challenge then for groups that

18:28

are trying to encourage people to vote

18:30

tactically, is that you've got to close

18:32

that knowledge gap. Exactly. That's what moving

18:34

forward is trying to do. They've got

18:36

thousands of people signed up to the

18:38

local elections last year. Carl Vorderman spearheaded

18:40

that. So that's where we're looking to go.

18:42

As far as it being a once

18:44

in a lifetime thing, the confluence of

18:46

events on this one is A, you've

18:49

got the opportunity to never have to

18:51

vote tactically again. Why? Because the majority

18:53

of the country is clearly in favor

18:56

of changing the voting system to one

18:58

where all votes count equally. The Labour

19:00

Party's membership has voted explicitly for changing

19:03

it from person as opposed to PR.

19:06

Now the leadership is the problem. But if

19:08

Labour gets in and we manage to work

19:10

with Labour members to get the leadership to

19:12

change things, then this is the last time we'll

19:14

ever have to vote tactically. So that's one element

19:16

that's once in a lifetime. There's also the fact

19:18

that the Tories are polling solo, that we have

19:21

a chance to potentially push them into third

19:23

position, which is what the movement forward

19:25

is trying to push for. Because if we

19:28

end up in a situation where the actual

19:30

party of opposition is the Lib Dems, that

19:32

changes the landscape significantly rather than the Kia

19:35

Starmer answering to either Rishi Sunak,

19:38

Swela Braverman or Nigel Farage. He'd

19:41

be answering to Rishi Sunak from California. Can

19:43

I come in on the public support for

19:46

this? You can test things in various

19:48

different ways. You can test absolute support for

19:51

tactical voting and indeed for electoral

19:53

reform. And you find that actually

19:55

the picture is mixed on that.

19:57

And also, it's

20:00

simply very low down people's lists of

20:02

priorities and things can be done to

20:05

change that. But my suspicion is that

20:07

we won't see things change next time

20:09

around unless it's driven by the lib

20:12

dems in some form of coalition agreement.

20:14

I can't see it. I can't see

20:17

a situation where a party that has won

20:19

on the current system, particularly as large as

20:21

Labour, may win on current polling. I don't

20:23

see that how that then translates into them

20:25

saying, oh yeah, actually. But that's always the

20:27

problem. No, exactly. And so the only time

20:29

in recent memory, of course, where we have

20:31

had this was when we had the coalition

20:33

agreement with the libdems and that led to

20:35

a referendum, which was then soundly

20:38

defeated. But it was defeated

20:40

on the basis of AV. There were lots of

20:42

good reasons. So proportional representation has never actually been

20:44

put to the people. We've never had a chance

20:46

to have equal votes about counting equal. I completely

20:48

agree, but I don't imagine, particularly in the political

20:51

context, that it would have to take place. I

20:53

don't imagine that if there were a vote next

20:55

time around, and as far

20:57

as it's being mixed, if you look

20:59

at you, the polling consistently shows PR

21:02

something like 45,

21:04

48 percent and first pass the post like 20, 22 percent. So

21:09

PR would win ironically on a first pass the post.

21:13

Okay, so let's listen to Owen

21:16

Jones. He's on Channel 5's Storm

21:18

Huntley program, arguing against tactical voting.

21:21

I'm a lifelong Labour voter, but I'm voting for the

21:23

Green Party for this general election for the first time

21:26

in my life. The Tories are toast. There's

21:29

no chance of the Tories winning. There's going to be

21:31

a landslide victory. Spoiler, there's going to be a landslide

21:33

victory for the Labour Party come what may. So people

21:35

can vote according to their conscience in

21:37

this election. I think if you vote for

21:39

the Green Party, then you send a message

21:41

to Labour. So Femi, how do you respond

21:43

to that? Because I mean, you've yourself said

21:45

already so far that you have some frustrations

21:48

with the Labour leadership. Isn't there an argument

21:50

if we're looking at a

21:52

thumping Labour majority that this is the time to

21:55

at least send a message to the Labour Party

21:57

as well? What Owen Jones was saying about this

21:59

is an election. vote with your conscience, not necessarily

22:01

to vote tactically. Also, yeah, so with the group,

22:03

the movement forward, then stop the Tories vote, the

22:05

idea is not to try and get a huge

22:07

thumping Labour majority, the idea is to keep the

22:09

Tories out and ideally push the Tories down into

22:11

third position. So there are many seats, at least

22:14

over a hundred seats so far that we've counted,

22:16

where you don't, they're not actually giving advice on

22:18

which party to vote for, they're saying vote with

22:20

your heart. They're saying vote for whichever party you

22:22

actually like. So they're saying here are the places

22:24

where you don't need to vote tactically as well.

22:27

But in the areas where it is going to

22:29

be a fine line between Labour and the Tories,

22:32

the Lib Dems and the Tories, those are the

22:34

seats where they're giving recommendations and saying vote Lib

22:36

Dem here, vote Labour here, vote Green here. Joe,

22:39

how realistic is this conversation about

22:41

the Conservatives possibly being pushed into

22:43

third place? Don't threaten me

22:45

with a good time. But I

22:48

can't conceive of it. Surely this is, I

22:50

mean, because the threat to

22:52

the Conservatives posed by the Reform Party,

22:54

surely that's too diffused nationally in terms

22:56

of the Reform vote to actually have

22:58

an impact on the Tories final seat

23:01

count? Yeah, I mean, second place

23:03

can mean different things. In 1983, the Lib Dem,

23:06

the SDP Liberal Alliance

23:08

ran the Labour Party

23:10

very close to

23:12

in terms of share of the vote,

23:14

and yet completely different in terms of

23:16

share of the seats. Okay, that's really

23:18

important. Let's just

23:20

walk people through that, because we

23:23

obviously have some younger listeners to the podcast

23:25

who will not be as familiar with Shirley

23:27

Williams and the leading figures of the SDP.

23:33

Some of us are, but just walk people through

23:35

that. So there was a period in, so for

23:37

the 1983 election, a new political

23:39

party had been formed that was sort of a

23:42

breakaway group from bits of the, I guess, what

23:44

you would call the moderate wing of the Labour

23:47

Party, which at the time was being led

23:49

by Michael Furt. And in the 1983 election,

23:51

they stood as a third party.

23:56

And they nationally, you're

23:58

saying that they ran the Labour Party close in

24:00

terms of how many votes they actually got? That's

24:03

right. Basically, a

24:06

fringe group within the Labour Party broke

24:08

off, formed the Social Democratic Party, which

24:10

actually still exists, but is very

24:13

different nowadays. And they

24:15

joined up in a pact with the Liberals

24:18

in the 1983 election. And

24:20

so ran against Michael

24:23

Footes, Labour Party and Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives.

24:25

The Conservative Party go on to win

24:27

42% of the vote and

24:31

397 seats, so

24:33

a whopping majority for

24:35

Margaret Thatcher. The

24:37

SDP Liberal Alliance wins 25.4%

24:42

of the vote and Labour win 27.6%, so

24:45

really close between the two in terms of share

24:48

of the vote. And yet

24:50

in terms of seats, well,

24:53

the Labour Party won 209 and the SDP

24:55

Liberal Alliance won 23. So

25:00

a huge difference there. And I imagine

25:02

that if reform, and it isn't if,

25:05

if reform do run the Conservatives close

25:07

in terms of share of the vote,

25:10

it will be similarly a huge

25:12

gap in terms of the number of seats.

25:14

The Conservatives worst performance, up until now at

25:17

least, was in 1997. They

25:19

still won 165 seats

25:22

then, 94 of which at the time

25:24

had not changed hands since the Second World War.

25:27

And so it's difficult to

25:29

see how they can go significantly

25:31

lower to lower than that. And

25:33

at the same time, reform, pick

25:36

up large numbers of seats across the

25:38

country in order to overtake them in

25:41

terms of seats. Because whenever we have a

25:43

conversation about tactical voting, and perhaps this is

25:46

just revealing my own echo chamber, but it

25:48

seems to be a conversation that happens amongst

25:50

progressives, doesn't seem to be happening amongst right

25:53

people on the right side of the

25:56

spectrum. Do you see that changing?

25:58

It's already changed. Nigel Farage. and

26:00

Richard Tice at every opportunity of

26:03

banging on about electoral reform. And

26:05

I imagine that if

26:07

Labour do go on to

26:09

win a big majority, then

26:12

that post-conservative government world and

26:14

post-government Conservative Party will

26:17

have to have some sort of informal

26:20

or even formal discussions with

26:22

reform. And what Tice

26:24

and Farage are hoping is that

26:26

the inequality, the such

26:28

obvious inequality that they expect

26:31

to occur as a result

26:33

of the current voting system,

26:35

will mean that the desire

26:37

for electoral reform becomes so

26:39

strong, not just from the

26:41

traditional home on the left, but also

26:44

in the new right, that the momentum

26:46

snowballs and it becomes an inevitability. As

26:48

I say, I don't think that's actually

26:51

the most likely outcome, but that is certainly the

26:53

play that Farage and Tice are making at the

26:55

moment. So, Femi, say what you will about Nigel

26:57

Farage. He's good at forcing referendums. Does

27:00

that give you some weird hope that you

27:02

might, from an unlikely source, receive the

27:04

support that British politics needs to build

27:07

a critical mass to have that conversation?

27:09

Yeah, I do expect that because I

27:11

mean, there's one election where Labour actually

27:13

got fewer votes than the Tories, but

27:15

still actually became the government of the

27:17

time. So we have such an unfair

27:19

system. So there are cases where proportional

27:21

representation would actually favor the right. However,

27:23

in every single election, apart from 1955,

27:26

1959 and 2015, the majority of votes

27:28

have gone

27:32

to Labour, Lib Dems, S&P and the Greens.

27:34

So parties that are generally speaking to the

27:36

left of the Tories, that's who we generally

27:38

are. So if we did have a proportional

27:41

voting system, then yes, Nigel

27:43

Farage, UKIP, Brexit party, reform party, whatever they

27:45

want to call themselves, would get some seats

27:47

in parliament. But the progressive majority, if things

27:49

stay as they are, would be there, especially

27:51

with Gen Z coming on onto the voter

27:53

base. I would also argue that it's also

27:55

easier to challenge them in parliament than it

27:57

is to challenge them on back alley Facebook

27:59

group. So I'm actually okay with the idea

28:01

of them getting seats in parliament. Fermi,

28:04

I do want to just ask you just

28:06

about, uh, just emotionally, do

28:09

you not feel concerned that tactical voting

28:11

is just going to deepen people's dis-effectation

28:13

with the voting system? We already have

28:15

low voter turnout, partly because people feel

28:18

like their votes don't matter. And then

28:20

in tactical voting, that is writ large.

28:22

And actually you have a small percentage

28:25

of people somewhere between whatever,

28:27

5% or 10%, whatever it might

28:29

be that can, can swing it

28:31

even more. Isn't this deepening our

28:34

problems with democracy? Yeah. So that's, that's why

28:36

I keep saying that people say the argument between

28:38

vote with your heart versus

28:40

vote tactically is pointless unless you're saying

28:43

two wrongs make a right, Fermi. Neither

28:45

side is right unless they say, and this

28:47

is what we're going to do afterwards, because

28:49

it's all about what happens after the election.

28:51

If we consider that a labor majority is

28:54

inevitable, then the question isn't how am I

28:56

going to vote green? Am I going to

28:58

vote labor? The question is afterwards, am I

29:00

going to be doing absolutely everything in my

29:02

power to make sure that we end this

29:04

first pass the post voting system? Am I

29:06

joining make votes matter? Am I, um, which

29:08

is the movement for a fair democracy? Am

29:10

I signed up as a tactical voter? Am

29:12

I working within the labor party to push

29:14

for PR? Am I protesting in a way

29:16

that makes it impossible for the government to function

29:18

unless they give us a fair democracy? Unless you're

29:20

doing those things saying, Oh, I'm not voting labor,

29:23

or I am voting labor is irrelevant. So

29:25

another argument for voting with your heart, uh,

29:29

I would say comes from largely the

29:31

green party, because if a party doesn't receive 5% of the vote

29:33

in the electorate, they lose the

29:35

500 pound deposit that candidates have to

29:38

put up to run in the election.

29:40

And overwhelmingly that

29:42

hits the greens hardest in the 2019 election.

29:46

The green party was far and away the biggest loser of

29:48

deposits, losing a total of 232,500 pounds, whilst labor in the

29:50

Tories only lost 6,000 pounds and 2,000 pounds,

29:57

respectively. I mean, it's.

30:00

it's the Greens that come off worst

30:03

from tactical voting, seemingly, Joe, is that

30:05

right? Well, I

30:07

mean, it depends on how you characterise it,

30:09

but yes, given that the Greens are very,

30:11

very unlikely to win in all but maybe

30:13

two or three constituencies at best, then

30:15

yes, you could, if you were so inclined,

30:17

characterise a vote for the Greens in any

30:20

other constituencies as a wasted vote.

30:23

And so therefore the tactical solution

30:25

is to vote for the party

30:27

that you think will achieve

30:29

what you want in that constituency and that will

30:31

hurt the Greens. But at the same time, if

30:33

you remove the deposit limit, then you

30:36

have issues with all sorts

30:38

of people entering. In

30:46

December of 2014, Judge Loya died

30:48

at a wedding in Nagpur, India of

30:50

a heart attack and at the time,

30:52

his passing barely made the news. But

30:55

when his niece approached a journalist two

30:57

years later, she shared a different narrative

30:59

that the circumstances around Judge Bridgegopal Loya's

31:02

death have made his family doubt the

31:04

official story. Killing Justice, hosted

31:06

by CEO of the branch Ravi

31:08

Gupta, follows the reporting and the

31:11

legal fallout from this tip. He

31:13

examines the conflicting evidence to answer

31:15

how one man's death became a

31:17

magnet for the increasingly polarised politics

31:19

in India and what this means

31:21

for the future of the world's

31:23

largest democracy. Listen to the first

31:25

four episodes of Killing Justice on

31:27

Spotify or Apple for ad-free episodes.

31:29

Join the Friends of the Pod

31:32

community at crooked.com/friends. Who

31:39

is Narendra Modi, really? He acted quite

31:42

a bit in school plays and school

31:44

functions, but he always wanted the lead

31:46

role. Under Modi, the economy has doubled

31:48

in size. He has every quality yet

31:50

to make the image of the country

31:52

bigger. But there's a second part to

31:54

Modi's vision for India. He's

31:56

the front man for a chauvinistic

31:58

Hindu nationalist. The Modi's aren't supposed to

32:01

know what. Muslims were just scared

32:03

of what this man will do. The

32:05

Modi Raj. Search Economist Podcasts to

32:07

start listening today. If a friend asks

32:10

how you're doing and you say, I'm

32:12

okay. When the truth is, I

32:15

don't want my problems to burden anyone. Or

32:18

you say, Hang it in there.

32:20

Because, If I ask for help, they'll

32:23

just think I'm weak. Then

32:25

this is your sign to call,

32:27

text or chat. 988

32:30

for free, confidential support. Any

32:33

time. You don't have to

32:35

hide how you feel. One

32:46

of the things that people say is good about First

32:48

Past the Post is it enables Commons,

32:51

the house parties to get things done. Like

32:53

the coalitions were all just going to be arguing and

32:55

everything called get stalemate. I mean, what do you think

32:58

about that? Is that? So it's important to remember that

33:01

in Europe, there is only one other country

33:03

that uses First Past the Post, even partially

33:05

in that speller roots, which is often referred

33:07

to as Europe's Latin dictatorship. So we're not

33:09

in great company there. As far as the

33:12

idea of getting things done, the idea is

33:14

saying that we want a situation where a

33:17

party that only minority people voted for can

33:19

do whatever they want, to hell with the

33:22

views of the parties on the other parties,

33:25

and the majority of people voted for those parties. And

33:27

if you want a party that only minorities support, to

33:29

be able to do whatever they want, that's

33:31

not democracy. That's the other thing.

33:33

I'm not here to defend one

33:35

political system or political party. You're

33:38

systemically neutral as well as politically

33:40

neutral. To my very core or

33:42

other parts of my body. I've

33:45

got a Samsung and an iPhone. Exactly.

33:49

So I'm not here to defend

33:51

one political system over another, I'm not here

33:53

to defend one political party over another. But

33:56

what I will say is that one of the arguments for First Past the

33:58

Post is that it helps to some extent. then

34:00

keep extreme parties out. And

34:02

that if you have a

34:05

even with a threshold in there, there

34:08

can be enough support nationwide for

34:11

particularly sectarian parties, parties

34:13

from political, a particular religious

34:15

group or with a

34:18

particular single bin faces taking a

34:20

seat. Count bin faces. And all

34:22

of this could be damaging for

34:25

the health of the democracy. So

34:27

there are arguments for and against which I'm sure some

34:30

people out there would want me. Yeah, I'm sure that

34:32

yeah, I think and I think that's

34:34

a difficult situation to find yourself in

34:36

because then the counter argument to that

34:38

is, you know, the last 14 years,

34:40

we've essentially seen the Conservative Party genuflect

34:42

to the right flank, to

34:45

such an extent that, you know, they've essentially

34:47

handed Nigel Farage everything that he's wanted. Nigel

34:50

Farage has had the most influence on the

34:52

Conservative Party's direction in the last decade, particularly

34:54

without having to win a seat in it.

34:57

So there's problems with both systems. Exactly. And

34:59

there are lots and lots of conservative voters

35:01

who have seen the direction the Conservative Party

35:04

has taken. They've seen it move to the

35:06

right place that they've had to follow because

35:08

the alternative was Jeremy Corbyn and they hate

35:10

Jeremy Corbyn. So they've got to go, we've

35:13

got to keep following the Conservative Party as

35:15

it moves further to the right. That two

35:17

party system enabled extremism. Well, let's talk about

35:19

three specific seats just before we wrap up

35:22

that are solely, I'm solely

35:25

raising because it would be funny if

35:28

the incumbent MP went the highest

35:30

profile MP who seems to

35:32

be under the most threat in this

35:35

seat is Jeremy Hunt. Hunt himself

35:37

has told Bloomberg that the seat is probably going to be

35:39

won by the Conservatives by 1,500 votes or fewer. As

35:41

recently as 2015, he had a majority of 30,000, which now

35:43

feels like a lifetime

35:50

ago. Is there a possibility

35:53

that the current Chancellor of

35:55

the Exchequer could lose his seat on

35:57

election night? Yeah, I think there's certainly

35:59

a possibility.