The group has been accused of favouring the Lib Dems with its 2017 predictions.
New research has shown that, in 2017, the pro-EU campaign group Best for Britain consistently overestimated the Liberal Democrats and underestimated Labour in its tactical voting advice.
The research shows that Best for Britain recommended voting for the Liberal Democrats to stop the Tories in 35 seats where Labour ended up coming second to the Tories.
The research, compiled by tactical voting website Tactical 2017, shows this did not work both ways. In every seat where Best for Britain recommended a Labour vote, Labour ran the Tories closest.
Best for Britain’s current 2019 tactical voting recommendations have been criticised by Labour who argue they again overestimate the Liberal Democrats’ chances in several seats.
In Kensington and Cities of London and Westminster for example, Best for Britain recommend voting Liberal Democrat. Kensington is a Labour seat and Cities of London and Westminster is a Labour-Tory marginal.
In a Guardian article, Best for Britain’s CEO Naomi Smith said its recommendations were not based on “ancient data” from the 2017 election but on a polling analsysis technique called “multilevel regression and poststratification”.
Best for Britain told Left Foot Forward:
“Best for Britain helped Labour candidates get voted in all over the country in 2017. We have since updated our model to use the MRP technique which predicted the hung parliament in 2017, the Trump election, a surprise victory for Labour in Kensington and Canterbury and came within 0.6% of getting the exact result in the Peterborough by-election.”
“Our tactical voting recommendations disproportionately benefit Labour, precisely because in a number of key battlegrounds we believe Labour is best placed to prevent Johnson from getting a majority.”
Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?
Leave a Reply