XraySonoCol

@snacks My email has struck a chord and I've had a response today. My local Labour parliamentary candidate wants to chat with me. I'll see what they have to say and report back.

@ThePyroPython My email has struck a chord and I've had a response today. My local Labour parliamentary candidate wants to chat with me. I'll see what they have to say and report back.

@C4d Oh absolutely and I'm not alone.
FPTP doesn't allow for nuance, and I agree the subtlety of which you speak is lost, but that's not the entire point, the points aren't just the vote, it's Labour's knowledge of opinions of the party that also matters, whether mine or a grassroots collective.
Labour do not have to know my intention, only my statement. They can either calculate I'm serious or bluffing. If nothing else the exchanges here will encourage introspection in others. That's of worth.

@C4d I'll also be voting and I'll flog the hobby-horse again for the benefit of others, because I'm tiring of people failing to see that the threat to not vote Labour and the intention to vote tactically are separate. A bluff as you accurately put it.

@C4d
It's a very recent development over this weekend and so far I'm contacting opposition parties, my union and seeking out activists as well.
I've emailed regional Labour party and also included my local LibDems, Greens parties, as well as Labour, Green and LibDem metro councillors.

I agree and recognise how FPTP doesn't work fairly and yes they can call my bluff. I'm uncertain as to whether they can effectively predict how accurate voting intention polls are. Labour keep shifting right.

@rayquetzalcoatl We are a monolith

@C4d Like I've said elsewhere, it's a threat of a lost vote, that doesn't mean I won't vote tactically at GE. They can gamble that I and others will hold to our threat in their strategy if they wish. Just as they can if they assume that all polls assume a majority acceptance of policies, which is short-sighted IMO.
They've been told they're not good enough and have a threat of a lost vote because of it.
Agreed, PR is better, Starmer has U-turned on that as well though.

@noodle Skim, CTRL-F, then re-read, it's been quite some time now and it's still inadequate.

@Garfvynneve What I tell them I'm planning to do doesn't have to match with what I'll actually do.
We all can do this to demand better.

@C4d Only if people fail to see that there are multiple narratives, which include telling Labour I require they change under threat of no vote. They like others know not of my intention, the cost to them is clear, a lost vote, which is what they require. They earn my vote, they work for it. Hopefully ppl who are dissatisfied will see that another way exists and instead demand better, not to succumb to their own apathetic thought processes.

@noodle As I said I've read it, via a different method to you, but thanks for sharing it.
Now other readers will be aware of a strategy. Not all strategies work so people may have to try more than one. In any case it's an inadequate article.

@Fedegenerate I didn't say I won't vote for them, I just told them they had lost my vote.
Staying silent and voting for a not good enough Labour let's them think they are. Telling them I won't even though I might vote for them, and describing why, gives them an opportunity to evaluate.
If they're not good enough for you and yours what are you doing to change that? My strategy is one way. There are others.