Nicholas Pegg writes to Simon Jupp and posts his letter on “X”:

I have written today to my MP, @simonjamesjupp, to ask him some more questions about the developing story of the bogus web links which dishonestly used the name of Lib Dem MP @RichardFoordLD to direct voters to Mr Jupp’s campaign site. (Mr Jupp did not reply to my last letter.)

To Simon Jupp, MP

House of Commons

London SW1A OAA

Monday, 22nd April, 2024

Dear Mr Jupp,

Two weeks ago today, I wrote as your constituent to ask you some questions about the unedifying affair of the deceptive web links which used the name of Richard Foord MP, your rival in the forthcoming general election, to mislead web users and direct them instead to your own campaign website. I have not yet received a reply from you.

The day before I wrote, you had made a brief statement to the BBC, saying that you were ‘not responsible for the web domains in Mr Foord’s name,’ but offering no further detail. Eleven days later, on April 18th, it emerged that your campaign manager, Oliver Kerr, had registered the domain names in question. On the same day, you gave a further statement, in which you said: ‘The individual responsible has apologised for making an error of judgement, without my knowledge or approval, and no longer owns the website domains in question.’

Given that this falls short of being an adequate explanation of the incident, I am writing again to ask you five questions.

1. Could you please explain exactly when you became aware that the web domains had been purchased by Mr Kerr? Let’s work on the assumption that when the story first broke, it would probably have occurred to you to check with your campaign team before making your initial statement.

2. Could you please explain the reason for the 11-day silence between your statement that you were ‘not responsible’ and your second statement, which finally identified the culprit?

3. Were the purchases of the misleading web domains paid for by Mr Kerr out of his own pocket, or was he reimbursed from your campaign funds, constituency funds or party funds? Given that the misuse of funds is a serious issue, I would naturally find the latter hard to believe – but then again, other headlines over the last week have made for quite a read.

4. While it is reassuring to know that the website deception was carried out, in your words, ‘without my knowledge or approval’, you are doubtless also aware that Richard Foord’s constituents have been targeted on several occasions by ‘newsletter’ style campaign leaflets which misleadingly describe you as ‘local MP Simon Jupp’. Are you able to confirm that all of these misleading mailshots were also distributed without your knowledge or approval?

5. Since the start of this year, you have found time amid your urgent casework to publicise your visits and your support for local services and businesses in Cullompton, Colyton, Higher Wiscombe, Axmouth, Luppitt, Upottery, Honiton, Seaton, Beer, Branscombe, Broadhembury, Dalwood and Axminster, all of which are in Mr Foord’s constituency, not yours. Did you carry out these visits and photo opportunities without your own knowledge or approval?

Mr Jupp, I’m sure you will agree that you owe a full explanation to your constituents, as well as to Mr Foord’s constituents, and to the country. We all look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas Pegg

Slick campaigns promise to help voters boot out Conservative MPs. But will they really work?

Sceptics say British voters just aren’t clued up enough on the finer points of the country’s system to get tactical voting really firing. 

By John Johnston www.politico.eu

LONDON — Britain’s Conservatives look set for an election pasting this year. But anti-Tory campaigners want to make sure it’s a knock-out blow.

As a general election looms, a host of flashy campaigns are springing up trying to convince Brits to vote tactically. Under the U.K.’s winner-takes-all system, that means asking voters in tight seats to hold their nose and cast their ballot for a candidate with the best chance of knocking out a Conservative, even if that candidate wouldn’t be their first pick.

A flood of sophisticated online tools, backed up with data from expensive polling campaigns, are promising to help show voters where they can use their tactical edge.

There’s just one problem: sceptics say British voters just aren’t clued up enough on the finer points of the country’s system to get tactical voting really firing.

“This will be the ninth general election I’ve worked on in one capacity or another, and I think certainly for most of them, if not all of them, there has been talk of this being the tactical voting election,” says Joe Twyman, director of polling firm Deltapoll.

Indeed, polling shows British voters continue to lack an awareness of the basic information needed to make tactical voting work. A survey carried out by Deltapoll last year found just 52 percent of voters could correctly identify the winning party in their local area. That dropped to 19 percent when asked who came in second.

The proportion of voters who knew both of those facts, plus the margin of victory in their seat, and lived in a constituency where tactical voting could actually make a difference, was just one percent, Deltapoll found.

After much hype about tactical voting in previous elections, Twyman reckons it could “again be a case of the dog that failed to bark.”

That won’t stop determined campaigners from trying to give the Conservatives a kicking.

Getting clued-up

Organized tactical voting has been around in the U.K. since at least 1997, when a campaign group called GROT — an acronym for Get Rid Of Them — first sent leaflets through the post trying to build an anti-Conservative coalition. Political scientists still hotly debate how big a role tactical voting really played in the 1997 election. But the Liberal Democrats, Britain’s center-left third party, racked up an extra 28 seats that year as Tony Blair’s Labour romped home.

Advocates see parallels between 2024 and 1997, where poll after poll shows deep dissatisfaction with a Conservative government long in power — and where they believe voters could be tempted to set aside party loyalty and vote for anyone who can oust a Tory in a tight race.

Best for Britain is one of the groups hoping to make tactical voting matter at this election — and it’s got a clear aim in doing so.

As one of the loudest backers of a second Brexit referendum back in the day, the campaign group has since restyled itself. It’s hoping to build a coalition of progressive MPs keen to bolster ties and push for a better trading relationship with the European Union.

The group has run tactical voting campaigns in the last two elections and it’s now putting the final touches on a new high-tech platform. As well as a clear voting recommendation, this year’s tool will try to address some of the knowledge gaps voters face.

It’s promising information on voting deadlines, the types of photo ID that will and won’t be accepted at polling stations, and key stats on things like local crime rates and hospital waiting lists.

“It’ll tell you where to place your vote tactically to have the best chance of either voting out the incumbent Conservative or beating the Conservative challenger,” the group’s chief executive Naomi Smith explains.

Smith says much of the analysis will be driven by sophisticated multi-level regression (MRP) polling. The group, she says, is planning to conduct a major survey and provide their recommendation as close to polling day as possible, while still allowing enough time for postal voters to get the advice.

But the campaigns boss admits they’ll also be injecting some human takes too. “Where there is an incumbent who we’d define as a progressive MP, they will get the recommendation rather than what the data might say,” Smith says.

‘Deep-rooted problems’

Best for Britain is just one of several campaigns set to launch their own tactical voting tools in the run-up to this year’s vote. Expect major ad campaigns and media voices like former TV host-turned-anti-corruption-warrior Carol Vorderman deployed to try and raise the public’s awareness of the practice.

Yet some see the push for tactical voting as a depressing sign of how Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system can force voters into making choices they wouldn’t normally want to.

Jess Garland at campaign group the Electoral Reform Society says the practice exposes “deep-rooted problems” with the U.K.’s way of choosing governments. “Voting should be about choosing the candidate you most agree with rather than head-scratching over who has a realistic chance of winning,” she says.