Thread by @robfordmancs

One of the most damaging zombie beliefs in the whole politics of Brexit debate is the "Lab needs to win/hold Leave seats and therefore needs to win/hold Leave votes". The second does *not* follow from the first.

For example, if a seat voted 52% Leave, and it is a Con-Lab marginal, then it is very likely that a *large majority* of Lab votes in that seat will come from Remain supporters (and a large majority of Con votes from Leave supporters)

It should be, but never is, obvious that "appeal more to Leave voters" is not the only strategy for winning/holding such a seat, nor will it usually or necessarily be the best one.
1. If you lose even one Remainer for each two Leavers gained, you're stuffed

2. There will still be other Remainers available to appeal to, and they may be an easier "get" as their broader politics more aligned with Lab currently
3. What about the people who didn't vote in 2016?
4. What about the ppl who didn't vote in 2017?

And that's before we get into the business of "Remain" and "Leave" not being unitary identities etched in stone for all time in June 2016, but broad and heterogenous coalitions of voters with a range of views about where to go on Brexit (and on other issues) - views which change

For example, both Leave and Remain voters are much less concerned now about immigration and its control, so appeals to *either* group don't need to focus on this so much, but try telling that to the "how will this play in Mansfield?" crowd.

Then of course there is also the rather obvious yet often forgotten truth that the EU referendum isn't the only thing motivating voters. If it was, then May would have won a lot more leave voting Lab seats in June 2017.