All of the vitriol directed at @libdems over Canterbury is, I believe, rather misplaced and typical of the oversimplification of politics that got us in this mess in the first place.

On the face of it, putting up another candidate seems like a bad move, but dig a little deeper and perhaps it’s not as simple as it seems.

The Lab majority in Canterbury is wafer thin. Therefore in order to win the seat, Lab need to at the very least retain their current share of the vote. This seems quite likely, so a good start for Lab.

Then add in the potential effects of tactical voting, and Lab’s share of the vote goes up even further

So where do the @libdems come in. Well, realistically they are unlikely to campaign very hard in the area, if at all. The local party have already insinuated as much. So they’re not going to be actively trying to take votes from Lab

But by fielding a paper candidate in the constituency, they ARE likely to win some votes from soft Tories who could never bring themselves to vote for Corbyn. This can only work in Lab’s favour

The Tories may also lose some votes to the Brexit party, assuming they are standing in this area. So overall, it’s actually looking quite promising from a #GTTO perspective

On top of this, my understanding is that the more candidates a party fields, the higher the spending limit for that party on a national level. So this gives the @libdems access to additional resources that can be allocated elsewhere

So maybe we should dial back the vitriol a little. As always, there’s a bigger picture here. I think @ThatTimWalker was right to stand down. He is a high profile candidate that might have impacted the result in a negative way

But on the assumption that his replacement is merely a paper candidate, I actually think there’s a chance that this move makes a Labour win in Canterbury MORE likely, not less