I’ll be honest – Compass and the whole “Progressive Alliance” debate frustrates me. Yes, I fully understand the principle of opposition parties working together in some as yet undefined way, but in my opinion the advocates of a Progressive Alliance are failing. Leaving aside what “Progressive” means (if anything), I’m still not clear what the “Alliance” bit means. Compass say they want to “stimulate the debate” but what are we even debating?
Cooperation could mean anything within a wide spectrum – from one party’s activists campaigning for another, through one party simply standing down, to standing but campaigning selectively, or passively standing and not campaigning at all.
The debate doesn’t seem to be moving forward, and it can’t until there are concrete proposals on fundamentals such as what cooperation looks like and, importantly, how target seats are apportioned.
Why do I care so much?
Because I don’t want to approach the next General Election still debating this. It will be a distraction from the serious business of campaigning to win if activists in any seat can’t be sure if they will be asked/told to stand down, or campaign elsewhere. Those difficult conversations need to happen well before an election is called. Even within my own local Party there are some passionate advocates of a Progressive Alliance, but also a strong diversity of opinion about cooperation with other parties locally that can lead to some unwelcome tensions.
It’s a statement of the obvious that any cross-party cooperation will have limited impact without the Labour Party fully embracing it and therein lies a problem. Within Labour, Compass is running it’s “Only Stand to Win” campaign, which proposes the small step of allowing local Labour constituency Parties to choose to stand down. Yet the experience in North Shropshire shows that local activists can be the least willing and able to see the big picture and take a strategic view.
I also worry that idealism, and an understandable desperation to defeat this dreadful Conservative Government, is driving some unrealistic expectations that don’t recognise that the electorate can be capable of making some perfectly rational decisions of its own without Parties agreeing to deny them choice. Our wins in Chesham & Amersham and North Shropshire weren’t victories for a Progressive Alliance as some claimed at the time, but were victories for excellent candidates, well-run campaigns and common sense by disgruntled voters choosing something better.
I would like to ask Compass supporters and advocates of a Progressive Alliance within our Party and others to show leadership and make some concrete proposals to allow a debate that leads to some actual conclusions. But do it soon, so that the issue doesn’t cast a shadow over campaign plans for the next General Election.
* Nick Baird is a Lib Dem activist and Chair of the Liberal Democrats in Cheltenham.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers Diary: The only estate in England with a breeding population of corkindrills
Renters Rights Bill long overdue
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
John Grout
Cassie
Peter Hirst
Joe Bourke
15 Comments
I am fed up with Lib Dems going on about an formal alliance with other parties. It isn’t going to happen simply because any such alliance will scare off just as many voters as it attracts.
This doesn’t mean we should not cooperate with Labour in specific seats where both parties realise one is best placed to win & the other stands down or doesn’t campaign actively. These informal cooperation already seems to be happening, Lib Dems didn’t campaign hard in Old Bexley & Sidcup while Labour (at least the National Party) didn’t campaign too hard in North Shropshire.
There is a report on today’s The Guardian website that seems to confirm this: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/feb/17/boris-johnson-labour-keir-starmer-tories-covid-coronavirus-uk-politics-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-620e0bc08f086f7273b86ba5#block-620e0bc08f086f7273b86ba5
I’ve got some concrete proposals Nick. Have written up a 5 page document I can send you. It goes beyond what Compass are doing.
@Leon: exactly.
The sort of semi-cooperation we saw in recent by-elections was successful and also showed us the limits of what is possible.
The local Labour party in N Shrop didn’t get it and that is their prerogative.
Open co-operation with Labour will cost us soft Tory switchers in Tory/LD marginals. And is to be avoided.
I have just received an email from Alison Rouse, Chair of the Party in England, on electoral pacts. This is primarily concerned with local elections, but the message is unmistakable: electoral pacts do not work because voters are not stupid and will not simply transfer their allegiance to another particular Party because Lib Dems choose not to run candidates, as Unite to Remain showed. The only pact that makes sense is one where several parties have the same policies in their manifestos and agree after an election to work together to put those policies into legislation.
Not sure I agree that it isn’t progressing; rather I think it is but a key part of the strategy is not being too vocal about it (at least not yet and not from the party leaderships).
Others have pointed out that an explicit ‘alliance’, let alone standing down candidates, is liable to alienate as many potential voters as it wins over. The 1997 model shows us a more subtle but effective way of achieving the result we want.
The better option is to carry on standing candidates everywhere but for the central party organisations to prioritise the key targets where both parties are (almost exclusively) up against the Tories. That’s relatively easy for Labour, where they rely heavily on central resources, and it shouldn’t be so hard for us either (realistically, how much effort were we ever going to put into Red Wall seats).
The harder part is encouraging/permitting local parties in those seats to focus their efforts elsewhere. We’re better at this in the Lib Dems, with a good track record of piling in to target seats – though we could be more disciplined about this. It’s harder for Labour, as they still have a culture/expectation that they fight everywhere – so this is where we need the Labour leadership to find a smart way to persuade CLPs in “Blue Wall” seats to take their foot off the gas.
Cont./
Of course none of that should stop us fighting seats like Hallam or Cambridge really hard (or indeed taking on the SNP/PC in a handful of seats) but it does mean the bulk of our focus is clear.
Then a lot nearer the General Election we can expect there to be more “3rd party” guidance as to the right tactical voting choices – the Daily Mirror played a role in that in 1997 (no doubt prompted by Campbell/Mandelson & co behind the scenes). This time round there will also be more tactical voting websites and it will be clearer which way to turn, unlike in 2019 when the lack of Lib Dem 2nd places meant quite a few seats were judgement calls.
I have never thought that an Alliance with Labour was possible & the Labour announcement about “Ruthless Targeting makes it irrelevant.
Can I suggest that this thread be abandoned in favour of the Article on The “Pact”.
The most we can hope for in terms of any ‘progressive alliance’ is an understanding that the non-Tory progressive parties will try to work together to get rid of the Tories AFTER the next election, if the Tories fall short of a majority of MPs. In particular, no repeat of the Liberal Democrats choosing to support the Tories in government as happened after the 2010 election.
I do wish those people who want electoral pacts would learn from history. They just don’t work, because the electorate don’t like being told who to vote for and don’t like their choice being taken away.
What has been shown to work is informal agreements not to campaign hard in seats where one of two (or even three) parties is the clear challenger to the Tories and also to quietly encourage the voters of the non challenging parties to back the candidate most likely to beat the Tory.
This is what gave us the political breakthrough from a handful of seats to well over 40 in 1997. The so called Blair/Ashdown agreement worked because it gave voters the choice to oust the Tory if they wished, rather than denying them choice by parties standing down.
Some of us are old enough to remember the tortuous and time wasting negotiations between the Liberal Party and the SDP over which party should stand in which seat, at the expense of doing any real campaigning and which showed almost no success in terms of seats won.
Let’s stop wasting time talking of a progressive alliance, because Labour won’t stand down in a single seat – they never stand down in favour of another political party. We shouldn’t stand down either.
An informal agreement not to campaign in seats where another party can beat the Tories, is the best choice. Let’s just focus on that.
Better to live in hope rather than expectation I suppose
The paradigm underpinning the Compass Progressive Alliance campaigns would simply consolidate the dominance of the ‘the current Con hegemony’ and ‘the current Lab hegemony’ by re-labelling them ‘the Regressive hegemony’ and the ’Progressive hegemony’.
Unfortunately, those proposals would confound the whole purpose of democracy.
They would concentrate control of the political agenda into back-room negotiations
within and between tiny minorities of determined and self-focussed activists
in ‘covert-coalition’ ‘arrangements’ (co-ordinated by Compass?), and would eliminate meaningful choice for each Individual (supposedly-)Sovereign Elector.
Indeed, they would lead us towards the ultimate two-party state
– the Republican Party and the Democratic Party of the US.
Any suggestion of a pre election or post-election cross party manifesto of policy proposals beyond ‘calming’ and ‘reform’ would alienate a significant proportion of reform minded activists, parties, and electors.
Many would welcome the concept of such arrangements.
However, the devil is in the detail.
Con and Lab would refuse to ‘engage with’ any arrangement
in which they were not allowed to dominate the agenda,
and all other parties would refuse to ‘engage with’ any arrangement
in which they would lose their unique identity.
Thus, a Campaign for Reform must specifically and overtly exclude any and every ‘whiff’ of any arrangement which included Con and Lab.
Thus, in turn, for the next (final FPTP) UK election, reform minded activists and parties must focus solely on options for a combination of:
1. A pre-election Tactical-Voting arrangement to force a hung Commons (i.e. by unilaterally ‘gifting’ marginal seats from the stronger of Con and Lab to the weaker of Con and Lab, without any ‘whiff’ of the beneficiary party ‘returning the favour’). The Liberal Democrat party is uniquely-positioned with the elector-power to ‘lead’ such an arrangement (i.e. ‘leading’ the Green, SNP, Reform, and PC parties).
2. A post-election Confidence-and-Supply arrangement (i.e. not a standing Alliance arrangement or a standing Coalition arrangement) with the least-obstructive of Con or Lab in a hung Commons; with control over the agenda for constitutional reform as the sole ‘red line’. The Scottish National party is uniquely-positioned with the seat-power to ‘lead’ such an arrangement (i.e. ‘leading’ the LD, Green, Reform, and PC parties).
FT & Times yesterday carried a story which looks pretty reliable. The two parties are informally cooperating to maximise the potential non-Tory seats in the next Parliament. That’s good news and common sense.
Hopefully that settles a lot of the progressive alliance chat and publicity, and both the Lib Dems and Labour can get on with the job of getting rid of this awful Government.
Thanks to everyone who responded. I wrote and submitted this the day before the FT ran story about the “pact” between Ed and Starmer, so got somewhat overtaken by the news cycle.
Nonetheless, I stand by my concerns. The FT report is just repeating rumours that have been floating around since last year, and of course doesn’t mention the Greens. If the rumoured “pact” is the correct answer to the question then great, provided we all accept it and move on. The point of my article wasn’t the merits of a Progressive Alliance in itself, but my worry that it continues as live issue causing disagreements in the run up to the next GE.
@Ewan Hoyle – if you have your own ideas, why not summarise them and submit as an article to LDV? It’s not (just) me that needs to hear them!
Carts and horses; the reason for any progressive alliance is to change our electoral system so parliament represents the electorate. Ideas vary as to how many seats need to change sides for this to happen. Labour needs to change and will determine what sort of cooperation is needed. The idea is for the electorate to be able to apply common sense by voting for who they want rather than the over thinking deliberations that FPTP requires.