Tactical voting: unless we are an open tribe, we will die

So Compass holds a debate about the relevance, or not, of tactical voting in the run up May and straight away John Spellar MP and then Luke Akehurst are on to us. John accused us of calling on people ‘not to vote Labour”, Luke says we are ‘naïve’.

Well first lets be clear: we have set up the space on our website for a debate; we have one article for tactical voting and one against. We wanted to see what people said. But why are John and Luke so immediately hostile – what deep concerns does the issue of tactical voting tap into for them? My mind is always fairly open, I hope, but this is what I think so far.

Lets start with 2010, from which I draw exactly the opposite conclusions from Luke. The facts are clear, we have this awful government because not enough people voted tactically five years ago, not because too many did. If more had voted tactically against the Tories then we would have had more Lib Dem MPs and even more Labour MPs. Under first past the post tactical voting disproportionately helps Labour. Yes, the Lib Dems eventually went into Coalition with the Tories – but that in part was dictated by the numbers, a product of not enough tactical voting, and in part because people like Luke and John were adamantly against any centre-left coalition in any shape or form. They told the Lib Dems where to go – and they did. Some in Labour would always rather the wilderness than a coalition with anyone. I wouldn’t. And I would rather have a bad Tory/Lib Dem coalition and than a terrible Tory majority if some people suffer less.

We always go for the shield, any dented shield that protects people from the Tories. I hate our electoral system and what it does to force us into these awful voting choices but there are 50 odd days to go and we don’t yet have PR. Labour is at best level pegging with the Tories and the poll trend is against us.

This simple electoral and political logic is the reason why in 2010 that both Douglas Alexander and Ed Balls hinted strongly that they wanted people to vote tactically. But whatever the polls show between now and May 7^th – tactical voting will boost Labour and damage the Tories.

Luke says we need to maximize Labour seats and Labor votes – but that is simply impossible. In this rotten and out-of-date electoral system you have to pick one or the other. In the quid pro quo to get more Labour seats and reduce Tory seats some people are going to have to be prepared to vote tactically. Luke even writes “As a candidate I’ve written to Green and Lib Dem voters asking for their tactical support to beat the Tories”. Of course and it works both ways. I repeat in 90% of cases this will boost Labour votes and Labour seats. But in a parliamentary democracy the only thing that matters isn’t share of the vote but votes in the House. We have to maximize non-Tory voting to have a chance of a Labour majority or the next best thing.

There is no perfect progressive alliance to be created. It will be messy and complex: we will have to compromise. But if it’s a choice between the wilderness and a Tory win or tactical voting and some kind of non-Tory government – then it’s no choice at all.

So we need Liberal Democrats to vote Labour where they can’t win. And we need Greens to vote Labour everywhere they can’t. And in a few seats Labour people are going to have to vote Liberal Democrat.

So why are Luke and John so outraged by this? My guess is its because it offends the very nature of what they see politics as – the winner takes all, that only Labour can build a good society, that everyone who is not one of us is against us.   That worked in the last century when classes, unions and deference ruled. But such closed tribalism of no talks, no compromise, no alliances with anyone under any circumstances looks increasingly odd in a 21^st century of complexity and diversity. This is not 1945.

The ‘only Labour’ brigade remind me of Tony Benn and his 8 million votes for socialism claim in 1983. The world has moved on – dramatically.  We are still the Labour Tribe , but unless we are an open tribe, we will die.  The future will be negotiated.  It can’t be imposed.