Starmer wants an outright majority – but could a pact with the Lib Dems help?

Labour MPs are expecting the next general election to be even tougher than usual. Compulsory voter ID reforms were rushed through the House of Commons last month. The elections bill also hands more powers to ministers over the Electoral Commission and restricts the ability of trade unions to campaign. Without proper debate, Boris Johnson’s government brought in plans for a new levy on unions, too. As for internal factors, Labour has serious financial difficulties, which have led to staff cuts, as any LabourList reader will know, and this makes the much-needed overhaul of Labour’s digital campaigning tools difficult. With this context in mind, and the fact that Labour usually does not win elections, and the reality that a majority of just one requires an enormous jump in seats, it is no surprise that many have called for more cooperation between opposition parties.

The idea of a ‘progressive alliance’ arises in the chat box or Q&A section of every single Labour event I chair, no matter the intended focus of the meeting. Neal Lawson of Compass often writes for LabourList to reflect this desire from members, making the case for a formal pact and other reforms along these lines. Compass recently launched a campaign, ‘Only Stand to Win’, which demands a rule change that would allow local parties to decide whether they stand a candidate or not. “In the vast majority of cases, it makes complete sense for Labour to stand, but not everywhere,” the Compass director wrote. “The harsh electoral truth is that in some 80 seats it is the Liberal Democrats that can beat the Tories, not Labour.”

Keir Starmer’s Labour does not look ready to follow that advice. There are worries that a formal approach could put off some voters from supporting their Labour or Lib Dem candidate if they do not favour the other, or lead to the electorate feeling patronised by an anti-democratic stitch-up. This does not rule out less clear-cut cooperation, however. The FT reports today that Labour will fight only a minimal campaign in most of the top 30 Lib Dem target seats at the next general election. We already saw this dynamic play out in the North Shropshire by-election, when Starmer did not visit the seat and Ed Davey’s party pulled off an unlikely blue-to-yellow victory with a huge swing.

Some will argue that this is excuse-making and that Labour should be fighting for every seat, not quietly allowing enablers of austerity to make gains. Others will argue that too many voters do not have time for such games, the best way to vote tactically is too unclear in some constituencies, and Starmer and Davey should simply agree to stand aside in select areas rather than deprive them of attention. Yet consider that Labour needs to target resources ruthlessly due to its money problems, and that the Tories under Boris Johnson are worried about the Lib Dem threat to more of their ‘Blue Wall’ seats, but that Labour does not want to run into the problems mentioned above with a formal arrangement, and from Starmer’s perspective the idea of a ‘non-aggression’ pact makes a lot of sense. Whether Labour candidates and activists on the ground follow suit is another matter, of course – one that will be of keen interest to LabourList.