Thanks for sharing this update, which is helpful and insightful.
My main response to your analysis remains that is too focussed on a one-dimensional Tory vs Labour axis. I submit that you need to more deeply consider the merits and possibilities of a Progressive Alliance between the Opposition parties, including Labour.
As mentioned before, recent analysis by Compass details the enormous and arguably impossible task for Labour in winning the next General Election outside of a Progressive Alliance:
Amongst the key challenges facing a Labour-only victory over the Conservatives include their wipeout in Scotland and upcoming constituency boundary changes which will add a further net 15 seats to the Tories.
The “vote for us everywhere” strategy has failed for Labour in four consecutive General Elections and frankly it surprises me that any serious analyst would now consider this as a default strategy. Sorry for being blunt ... just calling this out.
Instead, I submit that further (and yes, more complex) modelling be performed by considering two forms of Progressive Alliance:
1. Informal.
Each party stands candidates in whatever seat they like but they only campaign in their preferred seats. There is some back room coordination between the parties to minimise electoral overlap eg Labour do not campaign in Esher or Hitchin and Harpenden and the Libs do not campaign in Red Wall seats.
2. Formal.
The parties openly declare the Progressive Alliance (it becomes a core selling point of their manifestos) and only stand in their selected seats.
You could therefore construct scenarios where a defined % of the 2017/2019 vote from each “passive” PA Party transfers to the “active” PA party. For example an Informal PA might see say 40% of the vote transferring to the active PA party (the remainder staying with the passive PA party) and a Formal PA might see say 75% of the passive PA Party vote transferring.
I recognise the cognitive and governance challenges facing Labour in particular in adopting the Progressive Alliance strategy. But frankly, one more heave at the bankrupt “Vote for us everywhere” strategy is simply wasting everyone’s time.
Hi Steve.
Thanks for sharing this update, which is helpful and insightful.
My main response to your analysis remains that is too focussed on a one-dimensional Tory vs Labour axis. I submit that you need to more deeply consider the merits and possibilities of a Progressive Alliance between the Opposition parties, including Labour.
As mentioned before, recent analysis by Compass details the enormous and arguably impossible task for Labour in winning the next General Election outside of a Progressive Alliance:
https://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/we-divide-they-conquer-if-labour-struggles-to-win-alone-what-is-to-be-done/
Amongst the key challenges facing a Labour-only victory over the Conservatives include their wipeout in Scotland and upcoming constituency boundary changes which will add a further net 15 seats to the Tories.
The “vote for us everywhere” strategy has failed for Labour in four consecutive General Elections and frankly it surprises me that any serious analyst would now consider this as a default strategy. Sorry for being blunt ... just calling this out.
Instead, I submit that further (and yes, more complex) modelling be performed by considering two forms of Progressive Alliance:
1. Informal.
Each party stands candidates in whatever seat they like but they only campaign in their preferred seats. There is some back room coordination between the parties to minimise electoral overlap eg Labour do not campaign in Esher or Hitchin and Harpenden and the Libs do not campaign in Red Wall seats.
2. Formal.
The parties openly declare the Progressive Alliance (it becomes a core selling point of their manifestos) and only stand in their selected seats.
You could therefore construct scenarios where a defined % of the 2017/2019 vote from each “passive” PA Party transfers to the “active” PA party. For example an Informal PA might see say 40% of the vote transferring to the active PA party (the remainder staying with the passive PA party) and a Formal PA might see say 75% of the passive PA Party vote transferring.
I recognise the cognitive and governance challenges facing Labour in particular in adopting the Progressive Alliance strategy. But frankly, one more heave at the bankrupt “Vote for us everywhere” strategy is simply wasting everyone’s time.
Regards
Richard