David Laws, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is typical of his party. So much for the new politics, when what Lib Dem politicians do in office turns out to be rather different from what they were saying in opposition. During the general election campaign the Lib Dem line, propounded by Vince Cable and presumably supported by Laws, echoed Labour’s argument that to implement severe cuts now would put the fragile economic recovery at risk. Now Laws has switched effortlessly to line up alongside the Conservative Party with the aim of cutting with gusto as soon as possible. And he seems to share the contempt that his coalition partners have for Labour. This contempt is something with which Labour members throughout the country who have experienced the Lib Dems at local government level are all too familiar.
Labour MPs such as John Healey and John Mann have highlighted the political inconsistencies of the Lib Dems. We might ask why that was not done much more during the election campaign rather than attempting to cosy up to a party whose instincts in office are innately hostile to those of Labour. It should have been obvious what an easy bedfellow Nick Clegg would make for David Cameron – not least because, from the middle of the campaign the Lib Dem leader was sending clear signals that his preference was for a coalition with the Tories.
What the advocates of tactical voting ask voters to do is to reproduce the results of a more proportionally fair voting system. Labour supporters throughout whole areas of the south of England are supposed to hold their noses and vote for the Lib Dems. Each time that happens, Labour’s base in those areas is seriously diminished. And once people can be persuaded to vote in what they think is a tactical way, it breaks a tradition of voting Labour.
Labour parliamentary candidates throughout the south watched in despair as their work over many months was undermined in a few hours by leading party members urging tactical voting. And the target seat strategy meant that constituencies deemed “unwinnnable” were often stripped of campaigners and resources.
That tactical voting is seriously considered is an aspect of the first-past-the post system. Faced with losing 100 seats, Labour’s tactics appeared to veer towards suggesting voting on the basis of disapproval rather than approval: vote not to support your party of choice but to stop the one you most dislike getting into power.
Nor did it help that, although Gordon Brown warned repeatedly that the electorate should fear the cuts the Tories would carry out, it was known Labour was contemplating similarly draconian measures. Former Chancellor Alistair Darling had said Labour would implement deeper cuts than Margaret Thatcher’s if the party were re-elected.
Now David and Ed Miliband have highlighted the failure of the party’s campaign to focus on the achievement of the Government of which they were prominent members or to highlight Labour’s plans for the future. It is refreshing that both leadership contenders are stressing the value of pluralism in the party and the need to open up avenues of discussion for all members.
Significantly, the Miliband brothers want Labour to think in terms of a nationwide strategy and not one focused exclusively on Westminster. It should be remembered that the party rebuilt itself in the 1980s through its local government base. The Milibands commend this strategy now.
Advocates of tactical voting such as Neal Lawson, the director of Compass, over-estimated what the Lib Dems were capable of achieving. Lawson argued in the New Statesman that it would be “impossible for Clegg to back Cameron in any sustained way”. In the light of the make-up of the new Government, that now looks a deeply suspect judgement from someone who advocated that millions of Labour supporters should switch to the Lib Dems.
The challenge for Labour now is to demonstrate to the electorate the true reactionary nature of the Government’s programme that lies behind the warm words of Cameron and Clegg.
The New Statesman said it wants to see more Lib Dem MPs. If that means more MPs like David Laws, perhaps it should consider switching its support to those who make no bones about being right-wingers.
Advocates of tactical voting have referred dismissively to the rank and file of the Labour Party as tribalists. But the attitude of those much-abused and long-suffering tribalists is that we think Gordon Brown was right when he said that our party is at its best when it is truly Labour.
