Either way, it's great to see centrists filling their nappies with the old "but they'll split the vote and hand victory to the Tories for a generation!" canard, which as we know from the 2019 election isn't actually a problem for centrists when it's the LibDems doing it.
The 2019 election was a shitshow from almost everyone, bar, arguably, Plaid. The Libs were high on their own hubris. The Greens had plainly had enough of getting a kicking through standing down and losing short money. But it’s also disingenuous to blame what occurred on the Lib Dems. They, the Greens and Plaid formed a pact and invited Labour as well. Labour, as ever, regardless of who is in charge, not only declined to be a part of it (likely costing Labour dozens of seats) but also in a number of reports spent a shit-ton of time derailing Lib Dem seats in London, which otherwise would have trimmed the Tory majority.
This isn’t about centrists—it’s about representative government (something that Labour’s
leadership to date has never had any interest in, but that many of its
members have) and providing the framework for a future where the UK could have a progressive government and stop lurching back and forth whenever the colour of government switches from blue to red. (And, yes, I’m sure some people will scream BUT YELLOW TORIES about the Lib Dems. But they should 1. probably actually read their manifestos, and 2. recognise that in any coalition/Commons agreement Labour would be the driving force with probably 250-odd seats, with the Lib Dems and Greens each having 20–60, assuming the Greens could get over themselves on nuclear and whip red lines or the coalition could at least abandon the latter, if it had the numbers.)
It was interesting to see Best for Britain’s recent polling. Assuming Farage bottles it again (very, very likely), but Labour goes it alone, we’re all fucked. The Tories retain a sizeable majority. But if there was a smartly conceived pact, Labour would be very likely to lead a coalition and perhaps even has the numbers to take a majority itself. The price would almost certainly be PR (presumably AMS or STV), which would mean a future that involves consensus, collaboration and compromise. That Labour’s leadership during the Blair/Brown/Corbyn years would rather the Tories ruled the country if Labour couldn’t rule alone baffled me and continues to do so. It’s such a dated way of thinking about politics.
So the choice is between Labour being the biggest losers or frequent coalition leaders. And if Labour’s best argument is “you should vote for us to stop the Tories”, then that’s just not good enough. The UK throughout my entire lifetime has not
by vote been a two-party system. Labour could choose to recognise that, but prefers not to because it also seeks power through the backing of a plurality (rather than a majority), rather than looking to a future where consensus and representation could win through. Given the party’s broadly excellent history in voting reform, its constant reluctance to do anything regarding the Commons is a horrible blind spot.
Naturally, I would prefer a Labour government of any stripe—Blair; Brown; Corbyn; Starmer—to any Tory equivalent. But what I really want is for the shape of the Commons to look much like whoever voted for it. The only route to that has ever been Labour. But I suspect Labour will never do anything about that and will after the (likely) 2023 General Election instead fume at Lib Dem, Green and Plaid voters for not backing Labour.
