It is surely a good thing that the political parties review their general election campaigns for lessons for the future.

The Liberal Democrats have just completed theirs and the main conclusion seems to be that they think they were right not to enter into a formal ‘progressive alliance’ with other centre left parties. For the future of progressive politics and our country, this ‘conclusion’ needs to be reviewed.

The report’s main author, the MP and former leader Tim Farron, told The Guardian that, while he believed strongly in working closely with other parties, pre-election pacts were “an insult to the electorate”, adding: “We don’t have any right to offer our voters to another party and vice versa. And I think this election proved us right.” Such a view is both misleading and could be electorally very damaging.

The 2024 General Election was remarkable in many ways, the scale of Labour’s seat victory, the remarkable showing of Liberal Democrats who went from 15 seats to 72, the Greens going from one seat to four, but also the volatility and signs of deep structural weaknesses in our democratic system. Labour won a huge majority with the support of only one in five voters, less than 60% voted, and Labour gained 64% of all seats on less than 34% of the vote.

Meanwhile, Reform UK entered the parliamentary fray, winning five seats and coming second in 98. Since the election, no party is polling consistently with over 30% of the vote, and over five of them are polling in double digits – this in a system specifically and rigorously designed to promote just two parties. This is the context in which all parties’ election reviews need to be considered.

So back to Farron, the Liberal Democrats and the claim that pre-election pacts are an ‘insult to the electorate’. This is disingenuous at best. Because there clearly was a pre-election pact between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. However, it was the worst kind of insult to the electorate because it was made behind closed doors, far from their sight and with no acknowledgement that it existed. It was an agreement about which seats to target.

That such an agreement took place is utterly deniable, but obvious to all.

The two parties went head to head in just a small number of seats. The rest they could carve up between them, standing only the thinnest of paper candidates in many places, while pouring their resources into target seats knowing full well the other party will be occupied elsewhere. The Lib Dems targeted no more than 80, giving up on the rest of the country – almost 600 other seats.

Of course it worked, but no politician should kid themselves, or try to kid us, that this wasn’t in reality the insult to voters who had no real choice. Instead, the difficult decision of how to construct a progressive alliance was passed from the politicians to the people who were left with the decision to follow their head or their heart and work out who was best placed to do that. Some leadership that shows.

As the director of Compass, an organisation that advocates for progressive alliances, it seems much more effective electorally and morally to be open and clear about who you work with before, during, and after elections.

The real insult to the electorate happens in moments like 2010, when a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that no one voted for ran the country for five years, or the Conservative DUP deal after 2017. This is politics behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny and accountability. And this kind of stitch up, is exactly what the Conservatives and Reform UK are likely to do at the next election. All it takes is seat lists to be exchanged between leaders’ offices. Writing in The Sunday Times this week, Tim Shipman reports that “insiders say there are also likely to be moves this year – co-ordinated by donors – to “unite the right”, piling pressure on both Badenoch and Farage to agree a non-aggression pact about which seats to target in 2029”.

So what should happen at the next election for progressives to really prosper? Labour’s leadership must, sooner rather than later, take the step the rest of the party and the unions have already taken and back proportional representation. Progressive parties can then form a one off public alliance, to win an electoral mandate for reform and change the system so that instead of stitch ups and backroom deals, every single vote counts.

This is an argument to be taken to the country not just because equal votes are right, but also because there is a double advantage for progressives. The promise of PR would unite the centre left and help ensure victory in what otherwise could be a very tricky election. But in enacting PR and having everyone’s vote count, the conditions are created in which more radical democratic and economic policies become possible.

Generals tend to fight the last war. In 2019 Liberal Democrats did enter a formal alliance with the Greens. But their electoral failure wasn’t down to this, it was down to the position to overturn Brexit without a second referendum when the country wanted to move on.

We now live in a multi party politics, which is being distorted beyond recognition by a two party system. Only the populist right will benefit from this. And yes, for now, Reform back PR, but its doubtful if that will last. Already the chair of Reform and some of their MPs have been making noises in favour of ‘the British voting system’ first past the post, and not that European ‘nonsense’ of PR.

This is nothing to do with the bizarre take on the supposed nationality of electoral systems, but the ruthless analysis that under first past the post, reform can win a majority on little more than 30% of the vote. They are now polling up to 25%.

Progressives in the UK, are going to have to start to work together, just as they have been with early success in France through the New Popular Front, not just stitch up elections or voters but to construct open alliances for real change. Anything less and we’ll see right wing populism flourish, and liberalism and democracy become meaningless.

This article first appeared in the Byline Times on Tuesday the 14th January 2025.