“If you flirt with Nick Clegg… then you’re likely to wake up the next morning with David Cameron – and not just with David Cameron but with George Osborne, William Hague or, heaven forbid, Eric Pickles as well. Let me assure you, that is a night you would come to regret.” This was Peter Mandelson’s stark warning to anyone in Tory-Labour marginals in danger of being swept off their feet by the Liberal Democrat leader. But what about Labour voters in seats that are a two-horse race between the Lib Dems and the Tories? If they don’t flirt with the Liberals, then, judging from the polls, they and all of us will face the harrowing prospect Mandelson described. In these circumstances would it be foolish not to extend some tactical support?
There are many in Labour who will insist that you never, ever take sides against The Family. The atavistic, tribal loyalty bred by centuries of confrontational two-party politics means that for some, voting for The Other, is the worst form of weakness and treachery there is, whatever the context. Perhaps that’s why the act is often described in the (rather gendered, but let’s not get into that now) language of ‘la collaboration horizontale’.
I personally have no need to vote tactically but I am not of the school of thought that those who do should be shot for desertion. I certainly don’t see a problem with Compass balloting its members on the subject. While many full-on, paid-up members balk at the idea, supporters of all parties and particularly those of the left have been doing it for years. I can see how it’s a resourceful way of getting the better of a flawed system. My feeling is that party supporters treat the taboo over tactical voting rather like Catholics treat the Papal ban on contraception: we can see why the hierarchy feels the need to hold the line but we make our own arrangements to suit our own situation.
John Harris and Jonathan Freedland have argued in the Guardian this week that with polls consistently pointing to a hung parliament, it’s good sense to try and bolster the likelihood of a Lib Dem-Labour partnership in any way that is not detrimental to Labour’s parliamentary position. Three ministers have also urged Lib Dems to tactically vote Labour, I presume with a tacit hint that there would be reciprocity. I don’t think that they are being defeatist, just taking hard-headed precautions against seeing everything Labour has achieved in the past thirteen years vandalised or reversed. Ideally, I want Labour to win outright, but, failing that I am cautiously optimistic about what a coalition of two quite complementary centre-left parties might achieve.
If nothing else, this election campaign has shown that the order is changing. The electorate’s political affiliations are becoming more fluid, more exploratory and above all less tribal. The fixed political identities of the past are dissolving. The Lib Dems are being used as a battering ram against the two party system and it appears to be working. Cracks are spreading, ever larger chunks falling off with each passing day. No-one knows how it will play out on election day or beyond. But surely the future of the party lies in trying to adapt. I doubt it lies in huddling in the ruins of the old system and, like the Judean People’s Front, shouting “splitters! splitters!” at Compass, or for that matter the Lib Dems.
It often pays to be open-minded. If smart, effective tactical voting means that flirting with Nick Clegg leads to waking with Nick Clegg and then also finding Andy Burnham and David Miliband snoozing peacefully alongside would that really be such a catastrophe? Some would say that’s quite a result for a Thursday night.