Bracknell Forest and the politics of ‘progressive alliance’

Progressive alliances, whereby anti-Conservative parties “pool” their electoral support, have long been a thorny issue. In the 1980s, it was lamented that such an alliance could have prevented Margaret Thatcher from ever forming a government. But there have always been arguments about whether one could, or should, be formed.

The Labour Party has always been fairly hostile to the idea of ‘progressive alliances’ and is happy to provide a long list of principled reasons why.  Sometimes it is said that it is wrong for politicians to try and “fix” the outcome of elections by pacts: the result of elections should entirely be a matter for voters. Others make the case that the Party’s supporters have the “right” to have a candidate to vote for in all elections. Yet others claim that it is highly presumptive to think that supporters’ votes can be “delivered” to other parties if Labour did not field a candidate, or that a national party of government should not have to descend to political chicanery to win elections — and so on. In practice, however, some areas flex that approach a little to give another party a fairly free run, with a “paper” candidate put up but little or no effort put into their campaign. Liberal Democrats and Greens are less squeamish and have been known to enter into local pacts and, where they have, enjoyed some success.

Now, a shining example has been thrown up from a most unlikely quarter – the UK local council elections. This month’s results provoked the usual welter of claim and counterclaim, expectations under-managed and over-managed, and the application of arcane statistical formulae to add a veneer of science to crystal ball-gazing about the topic everyone was really interested in – the result of the next general election.

But one local result actually was interesting. In a highly unusual twist, it offered a resounding and unequivocal answer to our question: “Can ‘progressive alliances’ succeed?” It received the attention, comment and coverage from national politicians, academic pundits and political journalists commensurate with their understanding of its significance – that is to say, none. It was a result from somewhere unused to the limelight: Bracknell Forest Borough Council.

Bracknell is a post-war “New Town” in true-blue Berkshire. It is home to high tech industries but its demographics are very different to the capital’s, just twenty-five miles away. Bracknell is solidly Conservative. The Conservative Party has won the parliamentary seat in every general election since the seat was created in 1997 and even managed to pile up a five-figure majority in that year of Conservative melt-down. It was the same story at local level. Bracknell Forest Borough Council had been controlled by the Conservatives ever since the unitary authority was created in 1998. The Conservative dominance of the council was as complete as it was predictable. Before the 2023 election, the Tories had 37 seats to Labour’s 4 and the Lib Dems’ 1. But then something unusual happened.

“Close of nominations” is the point in the run-up to an election after which no further candidates can be nominated, so it’s the moment when we all know exactly who will be on the ballot paper. Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives nominated a full slate of 41 candidates, but then it started to get strange. Labour only put forward 24 candidates (it had fielded a full slate of 41 in the previous election), the Liberal Democrats 12, and the Greens 7. But on closer examination it became clear that there looked to be a pattern – in no ward did Labour and the Liberal Democrats stand against each other, and neither did the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. In only two of the 15 wards did Labour and the Greens both field candidates. One national newspaper ran a story claiming that this looked like local parties had “gone rogue” and formed a “progressive alliance” — despite protestations to the contrary by the local politicians. The piece argued that an explanation of coincidence stretched credulity and predicted a possible “furious” reaction from national party HQs. That outcome that failed to materialise. The paper lost interest and did not follow up the story after the results were in.

When it came to counting the votes, the Conservative Party’s traditional dominance showed up in the total vote count tally: it took 42.4% to Labour’s 30.4%, the Lib Dems 17.0% and the Greens 8.4%. So far, so predictable. But then came the bombshell: virtually every ward had been a two-horse race between the Conservatives and another party and that meant that Conservative vote share was spread across all wards while other parties’ votes were concentrated.  Despite easily winning the total number of votes cast, the Conservatives lost 27 seats, Labour gained 18, the Lib Dems 6 and the Greens 2.  The composition of the new council was Labour 22 seats, Conservatives 10, Liberal Democrats 7 and the Greens 2. (One fewer seat was contested than in the previous election.) In a massive reversal, the election turned a 32-seat Conservatives majority into a 3-seat Labour one. This May’s local elections were good for Labour but not on the scale of the Bracknell result – where it had won a landslide with a massive 53% swing in number of seats.

Interviewed after the election, the leader of the Labour group and new leader of the council admitted “she was still a bit stunned” but was adamant that there had been no pact: “If you’re limited on candidates, and you’re limited on resources, and you’re limited on people wanting to become involved in politics, you put up candidates where you’re likely to win.” Labour had, she explained only fielded candidates in the inner, new town, wards where they stood a realistic chance of winning. In the past, they had dissipated resources putting up paper candidates in all wards — a complete waste of time and effort, they had concluded. She thought the Lib Dems had done something similar by concentrating on the outer wards and it just so happened that those were not the same wards where Labour was standing.

Whether this progressive alliance was deliberate or accidental, the result was crystal clear – a catastrophic defeat for the Conservatives. The Labour Party’s list of principled objections to such pacts is all very worthy, but as the 18th-century political philosopher Lord Bolingbroke wrote: “The greatest art of a politician is to render vice serviceable to the cause of virtue.” Bracknell Forest’s answer to the question whether progressive alliances can succeed is an unequivocal “yes”. Whether it was conscious or unconscious does not really matter: nothing succeeds like success.

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.