Plans a-f

Keir Starmer faces a leadership challenge from within the “Constitutional” dissenter group in the Labour party. Their pro-rejoin, pro-PR, opposition-to-the-far-right position proves enormously popular within the party membership and they legislate for electoral reform to the single transferable vote as a priority as soon as they take over as leader.

Presumably after a failed leadership bid from the “Constitutional” dissenters, Plan B would be for new parties to form from within those MPs who were elected for Labour in 2024. Those parties would commit to the Sprint for PR strategy of selected candidacies along with the Greens and Lib Dems, and Labour would bow to pressure to legislate for electoral reform to the Single Transferable Vote. Those elections would then be held with at least eight national parties in with a strong chance of gaining over 5% of national first preferences (the new ones being: Left; Pro-Europe centre-left; Pro-Europe centre-right).

Plan C would be the same as Plan B but without Labour legislating for electoral reform within this parliament. The Sprint for PR candidacy plan of stand-asides and deliberate vote-splitting would be executed and the smaller progressive parties would successfully deliver a hung parliament with Labour as the largest party. They would all demand electoral reform to STV in return for their support of a Labour-led government.

Credible new parties fail to emerge from within the 2024 Labour contingent, so the Green Party (with the support of the Lib Dems) takes on the role of targeting wins in the vast majority of Labour’s safest seats. They are less likely to be successful in all 100, and so the plan is less likely to be able to deliver stand-asides for Labour in their more vulnerable seats. The Sprint for PR plan is still successfully executed by the Green Party and Liberal Democrats working together; Labour are the largest party but short of a parliamentary majority; The Lib Dems and/or Greens demand electoral reform to STV in return for their support after the election.

None of the established parties co-operate with the Sprintfor PR plan, so a new party is formed from within the Sprint for PR campaign whichstands 100 candidates in the marginal seats beyond Labour’s most likely 300wins. This party advocates voting anyone but Labour in these seats inorder to ensure they do not achieve another illegitimate parliamentary majorityand again refuse to legislate for electoral reform. These candidacies will becombined with a tactical voting guide suggesting Green (or viable progressivealternative) votes in Labour’s safest 100 seats, Labour votes in their next 200most likely wins, and anyone but Labour (or the progressive with a realisticchance) in all seats beyond Labour’s 300 most likely wins. Vote-splitting andtactical voting delivers a hung parliament with Labour as the largest party. The Lib Dems and/or Greens demand electoral reform to STVin return for their support after the election.

No new party arises from within the Sprint for PR campaign, or very few candidates come forward, so the campaign delivers a tactical voting guide aimed at delivering a hung parliament with Labour as the largest party and with a clear progressive majority. The Lib Dems and/or Greens demand electoral reform to STV in return for their support after the election.

Sprint for PR discusses with all co-operating parties whether it would be helpful to have joint ticket candidates eg, The Liberal Democrats Sprint for PR, or The Green Party Sprints for PR (or other party name) in order to make clear the campaign’s endorsement of particular candidates.

‍