Sprint for PR believes there should be a challenge to the Labour leadership as soon as possible. Polling shows the 2024 election was a rejection of the Conservatives, and not an endorsement of Labour’s offering. When only around a third of your voters did so for positive reasons, the mandate to deliver on Labour’s election campaign commitments is a very weak one.

Their stances on electoral reform and Europe are not supported by current public opinion. What is more, Labour voters are enormously supportive of electoral reform and rejoining the single market, customs union and the EU, with around two thirds support for both measures from this voter group.

Keir Starmer arguably ascended to leadership of the Labour party by deception,  and Labour are struggling at between 25 and 30% in the polls with historic negative ratings for the Prime Minister.

Time is of the essence. Rejoining the single market and customs union, and reforming our electoral system, will both be lengthy undertakings, and every month Starmer and Reeves are allowed to pursue their very restricted ambitions will raise the right and far-right’s hopes of victory at the next election. A leadership challenge from a “constitutional” MP (one that supports rejoining the EU, electoral reform, and opposing rather than appeasing the far-right), could not some soon enough.

A successful leadership challenge would hopefully bring about electoral reform and rejoining the single market and customs union, making the delivery of the other Sprint for PR campaigns and strategies unnecessary. An unsuccessful leadership challenge would be the obvious launching off point for a new party of “constitutional”s and an invitation to socialists to form a separate new party of the left in order to deliver the Sprint for PR strategy. With the popularity of the “constitutional” position among Labour voters, and the threat of splitting Labour in three rather than two for the new political future (presuming the left would always split off under PR), new leadership of Labour would offer both hope and simplicity.

“Keir Starmer could be forgiven for ignoring the desires of Labour supporters and members if he was delivering the desires of the British public. He is not. He could be forgiven for ignoring the desires of Labour members and supporters and the British public if he was acting in their best interests. He is not.” might be a good opening argument for a "constitutional" challenger.

union support

With the potential for a fracturing of the Labour party, it would be prudent to discuss with the trade union movement the possibility of changing their funding of political parties in such a way that parties forming from within the footprint of Labour have a route to gaining union funding. Keir Starmer’s government represent a very small section of opinion in the Labour movement, so the trade unions should send out strong signals that other parties that more closely represent the interests of the movement would be eligible for significant union support.

the good systems disagreement

At present the “Good Systems Agreement” lays out the principles that a good electoral system should meet, and suggests a new voting system should be arrived at by citizens engaging in an evidence-based deliberative process.

The Sprint for PR campaign proposes that any agreement on a “good” system would be made better if it didn’t have the support of parties that may be a future threat to our democracy. Nigel Farage’s support for Donald Trump, a man who has tried to overturn the result of a legitimate election, should make us minded to regard systems as “good” only if they fairly suppress the representation of far-right parties with a questionable commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

If we are going to be sprinting for PR in the coming months and years, it would be far preferable to know which lane we are running in and what electoral system we are advocating.

The Single Transferable Vote has the greatest capacity to fairly suppress far-right representation, so Sprint for PR will attempt to engage signatory organisations and individuals to agree a good SYSTEM agreement in support of STV. We should then agree and communicate what form of STV we collectively advocate.

IF THE FRENCH CAN DO IT, WHY CAN’T WE?

In the 2024 French Assembly elections, parties from the centre-left to far-left (including their Green party equivalent) agreed a sophisticated nationwide stand-aside pact that delivered enormous electoral benefit in their first round of voting. In the second round of voting the centrist coalition and left coalition agreed even more stand-asides in order to effectively suppress far-right representation, again with great success. The far-right were ahead in over half of seats after the first round, and ended up with less than a quarter of the elected representatives.  

There persists within UK political parties a stubborn notion that stand-aside pacts are undemocratic or ineffective. We will try to build links between French and British parties and campaigning organisations in order to ensure the lessons from the French experience are learnt urgently and communicated effectively to strategic decision-makers in all UK progressive parties. First Past the Post does not have a second round, so we cannot afford to try to fight off Reform and the Conservatives with the same tired and dangerous strategies.

GREEN PARTY AND LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GROUPS

Sprint for PR will likely need to establish groups within the Green Party and Liberal Democrats that will campaign internally for the adoption of Sprint for PR strategies like deliberate stand-asides and vote-splitting.

This campaigning may take the form of motion preparation, conference fringe events, or other regional events throughout the year, but all will be targeted at maximising the representation and funding of these parties and ensuring electoral outcomes that are conducive to the electoral reform that gives these parties a level playing field on which to compete.

‍

‍

‍