Eastleigh shows why Labour-Lib Dem tactical voting will matter in 2015

With the Tories in second place in 38 of the Lib Dems' 57 seats, Labour will need to consider whether to tacitly advise its supporters to vote for Clegg's party.

The first poll on the Eastleigh by-election, courtesy of Lord Ashcroft, suggests that the contest will be as tight as expected. The Conservatives are in the lead on 34 per cent, three points ahead of the Lib Dems, who have held the seat since 1994 (another by-election). But when all responses are included, rather than those certain to vote, the positions are reversed, with the Lib Dems three points ahead of the Tories (32-29). The challenge for Clegg's party, which holds all 36 council seats in the constituency, will be getting out its vote. 

Labour is in third place on 19 per cent, an increase of nine points since the general election, but far behind the Lib Dems and the Tories. On last night's edition of This Week, Alan Johnson bluntly declared: "Labour aren't going to win." 

Among other things, then, Eastleigh is a reminder that tactical voting will be a major issue in 2015. Indeed, if the Conservatives win on 28 February, it will become an issue immediately. The Tories are in second place in 38 of the Lib Dems' 57 seats and half of those on its target list are held by Clegg's party. If Labour is to prevent the Tories from decapitating scores of Lib Dems, it will need to consider whether to advise its supporters to cast tactical votes. In 2010, Ed Balls and Peter Hain both argued that Labour supporters should consider lending their votes to the Lib Dems in seats where the party couldn't win. But after five years of Clegg and co. acting as the Tories' "accomplices", it is doubtful whether many Labour figures will repeat this call. 

The biggest electoral headache for the Conservatives remains that any collapse in the Lib Dem vote will work to Labour's advantage in Tory-Labour marginals, as was shown in the Corby by-election. If this patten is repeated at the general election, the Tories stand to lose dozens of seats - there are 37 Con-Lab marginals where the third place Lib Dem vote is more than twice the margin of victory. 

If they are to stand any chance of winning a majority at the next election or even remaining the largest single party, the Tories need to hope for a partial Lib Dem recovery.

Nick Clegg with Ed Miliband at Buckingham Palace to mark the Duke of Edinburgh's 90th birthday on June 30, 2011 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.