The anti-Jeremy Hunt alliance in his own constituency shows what could happen if Labour and the Lib Dems worked together

Ukip is standing aside in a number of seats where the Tory candidate is a hardline Brexiteer – bar the Greens, progressive parties are yet to grasp the value of such tactical unity

Time to go? With a comfortable majority Jeremy Hunt is unlikely to be unseated but may at least face greater scrutiny over the NHS

Local election results last Thursday caused panic among Labour candidates defending what previously looked to be safe seats. Some prospective MPs were suddenly keen to pursue a progressive alliance under which the Liberal Democrats and Greens might stand aside for them to maximise the anti-Tory vote.

The Greens have led calls for such an alliance. Although the Labour and Lib Dem leaderships publicly oppose the idea, their local members have taken matters into their own hands in several seats. The latest example is Surrey South West, where the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt faces a challenge from Louise Irvine, leader of the National Health Action Party set up to defend the NHS. The Greens have stood aside, while local Labour and Lib Dem activists are backing Irvine and urging their national parties to withdraw their candidates.

Hunt will not be losing much sleep. He had a 28,556 majority in 2015. Irvine won 4,851 votes then; her share, when combined with Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, rises to 16,657. But Hunt won 34,199 votes and Ukip came second with 5,643, much of which might be expected to go Tory this time.

Yet health is an emotive issue. Richard Taylor, a co-founder of the National Health Action Party, was twice elected as an independent MP for Wyre Forest after opposing cuts to emergency services at Kidderminster Hospital. So at the very least, Hunt will be forced to defend his record as Health Secretary more vigorously in his own backyard – and rightly so.

Every time such a local alliance is floated, the Conservatives rush out a statement warning about a Labour-led “coalition of chaos” after 8 June. They are reprising their 2015 playbook; their attacks on Ed Miliband being in the pockets of the SNP as prime minister worked brilliantly.

So Jeremy Corbyn will have nothing to do with the progressive alliance being urged by Compass, the democratic left pressure group. Similarly, Tim Farron insists “there will be no deal, no pacts, no coalitions”. In practice, the Lib Dems are a bit more flexible, but do not want to undermine their top-line message on Brexit by cuddling up to Corbyn while chasing the votes of Labour pro-Europeans.

Indeed, Brexit puts the progressive parties at a huge disadvantage. The main one, Labour, does the splits as it tries to stop working class Leave voters in the North and Midlands going Tory, while also urging middle class Remainers not to go Lib Dem.

In contrast, the Brexit election has reunited the right. Ukip is standing aside in some seats where the Tory candidate is a hardline Brexiteer. We have a regressive alliance instead of a progressive one.

With time running out to choose candidates for the snap election, tactical voting will probably have to be the main vehicle for stopping the Tories, or at least preventing the landslide Theresa May wants. An ORB poll for The Independent found that 30 per cent of people, including 46 per cent of Remain voters in the referendum, would consider voting for a candidate who is not their first choice to prevent a hard Brexit. So tactical voting could make a real difference.

If progressive parties have an impact in seats where they form an alliance, it will encourage more grassroots members to follow suit at the following general election. However, the backing of the Labour and Lib Dem leaderships would be needed for it to have a major impact. This election might just convince them that a progressive alliance is the only way to end Tory hegemony.