Easy answers are far from easy
The call for a 'progressive alliance' has gone up again. But there are too many unexplored obstacles.
Labour had a disappointing election in most of England and Scotland. The Tories did well, gaining seats and councils. So regular as clockwork, the call has gone up from the usual quarters for a so-called ‘progressive alliance’. This has been the cry from some quarters - people I often agree with on other things - for many, many years. It was there before Blair. I’m not really old enough to remember, but I wonder if it first came out of the SDPs failure to well target their vote in the 1983 election. Certainly the Liberal Democrats desperation for voting reform comes from a similar inability.
I am not wholly against a progressive alliance of some sort. I’m kind of agnostic - seeing both sides. But I think there are so many obstacles to such a thing - practical, political and emotional - that I just don’t believe it can ever happen. As long as that remains true, it feels like a vast waste of energy to continue to focus on it while there is so much else that needs doing.
So here I am going to run through the obstacles as I see them. Please respond in the comments if you can see any answers that would really work to overcome these.
The first and most obvious objection is that the members of the various parties - who in each would have to pass very specific internal rules to allow it to happen - aren’t keen on the other parties. People might get exasperated at this but it’s both true and not as unreasonable as the so-called reasonablist think.
Party members have taken a big and unusual step in giving their money - and in many cases their time - to a particular party. They are in the tiny percentage of the country who are saying “I identify so much with this *particular* party that I am willing to put my name and money to it.” That isn’t to be sneezed at because it is literally what makes democracy function in this country. If all these people suddenly decdided to stop supporting their particular political party, there would be no parties left. No activism at or between elections, far less money for parties to employ staff, to develop policy and to what they do already of the things we compain they don’t do enough. If people already say “we don’t see enough of you” imagine how much worse that would be without the armies of party volunteers out on the doorsteps.
These people have chosen their particular parties for good reasons. I am a socialist. I may differ over how I interpret that with other party members, but we generally start from a leftish economic stance. I prize that over the economic liberalism that is central to many in the Liberal Democrats, no matter how much I may agree with them on socially liberal matters. I also believe in growth. I want it to be sustainable and for the proceeds to be more fairly distrbuted, but I want growth to continue in a way that many Greens simple don’t countenance. These ideological differences matter. They aren’t insurmountable (all parties are essentially coalitions anyway) but they aren’t ignorable and can’t simply be waved away. There needs to be a reason for people to put aside these differences.
The differences can also be pretty personal and pretty vicious in a way that national commentators often fail to see. If you job is to pontificate from on high (and there’s nothing wrong with that - someone please give me a column!) then sometimes you forget that there are levels below Westminster politics where these fights mean a great deal to people’s lives. It may well be true that there are only a handful of Parliamentary seats where these parties compete. But on a local level there are many, many more.
Take Brighton and Hove for example. Let’s say the Greens and Labour wanted to discuss how to ensure that Labour hung on in Kemptown and Hove, while Caroline Lucas wasn’t challenged in Pavillion. That seems fine on the surface. A decent deal for both parties. But at council level, these two parties are extremely competitive with the council closely balanced and power changing hands between one and the other. I don’t see a world in which either party gives up on what can be a potential flagship for them. But as it is so close, the fight does get very heated. How could that sit realistically alongside a pact on the constituency seats? Voters would have Labour and Green members vigerously campaigning against each other one moment and then supporting each other’s candidates the next. It would feel deeply insulting to the intelligence of the electorate.
Equally, the success of the Greens at the recent council elections make any pact that involves the Liberal Democrats significantly less attractive to them. They can see a real path to becoming England’s third party. Why would they want to give that up now?
I have also only focused here on England. But there are different and far bigger problems in trying to unite parties who consider themselves progressive in Scotland and Wales due to differences over nationalism and independence. These issues are fundamental in Scotland and increasing in saliance in Wales. They are at the heart of politics and represent a fundamental and unanswerable difference in beliefs.
That leads me to the next objection. The electorate should have the same chance to make choices that party members do. They too should be able to distinguish between distinct political and policy offers and make a choice. The last thing any progressive party should be doing at this juncture in time is paternalistically make that choice for them and restrict their options “for their own good”. I can’t think of anything more likely to continue the turn in distaste away from a politics they see as hectoring and patronising.
My final objection reflects the theme of last week’s newsletter. This ‘progressive alliance’ is - almost without exception - framed in negative terms. it is not about the forward offer, but about stopping the Tories. It is simply considered as an anti-Tory alliance and as long as that is the case, you aren’t going to get me on board. Not becuase I love the Tories. But becuase not being a Tory is just not enough. Not even slightly enough. I want something to vote for.
So, until you can show me a workable way for these parties to come together, offer something positive and do so in a way that doesn’t patronise an already deeply frustrated electorate, I don’t see how a progressive alliance is the answer to anything other than a North London parlour game.
This is not to say that I don’t think a deal could be made after an election. We’d all need to avoid the absolute elephant traps the Lib Dems fell into the moment they signed their death warrent (also known as the coalition agreement) but perhaps we should thank them for showing us all what not to do in the future.
It is also not to say that I don’t support voting reform. I do, I’m an AV+ gal. But it’s not going to happen under this government so the only reason to campaign for it now is to have something to bind the progressive parties together in coalition over.
What I’ve been up to
The play continues to thrive. I am now directing it (gulp) so spending the week reading books on how to do that! If you want to donate to help it get on stage in the best shape possible please give what you can.
I wrote for the Telegraph about why Boris Johnson’s Joie de Vivre was suited to this political moment. And how Labour needs to cheer up a bit!
I was invited to be an ‘expert’ on a Tortoise Think In on whether Blair is right about the Labour Party.
And in the latest edition of The Zeitgeist Tapes, Steve and I finally cover The West Wing.
Reading List
If you want to read the other side of the Progressive Alliance argument, you could do worse than the always interesting and readable Polly Toynbee.
This is very good from Andrew Harrop of the Fabian Society. It offers the start of some solutions to some of the problems I highlighted last week.
Questions, comments and arguments are very welcome. Insults will get you summarily blocked on every platform that no longer hosts Donald Trump. I’m at emmaburnell@gmail.com or on Twitter (far too often) at @EmmaBurnell_.
The truth is, the left leaning parties are engaged in a long term struggle for the same space, the same set of voters. This is why there was so little warmth between the parties, even during the dog days of the Brexit impasse in parliament. Neither Labour nor the LibDems nor the Greens will volunteer to commit slow suicide by doing a pre election pact and enabling the other side with more seats. In cricketing terms, you don't give your most dangerous opponent who is out of form an easy single every over so you can fall back to the comfort zone of targeting the other batsman whom you find easier. That way you end up playing your biggest adversary back into form and they will hurt you for a long time thereafter. This is why they won't be able to unite - because their champions are engaged in a different, private struggle.
And the solution is in fact provided by the Conservative Party, that most successful political winning machine over two centuries. It's a mindset thing. It is easy to forget, the Tories faced an existential crisis under two years ago, when May achieved their lowest ever vote in local elections. They reacted by ditching May and reinventing themselves by coalescing the whole of the Leave voting constituency around themselves. If I were Labour, I would target the LibDems, the Greens and the Celt Nats as ruthlessly as the Tories targeted first UKIP and then TBP. Labour should look to annihilate the other left leaning parties. But there again, if Labour were capable of this then they wouldn’t be Labour.
I think the purpose of any alliance has to be around electoral reform , beyond that people should be able to vote for what they believe in . Our system will only deliver a Tory government or a Labour one that has to pander to Murdoch or whatever puppet masters are influencing behind the scenes, just look where Blair has ended up , very sad after the enthusiasm of that election . Parties like the Greens have much to offer on the environment , whilst we can only hope that Electoral reform can bring the best of business and the still great if invested in public and third sectors to work for a decent country instead of the sad situation we are in currently .