I can't be at this event but I like what it is saying and the message it is sending:
Congratulations to those taking the risk to be involved.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Absolutely. Stale political thinking is what has got us in this mess. This has got to be good for the country and part of the solution to the rejuvenation of politics.
Petition supporting an alliance here:
https://action.greenparty.org.uk/
I would be very pleased to see a left wing alliance formed, the only problem I see is the vast majority of labour MP’s are not even left of centre anymore. I agree more with the greens policies which are further to the left than Corbyn in most cases, the lib dems would play along just to try to get some credibility back but the labour right just want to be back in power for the sake of it in my opinion. As blair once said he would rather not be in government than stand on a left wing agenda!
From Tony Blair NY Times article, June 24th 2016 (the day the Corbyn coup started)
“The center must regain its political traction, rediscover its capacity to analyze the problems we all face and find solutions that rise above the populist anger. If we do not succeed in beating back the far left and far right before they take the nations of Europe on this reckless experiment, it will end the way such rash action always does in history: at best, in disillusion; at worst, in rancorous division. The center must hold.”
Beating back the far left!
Now what did he mean by that I wonder?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/tony-blair-brexits-stunning-coup.html
Seems Alex Salmond thinks he knows what’s been going on!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-chilcot-report-latest-news-alex-salmond-a7116926.html
The original article is more to the point.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/14594947.The_coup_against_Corbyn_was_planned_to_stop_him_calling_for_Blair___s_head_after_Chilcot/?ref=rl&lp=3
A few may have done that
Most? I seriously doubt it
It’s the only hope we haven’t the moment I really hope we hear more of this
I have already signed the green Party petition calling for this, it is eminently sensible but I fear Labour tribalism (and maybe SNP tribalism as I’m never sure of their anti-neoliberal status) will win the day.
The policies MUST be CLEARLY anti austerity, though with no fudge on this one, otherwise it will be pointless.
I’ve recommended this appraoch to my own CLP.
Labour still worries me-they recently offered Corbyn a ‘concession'(!) if he resigns…guess what….THEY ‘MIGHT’ JUST TAKE ON BOARD SOME OF HIS POLICIES! This says it all: the man has been there for 9 months and the 170 odd M.P’s that want him gone offer to adopt his policies if he goes!
The ‘laughing policieman’ act continues.
Simon,
Have to agree with you on the preposterousness on the “concession” (!!??) offered by the Gang of 172.
I also have to agree with you on the issue of “Labour tribalism”, but with a particular take here.
Richard and I have been in off-line e-correspondence on this matter, and have agreed to disagree, but here’s the (updated, from an earlier post on Facebook – I swapped round what I thought was strategy, and what I thought was tactics) substance of my view on the whole course of events in the Labour Party since the Friday morning deluge of resignations
“As I’ve posted elsewhere, the anti-Corbyn PLP deserves 0/10 for tactics (WHAT timing, with Cameron & the Tories on the rocks!!), and 1/10 for strategy (going for the kill without a replacement in place, or maybe even in mind!!)
I DO have serious concerns about Jeremy’s leadership (though not about his sincerity, passion, and the correctness of his ideas and objectives), but this was neither the time, nor the way to take action to bring about a change of leadership.
A blunder of the highest order, given that
a) it seems to have entrenched Corbyn’s support
b) has driven a wedge between the PLP and the membership, with possible disastrous consequences for Party operations
c) has made the dissenting PLP bloc look like bumbling amateurs, who, by attacking too soon, have simultaneously robbed themselves of a chance to shine in the parliamentary attacks on a Tory Party in meltdown
d) has left the Labour Party FAR less likely to win the next election WHOEVER is Leader
In short, a lose/lose/lose/lose position. Possibly my 1/10 for strategy is too generous!”
A related part of my view of events is that I DO believe that the upcoming Chilcot Report publication has bearing on the timing of the rebellion (see Craig Murray’s Blog – a commentator for whom I have considerable respect – at https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/not-chilcot-report/), just as I believe it has bearing on Corbyn’s desire to hold on to post-publication of that Report: he wants to be in place to make his point – maybe his swan song!
However, all of the above could be seen as not strictly relevant to the issue of a Progressive Alliance, as being “Queen Anne is dead” type news, except for two key points.
The first is that Clive Lewis, one of Corbyn’s keenest backers, is involved in this event, something which suggests to me that he may be acting in accordance with Corbyn’s own wishes, as part of a plan to extract the maximum level of concessions from the Gang of 172, and in particular that they will agree to carry on along the anti-austerity and pro-people line, in which the economy is the SERVANT of the people, and not the MASTER, as in neo-liberalism.
The second is that such a collocation of circumstances – i.e. Jeremy’s negotiating stance with the Gang of 172, plus the fact of a possible creation of a Progressive Alliance to fight the Nasty Party – puts the ball in the court of the 172 MP’s, to see if they have the breadth of vision to agree to take part in such a Progressive Alliance, on the strictly limited terms.
These, I would say, should be a 2-year Parliament, in which the first year to 18 months would be spent unstitching as much as possible of the divisive legislation brought in by the Nasty Party (the illiberal “Fixed Term Parliament Act” for example, as well as calling a halt to the Tory gerrymandering and the attempt to “cook” the Electoral Register) PLUS the enactment of legislation for PR, an elected Senate and a written Constitution, and a Constitutional Court capable of striking down unconstitutional legislation.
Of course, legislation would also have to be enacted to ensure all the points about work, wages, education, housing etc, that Richard has asked for. There should then follow a Referendum on acceptance of such radical changes, with a General Election to follow on the basis of the outcome.
If the 172 are willing to come on board with such a project, fine, but if not, they will have shown their true, probaly neo-liberal, colours, I’m afraid, and will thereby only have worsened a key point I made above, namely that their behaviour has driven a wedge between the PLP and the membership, with possible disastrous consequences for Party operations.
Richard is quite right to say that Corbyn cannot carry on with only 20% of the PLP supporting him, and 80% against. However, just as important is the fact that the 172 cannot carry on if they are confronted with unyielding opposition from the local membership – a Party split I would gauge to be more destructive for the Labour Party than that obtaining between the Leader and the PLP, and one which, if left unhealed, will consign Labour not just to the wilderness for many years, but to actual oblivion, just as the once mighty Liberal Party of 1906, which then won 400 seats, and 49% of the vote, was reduced to 12 seats and 9% of the vote in 1945.
Both Corbyn and the Gang of 172 have a stark choice ahead of them – co-operate for the common good, or both face oblivion.
I have to admit that anyone but you Andrew would not have got on with the term Gang of 172
I think that is insulting to many honest people who genuinely feel they are doing the right thing and are now, in too many cases, facing physical intimidation
Did we forget the need for care with language that quickly?
Andrew – I do not see a split and rebuild appraoch as necessarily disastrous-a crisis IS a crisis. Rebuild and re -select could gather pace quicker than we think as a thirst for anti-austerity politics is out there, undeniably.
Whatever happens now by way of compromise by either ‘side’ is too late as all ‘pitches have been queered’-yet Corbyn does retain integrity and is a survivor of 9 months of constant plotting against him as well as daily torrents of foul invective from the press. Not many could take such a double whammy. Like you I have doubts about his presentation and communication but (and this is the nub in my view) a party that had worked with his policies would have been able to SHARE those communication skills with the talents and weaknesses of Ministers compensating each other. There we clearly faults on both sides. But on thing comes clearly out from the bogus ‘concession’ of the 172: For 9 months they had not taken his policies on board and remained wedded to neo-liberal thinking. This in itself is scandalous. Rebuild a non-neoliberal Labour Party, openly and otherwise they will not function as an opposition anyway and we’ll be in LINO territory for good.
Looks like the Guardian is allowing some more balanced opinion at last on the forces behind the “Chicken Coup”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/political-establishment-momentum-jeremy-corbyn
always a good sign if Caroline Lucas and Vince Cable are involved!
More democratic? Pull the other one This so called progressive alliance is just a euphemism for locking out/over riding any so called right wing views.
That is permitted in democracy
This may surprise you but people voting other than the right is allowed within the definition of electoral freedom
Absolutely they are just to say they are fighting for things to be more democratic is nonsense. As is the nonsense about more ‘sustainability’ which is what exactly? Taxing even more than most countries, saying from ivory towers we know best? Popular ideas? Normally tax cuts are popular but people will come round to the idea of building a society to be ‘proud of’ meanwhile compared to the old timers society does not exist. In hindsight without a single tax raised not bringing in the smoking ban in pubs would have had a positive effect for ‘society’
As opposed to having a significant anti-right view divided for the convenience of the right? Democracy enables perspectives to unite if they wish.
Just as Conservatism & Unionism unite perspectives. Although of course we have the irony of the C & U Party having the majority of its ranks recently vote for something very likely to break up the Union.
A coalition may now be necessary to stop Brexit from ever happening.
The leaders of Brexit have now either fallen or been pushed onto their own swords, meaning that our next Prime Minister is almost certain to be a Remain voter. This makes it inconceivable that they will trigger article 50 without a wider parliamentary vote. However, such a test will also have to be pushed back into the long grass. Why? Because the outcome is very uncertain. The referendum was not legally binding on the UK parliament, and we know that MPs overwhelmingly believe that Brexit would be a disaster for the UK economy, and lead to Scotsit. However, if a majority of MPs voted against a motion for Brexit there would be a constitutional crisis. Hence there cannot be a parliamentary vote.
The only solution will be a general election to determine the final decision. How soon this comes will depend on public opinion. The conservatives would like to drag this out to 2020, but outrage from Leave voters, and confusion in Whitehall and the EU about our future direction means a contest this autumn is more likely, and the winning party or coalition will be the one that commits to remain in the EU. Brexit is not like any normal political issue. It has stirred up unprecedented emotions on both sides:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/02/brexit-referendum-voters-survey?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=180134&subid=13369576&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
This creates a huge opportunity for a new or existing party to take a pro-EU position. We know this cannot be the Tories, as they are too split. Labour is very likely to split unless Corbyn loses the leadership contest. Meanwhile the Lib-dems have already made clear that they will stand on a Remain platform. Get ready for the most hotly contested general election in decades!
I agree very much with Robert and I do believe also with the idea of a 2yr parliament term following a GE. Noting should be ruled out as we are in un chartered waters and rudderless ! I can see how greaved the Brexiteers will feel should a remain leader/PM be voted in by Cons. But what did they expect they probably voted conservative anyway. I can’t conceivably imagine what will happen in UK if A Leadsum should become PM and appoint Farage as a Gov. Representative other than even more mayhem and god knows we have enough . So yes we need a GE followed by a coherent plan as to have we move forward or at least to step out of this quagmire that we are now up to our eyes in .
Party politics aside, what are your views on Andrea Leadsom Richard.
Dangerously naive banker who thinks the world works as basic economic textbooks describe it
Very glad to see this happen and I shall try to be there.
This is about listening to all views, but most importantly, recognising that this will need compromise, even if that offends some people’s desire for intellectual purity.
The threat is not even Brexit – it is the gaining of power by a group who are further to the Right than anything we have ever seen and the damage they will cause to Britsh society and its economy
If the left insist on fighting each other and hiding in their cliques they will be as guilty as any Kipper of the consequences
Hope they take this show on the road. London-centred-ness is part of the problem, but I guess they’ve got to start somewhere. We will certainly be in need of a Progressive alliance when ‘Snooper’ May takes over as PM.
Excellent news, of course. It’s what we’ve been suggesting for a while. But they’d better get their skates on as Thatcher Mk2 is looming fast on the horizon – be it May or Leadsom. Either one would be a ferocious enemy as it seems neither takes prisoners – and proud of it. May certainly has form – http://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-pressure-may-campaign. And ex banker Leadsom has publicly stated the direction in which she wants to take the country – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/02/andrea-leadsom-i-can-be-the-new-margaret-thatcher. Not generally a fan of Andrew Rawnsley but his Opinion article in today’s Observer is a realistic assessment as to the state of play between the Tories & Labour.
That said – there’s no point in wasting more time commenting on what the Tories are up to. They will do what they’ve always done. As Rawnsley said – they will mop up the blood and get back to business as usual; “Historically, the Tory party has had a genius for switching from darkest treachery to sycophantic unity and performing the somersault at astonishing speed”.
‘Better to light a candle ….’ but the more I reflect on the situation the more depressed I become. The collapse of the Labour Party at this particular time in history could be terminal. No matter what potential level of support lies out there in the country, it will take forever to cobble together an effective coalition party unless there exists a real sense of urgency. I pray there is and I hope everyone who can become involved, in however minor a capacity, will. I’ve just signed the Green Party’s call for a progressive alliance (https://action.greenparty.org.uk). I forsee a real and dangerous crisis of democracy looming. The country couldn’t withstand 4 years of Thatcherite ideology. Action stations!
Interesting that Clive Lewis is involved.
His name has cropped up a few times when discussion of who may be the next Labour leader. From the little I’ve heard and seen of him, he seems an impressive young MP.
That he sees the value in a collaboration with other political parties is a sign of a man prepared to explore options and consider alternatives.
No surprise that the admirable Caroline Lucas is at the head of this sort of progressive initiative.
I like Clive and have got to know him a bit
Richard,
I accept your reproof. The echo of “the Gang of Four” was in my mind as I wrote, but I shouldn’t have used the term (indeed, the fact that I didn’t use it all the time shows I was unsure about it), and I apologise.
I realised the analogy
But I think times have moved on and we do need to be careful
There is real tension in the air
My suggestion recently that I feel this is an Ireland 1922 moment – where the decision people made defined where they stood for years to come – seems ever more pertinent
But we could do without the recriminations
“My suggestion recently that I feel this is an Ireland 1922 moment — where the decision people made defined where they stood for years to come”
Interesting analogy but it was not just years – it molded Irish politics for nearly a century. Even as recently as this May Fianna Fail and Fine Gael could not agree to go into coalition. It is an very interesting analogy however regarding Sovereignty Power and Economic Success.
I agree
I understated my case
Unusual for me….
Richard,
I confess I’d forgotten your pregnant reference to Michael Collins – a weighty historical parallel indeed.
However, THE KEY issue is the need to fashion a Progressive Alliance, a bye-blow from which should/could be the healing of the Labour Party rift, while fully recognising that, important though that may be, its importance pales almost into insignificance alongside the need to heal the rifts in the UK’s consciousness, something I firmly believe can only be begun to be fully achieved by the defeat of the Tory Party at the polls, and – hopefully – its transformation back to the “One Nation Conservatism” of my youth, until Margaret Thatcher “stormed the castle”.
With that in mind, this article from Robert Halfon, Tory Deputy Chairman, is extraordinarily interesting, showing as it does a Conservative’s experience of deprivation in a formerly Labour constituency, and the lessons he has drawn from it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/robert-halfon-conservative-dying_uk_5776b79be4b0c9460800c912
Halfon seems to have smelt the coffee
Indeed, when he says: ‘the party of BHS and not the NHS ‘ he’s shown himslef to be more to the Left that the ‘172’. Perhaps he should be with Corbyn, I don’t think anyone in Labour has come up with such a handy slogan!
I hope we are witnessing the death of the Tories but if it is their death then it is also the death of New (old!) Labour and the death of the Lib Dems has happened -let’s call it the death of the Westminster bubble.
A thought provoking piece and a reminder that there are still Tories who do not share the neo-liberal zealots’ view. If the coalition idea is serious, the door should be held open to them as well
Reflecting on the refences elsewhere in this and other blogs, one might question whether elites are necessarily wealthy people who went to the same school and university. They can exist in any context. Closed cliques who believe they have the one true, unchallengeable worldview are elites in their own way. Its about behaviour, and not wealth or power
This is fantastic news. I will try to keep my feet on the ground.
There maybe light at the end of what seems like a very long tunnel after all.
And yes – it is very brave – but monolithic political institutions have surely had their day.
We need more movements, more working together to deliver balanced policies and PR.
Lets get it done.
I’ll be there – if anyone else is and would like to meet up, let me know. Perhaps Richard could please put us in touch…
And very glad to see Paul M as one of the contributors. Perhaps ‘guided’ by a wise elite would have been less loaded than ruled.
As a contributor to the debate I will discussing this definition of progressivism in my allotted time:
“By progressivism I mean the global people-centred system shaped around a core of progressive practices and institutions, themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by a wise elite which acts in a progressive way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head.”
I’m looking forward to it.
Thanks Paul
Good luck with it
Would like to be there
I was with you Paul until you wrote “ruled by a wise elite which acts in a progressive way”.
I have yet to find any historical record of a “ruler” from an “elite” section of a society who believed in or pursued anything “progressive” that did not threaten their own elitist hegemonic control over power and wealth.
I remain open to the idea that such a radical human transformation may be possible, but not while people who consider themselves to be elite are allowed (by the economic and political system they control) to rule over those who are not elites.
If you can democratise elitism, perhaps that is possible, but that does seem somewhat oxymoronic.
PS – is the debate being video’d and published online?
Keith
I think you have to accept that elites can be wise or all government is malevolent and all rulers – whoever they are – are corrupted
Do you really think that?
Richard
Yes!
Tell me what has changed since Baron Acton wisely pronounced.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
I think the word elite in terms of governance is the wrong word to use.
A benevolent ‘elite’ will do me! The word elite, is, I think, derived from the Latin word to ‘elect.’ It has, of course, attracted associations to do with finance capitalism and those running it.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely”
If absolute power could be combined with absolute goodness, then the above would be false.
No elite is perfectly wise, because we are all subject to bias. But wisdom may consist in mitigating and counteracting the effects of bias.
You’re looking forward to it!
A ‘wise elite’ governs our country for everyone – not just their funders or their polarised followers. They keep certain forces in check and part of that is promoting equality through policy and the creation of money.
Politics seems to have borrowed too much from marketing practice – for example the concept of ‘segmentation’ – pulling out certain groups by their tendencies and then focussing on delivering policies for that particular group (meeting their needs over others)with a hope of winning elections.
That for me is the problem in both the Tory party and the (Old) New Labour party.
For this proposed alliance to gain any traction with the general public they have to understand the feelings of many leftist voters that voted to leave the EU. I’m convinced that many who voted to leave like myself did so knowing all the potential risks, we voted to leave an undemocratic, hegemonic, capitalist institution, that has through osmosis become one with the ruling 1%.
We’re seeing France even with a Socialist government legislating to cut workers rights and enpower big business as well as restricting trade union influence all orchestrated by the neo-liberal EU.
We now require the progressive left to take heed of the referendum result and formulate a manifesto that reflects the will of leave that could also be consumed by those who wished to remain.
Immigration needs to be tackled, we need to launch an all out attack on the narrative evil that is balancing the books, all too often I have seen labour party MP’s allow the Tories to continually throw economic punch after punch over their handling of the economy before the crash of 2008. The 2008 crash and the economics that brought it about ought to be where the progressive economic alternative narrative is formulated. Complete liberation of society on all social and economic fronts creates a divided society on epic proportions. We need to engage with the youth in our society, they are not ideologically stained with the failings of unionisation in the 70’s, we need to engage with them, policies such as free education from infant school to university and ensuring all will be guaranteed an apprenticeship or some form of training. A plan to build houses on a massive scale both social and private.
Let’s use the narrative that the right may at all cost balance the books and leave the next generation debt free, but causality will see the infrastructure they leave that provides our social well being will be in ruins.
Richard,
I just read the following in the FT: “Richard Murphy, a tax expert who has previously advised [Corbyn], said he was … now on the ‘backbenches’.”
Please explain what’s going on.
Read this blog last Monday
I remember being at a meeting with Jeremy Corbyn, shortly after the 2015GE defeat, where much of the discussion was about the need for building alliances with the Greens and other groups. No conclusions were reached but my impression was that the participants, including Jeremy, were more or less in favour. The LDs were a bit of a sticking point, having just come out of the coalition!
Simon
“Indeed, when he says: ‘the party of BHS and not the NHS ‘ he’s shown himslef to be more to the Left that the ‘172’. Perhaps he should be with Corbyn, I don’t think anyone in Labour has come up with such a handy slogan!”
Quite – and one for the speechwriters.
On a par with the idea that right wing Tories are proposing a new name for England and Wales after Scotland leaves:POUNDLAND.
Matt
Caroline Lucas has said the Vince Cable could make eating babies sound like a reasonable thing to do and I think she’s absolutely right. We would trust him at our peril.
I was at this evenings session – well worthwhile. All the speakers were as you’d expect but the most interesting and challenging in my view was John Harris, whose articles have been mentioned before in this parish. He was the most challenging in terms of pushing people to think outside of their conventional narratives, the ones that fit with their traditional party political beliefs, and really listen to what is going on in those parts of the UK that have been left behind. Until we understand that, and then work out how to address it, politics will continue to be disconnected. And yes, that requires thinking that cuts across existing political boundaries
Thanks