The Alternative Year: Five stories that defined UK & European politics in 2015

To round out a very eventful year in European politics, here's a review of the big stories - as covered here on The Alternative. We'll be back in January 2016 with more articles that look behind the political curtain to put policies in their proper contexts, to lay bare the ideologies and the theories, and to try and find the progressive alternatives.

The Radical Left Breakthrough

Alexis Tsipras and Syriza's offer of a united social front saw the first major breakthrough for the Radical Left. Photograph: Ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ-ΕΚΜ για την παραγωγική ανασυγκρότηση της Θράκης by Joanna (License) (Cropped)

In January, candidates of the anti-austerity, Radical Left party Syriza were elected to 149 of 300 seats in the Parliament of Greece in a huge upset. Having made clear their opposition to the economic establishment, party leader and Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, along with Finance Minister and Economist Yanis Varoufakis, provided a further shock by proceeding to sit down and negotiate bailout deals with the much despised troika - the IMF, the European Bank and the European Commission. Their choice raised big questions about the value of working within the European system in order to reform it.

It wouldn't be the Syriza leader's only decision to raise a few eyebrows. In the Summer, as the crisis in Greece grew worse and negotiations came to a head, Tsipras announced a referendum on whether to accept the austerity-imposing bailout terms that Greece had been offered. In a comprehensive turnout, the people of Greece voted No. Tsipras then agreed to the terms of the deal anyway. That decision has been interpreted a number of ways - some not particularly kindly - but the most positive interpretations might be that it was intended as a powerful show of dissent in the act of accepting coerced conformity.

Yet Tsipras wasn't finished. Accepting the deal and passing it through Parliament led to a rebellion, and breakaway, by Syriza's Left faction, leaving the party's position perilous. So the Greek PM stunned the world again by resigning and calling an election, looking for a mandate to implement the deal he had negotiated. Despite opposition, he swept back into office with 149 of 300 seats once more, but this time with a more compact party, shorn of its rebellious elements. However, the Syriza leader's pragmatic approach has drawn criticism - particularly for his repeated use of popular votes on major issues.

With two elections and a referendum, in all of which he was victorious, its hard to believe that all of this has only been Alexis Tsipras first year as Prime Minister. It wouldn't be a surprise if he, and the citizens of Greece, would like his second to at least begin a little less eventful.

'Syriza's negotiation with European Leaders is a reminder that we need to take Europe back, not abandon it'; in The Alternative; 16 February 2015.

'The referendum in Greece is asking a deeper question about dissent: do we have to conform in order to belong?'; in The Alternative; 5 July 2015.

'Tsipras' repeat use of popular votes raises questions about radical democracy and his approach of 'pragmatic radicalism''; in The Alternative; 24 August 2015.

'Tsipras has his governing mandate, but weariness and disaffection dominate the mood and demand a positive response'; in The Alternative; 21 September 2015.

The Bad Night for Progressives

Ed Miliband gives his first keynote speech to Labour Party conference as leader, in September 2010. He would contest just one election as leader. Photograph: At Labour Party Conference in Manchester (License) (Cropped)

Spring brought the UK general election campaign, which was heralded as the build up to the closest election in modern UK history. Labour and the Conservatives were tough to separate on most issues, although that didn't stop the Liberal Democrats from taking the inexplicable decision to pitch themselves as the party of equidistance between them. Early polling and debates suggested it might be a strong showing for the Left in terms of the popular vote. Yet concerns remained about how the first-past-the-post system might distort the result.

The reality on the day was a nightmare for progressives. The polls had been way off. The Labour Party failed to make up any ground, losing dozens of seats to the SNP in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats collapsed to just eight seats, losing stalwart MPs like Charles Kennedy, Vince Cable and Simon Hughes and important former Ministers like Lynne Featherstone and Jo Swinson. Nor did the Greens didn't manage to make their big breakthrough. And, above all, the Conservatives picked up the advantage in every key constituency in England.

Especially after the polls had suggested a close contest, the emergence of a Conservative majority was traumatising. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrat leaders resigned. The resulting Labour leadership was to produce one of the more surprising stories of the year - from which the party has still not resettled.

'Election 2015: A Shorthand Guide to the 2015 UK General Election'; in The Alternative; 6 April 2015.

'Election 2015: Seven-way debate sees the Left outnumber the Right to talk about ideals, fairness and being open to the world'; in The Alternative; 2 April 2015.

'Election 2015: The BBC's opposition leaders debate sees Farage cornered by the Left and lash out at the audience'; in The Alternative; 16 April 2015.

'Election 2015: A bad night for progressives. What now for the Left?'; in The Alternative; 8 May 2015.

The Conservative Assault on Human Rights

Lady Justice standing atop the Old Bailey courthouse in central London.

No sooner had David Cameron moved back into 10 Downing Street, than the Conservative Government had begun to come under fire - even from members of their own party. Campaign groups and MPs alike were incensed by proposals from the Conservative government to reintroduce illiberal policies, previously blocked by Liberal Democrats under the Coalition.

With, plans to do away with the Human Rights Act where soon joined by plans to reintroduce the Snooper's Charter there were people already announcing how much they missed the influence of the Lib Dems. But the Conservatives where far from done. In the midst of the refugee crisis, where local communities where pulling together with an internationalist and humanitarian spirit to support those driven from their homes, the Prime Minister David Cameron was criticised for using dangerous and dehumanising language to refer to refugees.

The lack of respect for human rights, combined with domestic policies that pursued further austerity and slashed into fundamental parts of the welfare state, designed to provide the most basic humanitarian support, earned Cameron's ministry the ire of the opposition. However, Britain's unrepresentative voting system had awarded his party a majority and the opposition to his government was weak, divided and scattered. The question became: how would popular discontent express itself?

'Scrapping the Human Rights Act removes the safeguards that protect individuals from the arbitrary power of the state'; in The Alternative; 14 May 2015.

'Conservative Queen's Speech offers some relief to Human Rights campaigners, but also holds new threats to civil liberties'; in The Alternative; 27 May 2015.

'Local and provincial communities are showing the chief internationalist value of empathy in the face of the refugee crisis'; in The Alternative; 13 July 2015.

'Humanitarian government is under attack and progressive opposition can no longer afford to be weak, scattered and resigned'; in The Alternative; 27 August 2015.

The Corbyn Momentum

The new Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses a thousand people in Manchester Cathedral, while several thousand more assemble outside. The speech capped a weekend of protest outside the Tory Party Conference.

Jeremy Corbyn entered the Labour leadership race as the complete outsider, pushed forward to at least give a token place in the debate to the party's Left-wing faction. What the Labour Party establishment did not count on was a huge groundswell of popular support for the 66 year old Islington MP. Membership of the party increased drastically as Corbyn's campaign gained traction, with Left-wingers old and new returned to the Labour Party after years in the wilderness. Even so, it was still thought that the Right-leaning establishment would still have the final word. But Corbyn's momentum couldn't be halted.

The final result was a landslide victory for Jeremy Corbyn, in every voter category. However, it appeared that winning the leadership would be the easy bit. Corbyn came under attack from the beginning, on everything from whether he bows sufficiently to whether he sings the national anthem. Even his own party has been restless, with the MPs in Labour's Parliamentary Party feeling rebellious under what they believed to be a disastrous Left-wing leader they felt had been forced upon them by the membership, the trade unions and constituency organisations.

At a long weekend in Manchester, in parallel with the Tory Party Conference, the energy that Corbyn's election had injected into the Left was tangible. A rally in the sunshine at Castlefields Arena, at the end of a weekend of concerts, talks and marches - drawing figures from across the anti-austerity movement - was the peak. But the weekend has one more moment to offer. At Manchester Cathedral, trade union leaders and progressive voices spoke to a packed house. But they where only the warm up act.

Ten thousand people, a thousand of them crammed inside with the rest gathered about an impromptu stage outside, had gathered to hear Jeremy Corbyn speak. Regardless where your progressive sympathies lie, it is hard not to be enthused about so large a spontaneous audience gathering to listen to a mild mannered figure call for a politics with a renewed social conscience.

'Corbyn has brought idealism to the campaign, but needs to show how public ownership can further the pursuit of a just, inclusive and power-devolving society'; in The Alternative; 6 August 2015.

'Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour leadership election in a revolution of party members overthrowing the party establishment'; in The Alternative; 12 September 2015.

'Anti-austerity 'Take Back Manchester' event tries to prove that the Left is back in fashion'; in The Alternative; 5 October 2015.

'"We don't pass by" - Jeremy Corbyn lays foundations for compassionate narrative based on renewing belief in public service'; in The Alternative; 6 October 2015.

The Autumn Election Season

Justin Trudeau led the Liberals back from their worst ever result to a upset landslide majority. Photograph: Toronto Centre Campaign Office Opening with Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau by Joseph Morris (License) (Cropped)

Elections on either side of the Atlantic in the Autumn served to highlight some differences in the political mood. In Canada, Justin Trudeau's Liberals won out in a multi-party contest between three moderate parties. Meanwhile in Argentina, a broad centrist coalition led by neoliberal Mauricio Macri replaced outgoing President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's Peronist, popular nationalist, Justicialist Party.

By contrast, populist and Far-Right parties had sprung up once more in Europe. In Poland, the Left was swept away and even progressive liberalism was struggling under a Right-wing, conservative tide. Further elections in France and Spain confirmed that, in Europe, the political mainstream was suffering a substantial decline. In France, the establishment managed hold off Front National through tactical voting, while in Spain the more proportional voting system allowed for a plural, indecisive, multi-party result - bringing Spain's two-party system to an end and which may prove difficult terrain from which to create a government.

What, at least, did seem to be confirmed on both sides of the Atlantic was the weakness of two-party systems and their distorting effect upon pluralistic societies. In Canada, Trudeau's party won a majority in a shift that only seemed to take place in the final week, as either/or decisions forced voters to choose between worst case scenarios.

Above all, however, these elections all made clear just how much work is necessary to build a progressive politics and just how easily popular conservatism can tear it all down. In France particularly - where the established parties looked weak and discredited - the danger of failing to engage, educate and inspire people with progressive ideals, to build a progressive civic space with a bridge to humanitarian institutions, was brought into sharp focus. 'Winning' on a technical level alone isn't enough.

'Shift in Canadian federal election from three party race to two party polemic shows importance of electoral reform in ensuring a truly representative politics'; in The Alternative; 19 October 2015.

'What can progressives learn from elections around the world?'; in The Alternative; 26 October 2015.

'When the Centre is discredited only the Right benefits - the Left has no shortcuts, it has to build and engage to move forward'; in The Alternative; 13 December 2015.

'The 'new politics' is being put to the test in Spain, where Podemos hopes to show that Syriza was not an anomaly'; in The Alternative; 20 December 2015.

The Lessons for 2016

For progressives, despite a lot of setbacks, there were at least some positives to take from 2015. The unexpected landslide majority for Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party in Canada. The surprising popular successes of radical democrats like Jeremy Corbyn, Alexis Tsipras and Syriza, Pablo Iglesias and Podemos. The little, flickering, light of hope amongst all of the conservatism is that, liberals and democrats alike, have begun to find ways to reach out to the public, to connect with them and to get them engaged with the idea that there are progressive alternatives and that people do have the power to make them happen.

The 'new politics' is being put to the test in Spain, where Podemos hopes to show that Syriza was not an anomaly

The Indignados protests in Madrid, in May 2011, that began the decline of the establishment that opened the way for this tight election race. Photograph: Puerta del Sol, Madrid, 2011 by Pablo Garcia Romano (License) (Cropped)

All indications are that the general election in Spain is likely to mark the end of that country's two-party system (Scarpetta, 2015). Following the trend in other European countries, the political establishment is struggling for credibility and that has opened up the possibility of multi-party politics and substantial change.

With four parties running close in a tight race there is a chance, there is a chance that casting a ballot can make a much bigger kind of change than usual. For the Left, this situation presents an opportunity to find out whether the 'new politics', an experiment in decentralised democratic movements, can be effective in practice - the answer to which could have a huge impact far from Spain (Jones, 2015).

To do so, the 'new politics' - symbolised by Podemos - has to prove that it can win, up against a political establishment in Spain that, like most countries in Europe, has settled into a comfortable pattern. After Franco's death, and the restoration of democracy, Spain's political system was been dominated by the Partido Popular (People's Party, PP), founded by followers of Franco, and the Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol (Socialist Workers' Party, PSOE).

Yet the cyclical passing of power from one traditional party to the other was rocked by the financial crisis. The struggles of Spain under the subsequent strain of bailouts and austerity, largely implemented by the Centre-Left PSOE (Sanchez-Cuenca, 2015), led to the the Indignados movement. People took to the streets in huge numbers and the scale of their discontent forced Premier Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to stand down and resulted in PSOE being voted out of office, to be replaced by the People's Party (Tremlett, 2011).

However, while the PP took power, the cycle appears to have been broken by the Indignados movement transforming into two new challengers - parties dependent upon popular movements rather than the old establishment and both, in their own way, standing against the traditional political class.

These 'popular' parties - Podemos ('We Can', on the Left) and Ciudadanos ('Citizens', on the Right) - despite roots in the same movement, have some very apparent differences from each other, evident in the way progressives are split in their opinions of the two movements. Liberals, on the one hand, seem to want to dismiss Podemos as a militant Hard Left faction (Petts, 2015), while on the other side, democrats & socialists talk of Ciudadanos as corrupt capitalists preaching with prejudice and bigotry (Shea Baird, 2015).

Podemos, born fairly directly out of the spirit of the Indignados, enjoyed early success in the EU parliament elections which was followed up in May this year at the regional and municipal elections. Victories were won in Barcelona, Cadiz and La Coruna, amongst others, and most notably in Madrid - where conservatives had held control for 20 years (BBC, 2015).

In these places, candidates backed by Podemos had stood for participatory democracy along with the Left-wing staples of feminism, environmentalism and opposition to austerity. These victories were hailed as a justification of the decentralised approach, with campaigner candidates backed by active citizens who had engaged with people and debated on the streets and in the civic spaces (Colau, 2015).

Yet behind the scenes there is an internal struggle, between two identities, that threatens the 'new politics' image (Ferreira, 2015). One of those identities is that of the horizontal grassroots civic movement, with its citizen's assemblies. The other is symbolised by Pablo Iglesias, the national party's leader, and the faith he places in the power of singular charismatic leaders, particularly himself, and in media savvy (Williams, 2015).

The danger of this charismatic leadership is that it ties the fate and fortunes, ideals and policies, of a whole movement to the personal popularity of one individual - which can have wildly varying, and often fluctuating, results. It also risks reducing a broad popular movement into little more than a fan club, which in turn risks taking the impetus, the momentum, out of the hands of the broader movement upon which the 'new politics' depends.

Ciudadanos, by contrast is much more conventional, supporting small state policies and anti-corruption, and claims to be a centre and liberal party (Kassam, 2015). Its leader Albert Rivera has compared himself to Matteo Renzi, the Democrat in Italy, and to Nick Clegg, the former Liberal Democrat leader in the UK (Shea Baird, 2015). In practice, though, accusations of corruption and prejudice paint a picture too similar to the negative image encircling UKIP in the UK for the comfort of a progressive (Finnigan, 2015) - with claims of patronising attitudes towards women and connections between the party and Far-Right politics

Whatever their differences, both of these parties have found fertile ground and plenty of material with which to express their, and their followers', discontent. Spain's situation, following the financial crisis, has been dire. Unemployment has escalated to around 25% generally and for the young to over 50% (Navarro, 2014), with a lack of job security facing those who manage to find jobs, (Jones, 2015).

Those facts are represented in national polling, which has all four of the chief parties in a close race, hovering around 20%, more or less (Nardelli, 2015). The People's Party have been averaging around 25%, the PSOE at 21%, Podemos at 20%, and Ciudadanos at 17%. The chance is clearly present for the Radical Left to pull off another extraordinary result.

As for deciding on a government in Spain after the election, that is likely to be a messy affair. Neither of the new parties, even where they are close to the old parties on policy matters, is likely to want to become too entangled with the old establishment. Yet Spain's proportional electoral system will demand some compromises.

Ideologically, this election is asking big questions of the Radical Left, that have little direct concern with who governs Spain. Across Europe, progressives will want the election to provide the answer as to whether the 'new politics' is effective in what must seem like fertile ground - even with rivals Ciudadanos crowding Podemos' political space.

It is of course true that Syriza showed that the Radical Left can win, regardless of how you interpret the struggles that followed. Yet that was a solitary win in extraordinary circumstances - or so it might be dismissed while it remains a singular event. Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership win added to the Left's tally, but what the Left's experiment in decentralised, democratic movement politics needs is a major electoral victory that can follow up on Syriza's success.

In Spain, without some major breakthrough for Podemos, the PP and Ciudadanos on the Right will probably have just enough votes to keep progressives out of office - meaning more austerity and more status quo. For Europe, Podemos failing to make a breakthrough could make life hard for the 'new politics' movements across Europe, like the one supporting Corbyn, that want to reshape their societies around active citizens, engaged with politics and supporting broader participation and co-operation.

Building a genuine, lasting, progressive alternative in Europe can only be done if parties and movements can reach people and get them politically engaged. Winning elections is only a small part. Achieving substantive changes requires the public to be engaged, informed and empowered in a way that is only being offered at present by the Radical Left parties and their 'new politics'. From that perspective, progressives - whether Liberal, Democrat or Socialist, Moderate or Radical - have an interest in finding out whether Podemos, following Syriza, unlocked a way to re-engage citizens with their democracies.

Politics and the Environment in the Age of Political Economy

Big promises have been made on climate change in Paris. Yet it seems that economics has had the last word. Photograph: Paris 2015 #COP21 @CMP11 by Ron Mader (License) (Set on white)

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP 21 (the 21st Conference of the Parties), was the perfect summary of the age of political economics. All of the show and all of the image of action, without much in the way of tangible results.

Seemingly heeding, finally, the repeated warnings about the dire long term effects of failing to address fossil fuel use and climate change, and the deadly outcomes of delay, world leaders have declared an agreement to bring to an end the era of fossil fuels (Goldenberg et al, 2015).

The agreement that comes out of COP 21 makes a lot of promises. It has pledges, long term goals, and regular assessments of progress (Vaughan, 2015). And yet, in true political fashion, these promises come without immediate action and with a number of caveats.

For one, there is some substantial shifting of responsibilities. There is a clause that assures that countries hit by the more extreme weather and rising water levels, produced by global warming, cannot make financial claims against those who have been, and continue to be, users of fossil fuels and big polluters of the environment.

The commitments made are also fairly vague (Monbiot, 2015). A commitment to achieve the global peak use of fossil fuels 'soon', came with not a date in sight. A commitment to a maximum 1.5C of global warming, was without a defined plan and method for achieving it.

And, even as these kinds of agreements are made, they are being made a mockery of by the politics of the day. The reality is that countries like the UK - even as the government welcomes the deal (Whale, 2015) - continue to use fossil fuels, and even to expand their usage (Monbiot, 2014), in pursuit of their economic aims.

In the age of political economy - where the whys and hows have, in all provinces, been subsumed beneath and sacrificed to 'economic efficiency' - attempts to prevent environmental disaster are given a back seat to economics. We must first stabilise the economy, they say, only then can we look to the esoteric concerns of healthcare, welfare and, of course, the environment.

Yet this response is irrational. It excludes facts to create a self-defined box within which political solutions can meet arbitrary targets. A boxed-context, designed to allow an economic solution to be a 'success', on its own terms, to save one party's flagging economic policy and so its political future.

However, none of the problems facing society can be handled piecemeal. All of it is connected and impacts upon the others. If a comprehensive green energy programme is not part of the economic response, that response is no solution. Ignoring or denying facts will not change them.

In the age of political economy, where every decision is hemmed in by a thousand financial interests - each likely to lose out as another gains - comprehensive, holistic programmes are hard to come by. Yet one is needed.

As the French regional elections demonstrated, the old establishment that has held sway in Europe is teetering. Renewing politics means finding a way to break out of the age of political economy where politics has become a world of promises that can be fulfilled only within arbitrary contexts using perceived truths and half-facts.

Without a comprehensive progressive alternative, the discredited system may fall into the hands of extremists with narrow sectarian viewpoints, who will be unlikely to have the breadth of vision necessary to deal with the grave matters, even the climate issues alone, that threaten the future (Lucas, 2015).

When the Centre is discredited only the Right benefits - the Left has no shortcuts, it has to build and engage to move forward

The advance of the far right Front National in France has given rise to fears for the future of European Unity. Photograph: France and EU-flag, somewhere in Dunkerque by Sebastian Fuss (License) (Cropped & Flipped)

Earlier this week, Marine Le Pen's Front National (FN) took a, sadly not entirely unexpected, lead in the first round of the French regional elections (Chrisafis, 2015). While by no means emphatic, with 28% of the vote, to 27% for the Centre-Right Republicans and 23% for the Centre-Left Socialists, the Far-Right party nonetheless holds a lead that is no joke - thanks to the majority bonus awarded to the leading party in each region.

It will be a cold comfort to progressives that Front National's success has been largely laid at the feet of the parties of the Centre (Nougayrede, 2015). The rise of FN has been described seen as the product of the failures of the parties of the political centre. Those parties are struggling, discredited by their failure to address France's long term problem of unemployment and the impact, and narrow rewards, of globalisation.

The transformist Centre parties, with their "conservative and social democratic modes of liberalism", have come to be seen as a 'complacent', 'insulated' and elite 'caste', and having laid the foundations for themselves to be supplanted by the Far-Right's more emotive and simplistic alternatives (Behr, 2015).

"No two countries have exactly analogous politics, but common threads run across Europe. The unifying dynamic appears to be the interaction of financial insecurity and the cultural detachment of governing elites from the governed... politicians of the technocratic centre are perceived as a caste apart, professionally complacent, insulated by hoarded privilege from the anxiety provoked in electorates by economic turbulence and abrupt demographic change..."

The fact that the Far-Right sit now on the doorstep of the establishment, so close to power in one of Europe's largest and most influential countries, has sparked fears of what the Centre's failure will entail for the broader European project (Betancour, 2015). The European system, a symbol of the time and effort required to build progressive institutions that break down borders and bring people together, was decades in the making - but appears now to be only years in the unravelling.

What is notable is that, as the Centre has collapsed, only the Right has really benefited. Meanwhile the Left has made few, if any, gains. In fact, in France, FN have largely made their initial inroads into the traditional heartlands of the Centre-Left Socialists (Nardelli, 2015). So the big questions for progressives are: Why? And, what can be done?

In France, the first steps taken in response by the scrambling Centre were to close ranks (Willsher, 2015). France returns to the polls for the second round today and in districts where Socialists trail in third place, the party has withdrawn candidates - falling back on tactical voting to ensure the victory of the least worst alternative (Chrisafis, 2015{2}). It also made the remarkable, though unrequited, suggestion of forming a Republican Front - uniting Centre-Left and Centre-Right - to hold back the rise of Front National.

From the perspective of those on the Left, it might be a lot easier to pour scorn on such a project than to become embroiled with discredited establishment's attempts to save their own necks. Yet becoming involved is precisely what some have proposed.

In an article based on a lecture he gave in 2013, before his adventure into political economics as Finance Minister of Greece, Yanis Varoufakis argued that only the Right ever benefits from breakdown and disorder (Varoufakis, 2015).

"If my prognosis is correct, and we are not facing just another cyclical slump soon to be overcome, the question that arises for radicals is this: should we welcome this crisis of European capitalism as an opportunity to replace it with a better system? Or should we be so worried about it as to embark upon a campaign for stabilising European capitalism? To me, the answer is clear. Europe’s crisis is far less likely to give birth to a better alternative to capitalism than it is to unleash dangerously regressive forces that have the capacity to cause a humanitarian bloodbath, while extinguishing the hope for any progressive moves for generations to come."

What Varoufakis touches upon is that progressive politics depends upon building things - like a free and open civic space, or the infrastructure for broadly available healthcare and welfare. These things that cannot be easily made or remade, but are all too easy to tear down. In contrast, social or institutional breakdown benefits the Right because it drives itself with simpler, emotive, even instinctual, constructs. Traditionalism, moralism, nationalism: these have the advantage of being old and familiar, and already deeply rooted in the identity of the audience.

For Varoufakis, when the Centre fails, the Left needs to acknowledge its weakness and take up the task of responsible government - including propping up elements of the old establishment, in order to save past progress and to have something left to reform.

"Yet my aim here is to offer a window into my view of a repugnant European capitalism whose implosion, despite its many ills, should be avoided at all costs. It is a confession intended to convince radicals that we have a contradictory mission: to arrest the freefall of European capitalism in order to buy the time we need to formulate its alternative."

Alexis Tsipras, Radical Left Prime Minister of Greece, has described any politician setting foot upon that road as needing to be pragmatic about what can be accomplished in government (from Horvat, 2013).

"I believe that today 'radical' is to try to be able to take responsibility for the people, to not be afraid of that, and at the same time to maintain in the democratic road, in the democratic way. To take the power for the people and to give it back to the people."

Yet Tsipras' approach, this pragmatic radicalism, has its critics. On the one hand, it plays an exhausting game with democratic institutions that can be easily become fatigued (Patrikarakos, 2015). On the other, buying into the game in order to achieve practical things comes with a risk of succumbing to its pressures and ultimately conforming (Anthony, 2015). Another concern with Tsipras' pragmatic approach, is that the line of thinking can very easily lead to the temptations of Blairism.

Just this week, Tony Blair himself took to the pages of The Spectator to offer a defence of the 'Blairist' approach (Perraudin, 2015). He was quick to point out the 'flaw' in his critics' thinking.

"In particular, significant elements of the Party saw the process of governing with all its compromises, pragmatism and embrace of changing times as implicit betrayal of our principles."

Blair's defence of his direction focusses tightly, as his defenders and successors often do, on being willing to make 'hard choices' in order to be in power - placing value on "aspiring to govern" over being a "fringe protest" (Blair, 2015).

Yet that attitude also features a dangerous obsession with basing practical politics in "reality". On the face of it, this is a call for rational politics, taking the world as what it is rather than the utopia you might wish it to be - to base policy, and the political moves used to achieve them, on the 'reality' of the world as you find it. The trouble is that, beneath the surface of this approach, what it really means is engaging in a deceitful game of playing on, and to, often incomplete or outright wrong public perceptions (Jones, 2015).

For those who feel New Labour wandered too far to the political Right, a big part of the problem was that they had become anchored to 'reality', largely purveyed by a conservative media, and played to popular prejudice in search of an easy route to power. In the process simply turning the Centre and Left into a vehicle for the popular conservatisms of the moment.

The danger of that course is, however, that if you keep playing to conservative perceptions you are only going to reinforce them. The result will be more citizens who interpret the world through conservative perceptions, and so make their decisions accordingly - ultimately making it more difficult to propose progressive policies in the future.

European politics, and in particular politics in France, have seen an expansion of this problem. Technocrats have spent decades quietly implementing the rules and regulations to bring about European unity - at least in the technical sense. Yet they have spent too little time on the engagement, debate and education in the civic space that promotes and spreads the values behind them, and creates the 'values consciousness' amongst the public that parallels institutions and builds a bridge between them.

In the UK, the Liberal Democrats stand as a cautionary tale. The Lib Dems spent decades rebuilding, offering a progressive alternative but where brought low in just five years when they failed to meet the expectations of their supporters - decades in the recruiting - trying to meet the popular expectations of a 'party of government'.

In order to build a lasting progressive politics, there needs to be a long term, concerted social project - for hearts and, particularly, minds - that develops and promotes a form of compassionate, rational, government (Clark, 2015). Progressive parties have to be engaged with the political tasks of spreading ideas and changing minds required for the construction of a progressive social consciousness.

To that end, simply sneaking into power by pretending to be conservative isn't enough, and it never will be. That doesn't mean that the Left shouldn't seek to be practical, like Varoufakis suggests, and, as in France today, be willing to be practical in its compromises with the Centre and the establishment to prevent much worse outcomes.

But the Left has to be about more than just words. It needs to act as well, to actively live its values and promote their means and purposes. Progressives cannot be afraid to govern, but they cannot sacrifice the necessary work for easy access to power. There is no trade off to be made. Trying to do the former without the latter will only lead to failure, compounding more failures to come.

John Bercow's misinterpreted laugh was a mirthless acknowledgement of the fruitless fight for political reform

Speaker John Bercow has fought a long uphill battle to improve the public image and engagement of Parliament. Photograph: John Bercow by Julian Mason (License) (Cropped)

During the tense and heated Syria debate, the House of Commons was for once at full capacity. The significance afforded to the event saw not only high attendance by MPs through out the day, but also saw Speaker John Bercow chair the entire eleven-hour session (May, 2015).

While Bercow received praise for his uninterrupted chairing of the debate, he also came in for criticism for a laugh, at the debate's end, that seems to have been widely misinterpreted. Those familiar with the habits of Members of Parliament may well have interpreted that laugh very differently.

When the debate on Syrian intervention came to an end, Bercow's announcement of further business in the Commons was greeted with laughter by MPs rising en masse and heading for the exits. Some have considered the moment disrespectful or part of some ill-judged and ill-timed jest (Dearden, 2015).

And yet, considered in the proper context, that laugh tells a different story.

An empty chamber for Parliamentary debates is not an unusual occurrence, with MPs turning up in the Commons only for matters of their own interest, or for the 'big' occasions, only to leave for the 'smaller' affairs (The Telegraph, 2014).

Over the years of his Speakership, Bercow has been actively attempting to reform how Parliament is run and to update its procedures and, in particular, its public image (Parliament, 2011). Yet his criticisms of MPs heckling (Perraudin, 2015; BBC, 2013), or attempts to modernise elections with e-voting as part of a push towards more public engagement (BBC, 2015), have all too frequently run into a wall.

In that light, Bercow's laugh comes across as a knowing, mirthless, exasperation at the behaviour of Parliamentarians - as can be seen in the fuller version events, captured by Parliament's cameras but not included in the broadcast.

"Order. We come now to the petition... [Bercow smiles, forced to pause by MPs noisily abandoning the chamber]... I ask members leaving the chamber, however unaccountably, please to do so quickly and quietly so we can hear the petition from the Right Honourable Lady the Member for Chesham and Amersham."

That petition was, to labour the point, on the "mandatory reporting of child abuse" - not exactly a matter of small consequence.

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat Health spokesperson, is only amongst the latest to run into the not an unusual occurrence of an empty chamber. His debate, regarding out-of-area placements for mental health care appointments (Dickson, 2015), saw a drastically poor turnout of around half a dozen that left Lamb conducting most of the discussion with two of his Lib Dem colleagues.

The archaic institutions of Parliament and the habits of MPs have long been warned of as one source of the alienation felt by the public from politics. The late Charles Kennedy argued that alienating the public from politics was a dangerous venture (2006).

"Fewer people are joining political parties, yet single-issue pressure groups continue to flourish. Mass international movements - from opposition to the war in Iraq to last year's Live 8 - demonstrate how great issues and principles can still motivate on a huge scale. But somehow our current political culture seems unable to accommodate and address such concerns...

...The danger in all of this is that if sufficient people conclude that there is nothing in the conventional political process for them then they may opt for more simplistic and extreme options on offer. I remain an optimist. But across the mainstream political spectrum there is a candid recognition of the danger."

These concerns are not confined to Parliamentary institutions. The efforts of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to carry on a project of reform within the Labour Party, has faced resistance by party MPs who, the reformers say, feel their position and power is threatened the proposed changes (McDonnell, 2015).

In his party reforms, Corbyn has said he wants members to have greater power (Boffey & Helm, 2015). Yet, like Bercow, Corbyn is likely to find the establishment difficult to shift - not least when it comes to increasing public engagement by giving the public more direct power within institutions, often at the expense of their representatives (Bryant, 2015).

Speaker John Bercow has fought a long and seemingly fruitless war to reform how the House of Commons works, up against a Parliament that refuses to shake off its disastrous habits. That fact was clearly on display through the Syria debate, demonstrated in full by the treatment of Jeremy Corbyn during his rebuttal to the Prime Minister in the Syria debate, in which he was loudly heckled and shouted down from the government benches throughout (Stone, 2015).

Today, the UK is governed by a Conservative ministry that holds majority power, although it was elected on only 36% of the vote and hold the support of only a quarter of the registered eligible voters.

Tomorrow, the temporary victory of those campaigning for votes at 16 (Jarrett, 2015) - extending voting rights to finally cover all adult citizens - will likely be extinguished by the Conservative majority in the Commons. With its defeat goes another opportunity for reform.

That inequitable situation will not improve until there is comprehensive political reform. Since the establishment seemingly refuses to bow to even the sternest efforts to change its ways, the burden is now upon citizens to take up the campaign.

Establishment figures like Bercow and party rebels like Corbyn, or vocal campaigners for electoral reform like Caroline Lucas, cannot win lasting change with out active support. Corbyn's election as Labour Party leader was one small demonstration of what can be achieved by engaged citizens. But there is still much more to be done - and it can't be left to representatives.

In the aftermath of the Syria Vote and the Oldham By-election, New Labour has scored itself some marginal points in its struggle with Corbyn - yet Labour remains divided

Hilary Benn's speech in support of expanding military action into Syria has left the rifts between the Left and Right of the Labour Party as deep as ever. Photograph: Hilary Benn by Jodie C (License) (Cropped)

After a number of important events in the week leading up, from the Chancellor's Autumn Statement to the vote on intervention in Syria, it would not have been outrageous to expect some sort of fallout in the Oldham West and Royton by-election.

In the end, however, it was ultimately uneventful. The incumbent Labour Party won, even increasing its percentage of the vote (Pidd, 2015). There was no drama in the end for Labour, no dramatic surge of support away from the party by voters fleeing its Left-wing leader (Harris et al, 2015; Warren, 2015).

Yet the past week's events, Oldham included, have shifted the political field ever so slightly. In the aftermath of the Syria vote and the Oldham by-election, it is the Right-leaning Labour faction who find themselves the marginal beneficiaries in their struggle with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

George Osborne's spending review, courtesy of the Office of Budget Responsibility's generosity in predicting a stronger economy, was as much a political play as economic. By performing a U-turn and not cutting tax credits, for now at least, and not cutting police budgets, Osborne was able to make his policies appear much more moderate (Kirkup, 2015).

From a Labour Right perspective, this was a master stroke by the Chancellor. In their view, Osborne will have countered and undermined criticisms levelled by Corbyn's shadow cabinet by removing its main threads and moved the Conservatives to occupy a centre ground they believed was being abandoned by their own leadership. With the Right of Labour feeling that the middle ground was slipping away from them, the Syria debate came at a politically crucial moment.

The vote on intervention in Syria saw a rebellion of 66 Labour MPs against the position of the party leadership (Sparrow & Perraudin, 2015), after - under a barrage of Conservative heckling - Corbyn had stumbled through his speech (Wallace, 2015). It also saw allegations from Labour MPs of abuse by angry constituents - the responsibility for which they were quick to pin to Corbyn (Dathan, 2015).

The biggest moment of the debate was clearly Hilary Benn's speech, which - while much applauded by Conservatives - in truth had little substance. There were no compelling facts, of which the debate as a whole suffered a disgraceful shortage, only emotional appeals. Described as a piece of political theatre (Shabi, 2015), it served both to stake out a distinct position for the Labour Right and to undermine Corbyn.

After so contentious a week, in was not unreasonable to think that sparks might fly at the Oldham by-election. Yet the result was a comfortable, status quo recovering, victory for Labour. Yet the Labour Right was again able to salvage something for themselves.

In Oldham, some on the Labour Right claimed the victory as a win in despite of Corbyn, amongst a population that had little warmth for pacifist republicanism (Pidd, 2015; Warren, 2015). The late Michael Meacher, a strong supporter of Corbyn and the Labour Left, was even replaced by a new MP, Jim McMahon, who is no follower of Corbyn.

This week has been a stern test for Labour. As a whole it has largely scraped through. However, while there were no decisive moments, the Labour Right will feel it has scored some marginal points in its struggle against Corbyn and his new direction. Yet for progressives more broadly, it was just another week of squabbling and division across the Left.