Labour and the Lib Dems are close on policy, but they have a caustic relationship that hinders shared progressive aims

Party conference season is well under way and with it the pointless partisan finger pointing. Holding authority to account is never pointless, but progressive parties taking pot shots at each other is - with no real meaningful returns.

That has been a particularly lamentable feature of relations between Labour and the Liberal Democrats over the past decade, and a sad situation when the two parties have for a long time been very close in terms of policy.

The Liberal Democrat conference had some predictable elements, like the focus on resisting Brexit. But there were a number of policies that made it onto the table at the conference that tell an interesting story of the party's internal dynamics.

Although their leadership, through a few iterations now, have been committed to a centrist, split-the-difference, approach to how they present their policies to the public - placing them half way between Labour and the Tories - that stance doesn't reflect the wider scope of Lib Dem policy.

In our breakdown of party policies for the 2017 elections, it was clear there a not only a distinctly centre left theme, but that the gap between the Lib Dems and Labour was far narrower than you would think from either side's rhetoric.

Both parties had a positive economic outlook, aiming to increase long term public investment by hundreds of billions. Both sought to reverse tax cuts for corporations and raise taxes on the wealthiest. While the Lib Dems proposed loosening the Tories restrictions on welfare, Labour called for more democratic power for workers in their workplaces - whether through coops or through more locally owned utilities.

That same closeness can be seen in the ideas that the radical liberal factions of the Liberal Democrats put on the agenda at their conference. Policies like a redistributive sovereign wealth fund, taxing wealth to reinvest; pushing for better support for cooperatives, social enterprises and for stakeholders over shareholders; and support for a basic income trial in Wales.

Yet their leaders, elected representatives and talking heads, still feel the need to attack each other. For progressives, these caustic relationships are of no use, serving only to drive allies apart and make progressive goals harder to achieve.

Criticism is necessary. Dissent is necessary. While progressive parties have plenty in common, they often differ when it comes to priorities and methods. But being drawn into the politics-to-media-to-politics cycle of personal attacks achieves nothing.

Dissent shouldn't be a barrier to cooperation, nor should it be a cause to resort to crude attacks. It is the basis of rational debate, that holds to us to a higher standard. Progress is built on that foundation. Progressive leaders need to remember that.

Church and State: Archbishop leads Church of England into newly interventionist stance

In the past fortnight, the Archbishop Justin Welby has adopted a particularly outspoken stance. Unusually for the Church of England in recent times, Welby has taken a series of - very public - interventions in mainstream politics.

The trend was kicked off with the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report on economic justice, which called for greater public intervention and higher taxes on the rich, of which Welby was both a signatory and public advocate.

Next the Archbishop took the stage during the Trade Union Congress 150th anniversary conference, to give a speech in which he compared Jesus to trade unionists, favourably, and likened the mission of trade unions and Christians.

And then, finally, Welby announced that the Church was looking to financially intervene - the Church holding numerous major financial investment in a considerable portfolio - in the collapse of Wonga, a major pay day lender, in order to protect those with debts from being preyed upon.

As might be expected, these interventions have raised eyebrows and annoyed people on all sides of the political spectrum - from the The Guardian to The Telegraph. On the one hand a line was drawn between addressing spiritual need and addressing economic hardship, and which the Church of England should be concerning itself with. On the other hand it was felt that Welby had waded in with too crude and analysis. And there were, of course, the criticisms of the Church's own stake in Amazon - itself accused of workers rights violations and poor working conditions.

So what kind of active role can the Church play?

For secularists in Europe, there was a long fight to get the institutional powers, including the churches, out of the public business. In Britain, however, that was more muted struggle, as the Church largely stepped back in time with the Crown.

But the Anglican Church remains a State Church which still has a stake in political power and seats in the House of Lords - and an undemocratic say in political decisions. Then there is the issue of public funding for the Church's listed buildings.

In all, that makes for a complicated position from which to intervene in public life. As a kind of independent social enterprise, there is absolutely a role the Church could play - much as any other charity or civic body should have the right, and perhaps the responsibility, to speak up and contribute to the public discourse.

But the Church is not independent and that does need to be carefully weighed and considered.

For progressives, there is a dilemma when progressive ideas receive the support of a big establishment body. It is nice to hear that alternative ideas have made their way into the halls of power. But the establishment remains an impediment.

Achieving progressive change, pushing for an alternative, means at some point winning over the establishment. But eventually even the reformed establishment will need to be overhauled as well - and the State Church is about as establishment as you can get.

What would politics in Britain look like with the break up of the old power blocks?

What might party splits do to alignment of political parties in England? There would be six parties with Parliamentary seats in England, but how long would that last before mergers began?

The threat of 'splitting the party' has rarely been thrown around in British politics more than it is these days. The rumours of a Labour split rumble on and now the threat of a split in the Conservatve party has returned - issued by the disgruntled Brexiter right wing.

Could we be on the cusp of some major realignment of politics? It's unlikely to be that easy.

The power of the status quo in British politics can not be overstated. While there have been major splits and political realignments before, they have still, ultimately, kept to a two-party form - with one broadly conservative and the other broadly progressive.

Historical Realignment

The biggest shift took a little over thirty years to achieve the new alignment. The beginning was the split of the Liberal Unionists from the Liberal Party in the 1890s, under the leadership of Joseph Chamberlain. The group banged a particularly patriotic and jingoistic drum, supporting Empire and colonialism and opposing Home Rule for Ireland.

Chamberlain's Unionists very quickly aligned with the Conservatives - forming a decade long government. But it was not enough to break the Liberals, who afterward led Britain up to the Great War. But as the Liberals did so, they helped laid the foundations for their own ousting from the two-party supremacy.

In the early days of the Labour movement, trade unionist candidates stood with Liberal backing. When the movement resolved to form a party, the Liberals supported it with an electoral pact that supported Labour into winning it's own seats and building a Parliamentary presence.

Following the Great War, the National Government that had led the country through the war - a coalition of Conservatives, Unionists and Liberals - finally broke up.

Having absorbed the Unionists prior to the war, the Conservatives were now the dominant force - especially as progressive voters being divided between two Liberals factions and the newer Labour Party.

There were a glut of elections in the subsequent interwar period. In them, the Conservatives remained the usually largest party. But the Labour party would win it's first governments as a minority during this time under Ramsay MacDonald as they became the second largest party ahead of the Liberals - even after the Liberals reunited.

However, the onset of the Great Depression split the Labour party as it split others and ushered in another period of Conservative dominance - which would complete a political realignment thirty years in the making.

Members of both the Liberals and Labour would support the Conservatives under a National Government banner that would last until the Second World War - splitting from their parties to become known as Liberal National and National Labour respectively - and led by the expelled Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald and his National Labour for four years.

The whittling away of the Liberals and the continued use of First-past-the-post (Fptp) voting ensured that, as the Consevratives absorbed their National allies, a new two-party system would emerge from the war years. A two-party, Conservative-Labour domination that has persisted since.

Contemporary Realignment

The splits threatened in contemporary politics, if they could actually break out of a mould that has lasted for more than seventy years, would split the Big Two parties into at least four parties.

These would be: a right-wing Brexiter party, the continuing and nominally centre-right Conservative Party, a centrist Pro-European party, and the continuing centre-left Labour Party - splits that would lean British politics rightwards.

Including the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, politics in Britain would have six parties, just in England, with seats in Parliament. The obvious reaction would be for these new groups to try and form alliances under the present Fptp voting system. But if those efforts were frustrated, a move to some form of Proportional Representation might finally be contemplated.

Big questions remain, however. How many MPs would be prepared to actually make the leap to a new party? Brexiter Tories claim to have 80 MPs willing to rebel. And it is easy to imagine, from MP resistance to Corbyn, that a fair number might join a breakaway from Labour - if it were popular.

How many of the Pro-European moderate Tories would be willing to leave to join a new centrist party formed by Labour breakaways? And would the Liberal Democrats merge with such a party to form one big 'Democratic' party?

This last option is the one that, if it worked, might most drastically change the political landscape. But it feels like the moment for such a move has past - a chance not taken by Tony Blair when he had the power and popularity before the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More likely is a standoff between four factions as they try not to trip over each other and figure out who their allies might be in an election. The winner, perhaps, may be the party that manages not to split apart. As ever, the safety of the status quo is a powerful draw - even when it is ineffectual and mired by factional infighting.

For progressives, the desire is for plurality. For several parties that work constructively together for broader goals, even when they don't agree on priorities. If a split on the centre-left helps stop the bickering and sniping, it will be welcomed. If not, it could be a long time before we see a truly progressive government.

A deficit of leadership in Britain, where compromise is a dirty word

May and Corbyn, two leaders trapped by their unwillingness to compromise.

Parliament returns to sitting this week after the Summer Recess. Barely is the week underway and the sheer lack of effective political leadership is again on display. In her latest attempt at stamping some authority on proceedings, this weekend Prime Minister Theresa May announced that she was taking a stance of "No Compromise" with the European Union on Brexit.

This is an extraordinary thing for a Prime Minister to say about a negotiation - not least a negotiation with an ally, to work out a positive future relationship. Where is the leadership is no existent vetos? Theresa May's "We shall not budge" attitude serves no purpose in a two-way negotiation - especially not when the 'No Deal' outcome is so filled with uncertainty and tipped towards unfavourable outcomes.

Yes, leaders need to stand up for the wellbeing of their communities. To represent their views and their wants. But that also means sitting down with the representatives of other communities to find common ground. How can that be done without compromise?

This isn't the first time that Conservative leaders have waded into these waters. David Cameron tried to veto a European Union decision during his tenure and they simply carried on the conversation without the UK. Yet it speaks to the deficit of effective leadership in politics in Britain that Theresa May's Premiership goes on without effective challenge - a deficit both within her party and across on the opposition benches.

Which brings us to Jeremy Corbyn. It's hard to write a long hard sigh into an article.

The anti-semitism scandal is drawing some stark lines, producing some very divisive responses. Leaving aside the questions over the validity and seriousness, and the origin, of the accusations - which range in people's perceptions from legitimate outrage by nervous communities, to opportunistic misrepresentation by disgruntled factions - there has been no redress.

What is unarguable is that Corbyn has not handled the accusations and the barrage of press. Neither well, nor poorly. He just hasn't handled it. He has an ongoing approach to the media of non-engagement. That is a part of his leadership - a rejection of a mistrusted mass media. But all the Corbyn leadership has done is vacate the space. They haven't sidelined it.

Labour has distinct internal divisions and opponents of Corbyn's leadership keep finding mud to sling - or, perhaps, stories that look enough like mud. And every media space the Labour leadership leaves vacant,  is another waiting to be filled by those driving a wedge into the party.

It is a game they don't want to play, and it is possible to appreciate why, but politics isn't just about what you believe - in some raw statement of ideology. It is also about what you are seen to believe. And this second one is that which people frequently remember, and shapes the headlines they read - the breaking news that hits their feeds, which they see but don't read.

On both sides there is an unwillingness to compromise. An unwillingness to take a seat at the table and play the game. Yes the game is treacherous and probably rigged. But refusing to engage does nothing. Refusal just leaves the game just as it is. Refusal to lose prevents any chance of winning.

In isolation lies only ruin and hollow honour.