The Alternative Year: What kind of year has it been? Four sparks of hope from 2016

For progressives, 2016 has felt like the season finale of an Aaron Sorkin drama. The political world seems to have fallen into a very dark, and rather conspicuously, 1930s shaped hole. Neoliberalism's war of attrition on public services has taken a deep toll and ordinary people face a difficult future. From natural disasters to terrorist attacks and wars, to the humanitarian catastrophe that is the refugee crisis, people have died.

Amidst all of the upset and unrest, the far-right are back and they're getting into positions of influence and power. Russia, America, Hungary and Poland all have authoritarian governments, while France, Austria, and the Netherlands have far-right parties within touching distance of power. Britain, Germany, Italy and others are being deeply affected by far-right populist movements.

What anyone with empathy is looking for now is hope - a sign that humanity's ongoing journey, its progress from the darkness into the light, has not stalled or ended.

Away from politics, there are still plenty of signs: the Ice Bucket Challenge worked, with money it raised being directly credited with a huge breakthrough in the understanding of ALS (Woolf, 2016); Starbucks worked with charities to make perishable foods donations, from end of day leftovers, possible - making tracks into reducing the West's copious food wastage and tackling hunger (Addady, 2016); clinical trials are being carried out for precision cancer treatments, that medical professionals hope will usher in a new era of higher survival rates with lower toxic side effects (Boseley, 2016); and, after bans on CFC aerosol chemicals, the Ozone Later is recovering (Milan, 2016).

We can make a positive difference. We'll be back in January 2017 to continue advocating for the progressive alternative, but in the mean time - to focus on the positive - here are some of the political events of 2016 that show that the progressive view of a humanity still holds true.

Liberalism in Canada

Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau at Pride, August 2016. Photograph: Pride Parade 2016 by GoToVan (License) (Cropped)

Now technically, Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada was elected in October, and entered office in November, 2015. Yet their first year in government was all 2016. So it counts.

What the election of Trudeau and the Liberals in Canada showed was that social liberalism - open, positive, progressive and tolerant attitudes to others - can win. That matters.

Regardless of what you think of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, or whether his Government will deliver, or of liberalism - which many seem content to conflate with neoliberalism right now, and leave to burn with it in the rising nationalist flames - their election win matters.

Trudeau and the Liberals stood as openly feminist and multicultural, proposing to intervene to help those worst off - including reaching out and openly welcoming refugees. Not only did they win, their polling numbers have risen and remained high.

Amidst intolerance and closing doors, it is important to know that open, decent, tolerant social attitudes can win elections, and emphatically at that. As with Syriza in Greece, it is important to see these progressive ideas reflected in a government.

The Majority in America

Hillary Rodham Clinton's long career, that seemed destined to peak in a return to the White House as President, came to a shattering end with defeat by Donald Trump. Photograph: Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally at UW-Milwaukee by WisPolitics (License) (Cropped)

It might be small consolation at this point, but Hillary Rodham Clinton won the popular vote in the US Presidential Election, and by some three million votes. In fact, along with the socially liberal Libertarian and Green party candidates, that's a socially progressive lead of some six million - a 52% to 46% lead.

And, as journalist John Harris cautioned after the Brexit vote, you cannot conflate all the poor and desperate people voting for the Right with the hatred and intolerance of the people they vote for. Most are afraid of the future, feel excluded and justifiably want change.

Despite all of the hate and vitriol, and Trump's self-aggrandising and media-hungry campaign, only a quarter of US voters turned out for Trump. More turned out for Clinton - and she wasn't even, perhaps, a favoured candidate for the Centre and Left.

As with Brexit, the fully roused expression of anger and hate, poured through a political funnel, has produced a dramatic victory for the Right. But it is based on a much smaller cross-section of society than people fear. It's still an unrepresentative minority, amplified by adversarial political systems.

It is important that progressives see that. Progressive politics in the US needs fixing, that's for sure. Too many people have been alienated, driven into dangerous arms. But it's fewer than people fear, and the majority of those are just people looking for a better life, for a better deal.

The Far-Right's first big defeat

Alexander Van der Bellen, former leader of the Greens, stood for the Presidency as a unifying Independent and defeated the Far-Right. Photograph: Alexander Van der Bellen by Franz Johann Morgenbesser (License) (Cropped)

In Austria, the first far-right Head of State since the second world war was narrowly avoided as Alexander Van der Bellen - a former Green who ran as an independent - won the Presidential Election for the second time in a re-run.

It is the first major defeat for the Far-Right in a contest they were thought to be ahead. However the Far-Right Freedom Party, for whom Norbert Hofer stood as a Presidential candidate, remains a rising force - currently the third largest group and polling high.

The alliance that defeated them was a broad spectrum - perhaps too broad to realistically maintain a united front. But what matters at this point is that a majority in Austria rejected the Far-Right. As important as it is to see progressive ideas in government, it is important to regressive ones defeated.

The Municipal Movement

Ada Colau, the Mayor of Barcelona who has been a leading figure of the municipal movement. Photograph: #‎PrimaveraDemocratica‬ amb Pablo Iglesias i Ada Colau by Barcelona En Comú (License) (Cropped)

And finally, to municipalism. It is an idea whose time appears to have come. Emerging in Spain, in Barcelona and Madrid the city governments are being run by citizen's municipal movements that are trying to radically change the way that cities are run.

On the ground, these municipal movements, like Barcelona En Comu led by Ada Colau, have brought together citizen campaigners, all with a local focus, and pursued a fascinating course. Their focus has been on trying to build spaces around the people who live in them and to bring more power over decisions to them - an essential priority at a time when so many people feel alienated.

And their work doesn't stop there. These municipal movements have been at the heart of effort to build pan-continental networks of cities, helping to tie the European continent together in new ways. For progressives, this work aught to be a lighthouse in the storm.

From housing, to utilities like energy and water, to facing the refugee crisis, the municipal movement has brought these issues into the local sphere. They're engaging people, in the places where they live and work, with tough issues and empowering them.

Lessons for 2017

That is world's away from the walls of silence, disengagement and alienation that proceeded the rise of the Far-Right. If progressives can take anything positive 2016, it can be this: social progressives are the majority, their ideas can win, their ideas can engage and empower, and the Far-Right can be beaten.

The first task for 2017 will be to build bridges. To build networks. To include and empower. To give a voice. The Alternative be back in the New Year to help progressives with that task as best we can.

Cameron & Osborne reached Easter Recess having survived another tough short term battle, but longer term dangers linger unaddressed from failure to invest

Approach of UK Conservative and Canada Liberal governments to their respective 2016 budgets were worlds apart. Photograph: Parliament of Canada in Ottawa from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

As Parliament went into its Easter Recess on Friday, it appeared that the Cameron Government had weathered the political storm caused by the budget. Controversies had weakened the government's position, but had not toppled it. Yet Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor Osborne have only won the week, as tends to be their criticised focus (Kuenssberg, 2016).

While they manage the short term, there are larger, longer term, dangers they're not addressing - not least of which is the long term danger of failing to invest. Cameron and Osborne like to talk of not leaving our debts to the next generation, yet there are debts other than fiscal to leave to the next generation. One deficit they are sure to leave behind is infrastructural (Yalnizyan, 2016).

It is interesting how different priorities can be on either side of the Atlantic. In Canada, their new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled his first budget. As promised during the election, it involved deliberately running deficits in order to fund public investment in rebuilding Canada and setting it up for the future (CBC News, 2015).

John McDonnell's focus as Shadow Chancellor has been to try and undermine the perception of the Conservatives as the economically competent party, that can be trusted with the national finances. In his response to the budget, he paid special attention to the Conservative habit of over-promising and under-delivering, especially when it comes to public investment (McDonnell & O'Connor, 2016).

McDonnell has expressed particular and repeated concern that the Conservatives keep sending out press releases launching projects and yet, as argues McDonnell, don't provide or secure adequate funding. Meanwhile, against the recommendations of the OECD and the IMF, Osborne has continued to let investment consistently fall as he pursues a budget surplus (McDonnell, 2016).

What is interesting this is not a trend that Osborne began, but is rather just fitting into. Public investment in the UK has been falling steadily for the better part of fifty years (Thornsby, 2016). At the last election, both Labour and the Lib Dems wanted to put aside money for public investment, exempt from the efforts to balance the budget, but their efforts were timid due to lingering doubts about ignoring the debt or deficit in the short term to pursue a longer view.

While these doubts are being harboured in the UK, in Canada the situation couldn't be more different. At the last election the Conservatives were defeated by the Liberals coming from third place into a sweeping majority while promising to run deficits in order to fund economy growing public investment (CBC News, 2015).

Now there were certainly other aspects of the Liberal approach that helped them over the finishing line - not the least the fact that none of the parties leaders were Stephen Harper. The Trudeau campaign was open, relaxed and friendly with the public and the offer of limited-deficit funded public investment in infrastructure cannot be discounted as a factor (The National, 2016).

Yet it would seem to have only been possible to propose those deficits because the Liberals did not have the weight of a reputation for fiscal irresponsibility on their shoulders. Pre-election polls suggested that the public not only trusted the Liberals the most on the economy, but also believed they would be the most likely to have a positive impact on the economy (CTV News, 2015) - and aligned more with their promise to invest in infrastructure rather than simply cut taxes and balance the books.

While tackling the Conservative reputation, Shadow Chancellor McDonnell has also been trying to rebuild one for Labour. Bringing on a team of advisors, he has taken them on tour where, speaking across the country, they have explained how negative austerity has been and what might be possible in its place.

No one has typified this more than economist Mariana Mazzucato. In her own work, and in her work advising Labour, Mazzucato has consistently argued that the private sector is too risk averse and too short term in its thinking to handle the kind of positive long term investment that the public sector excels at (Mazzucato, 2013{2}).

In fact, if anything, she suggests that the private sector leeches off of public investment - privatising the rewards (Mazzucato, 2013). For those wedded to the fear of progressives forever being labelled as high spending, controlling statists, Mazzucato's call if not for a bigger state, but for a much easier to stomach smarter state (Mazzucato, 2014). A state that promotes growth by making smart investments where the private sector only hinders or won't take the risk; a state that promotes justice by seeing more of the reward for public efforts returned to the public.

The second, and maybe harder, part that follows the building of a reputation, is maintaining it. In Canada, the Liberals have been smart, deliberately managing expectations (Evans, 2016). While every $1 of infrastructure spending can lead to much bigger revenue returns - what Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, refers to as a virtuous cycle of investment (Taylor, 2016; Gray, 2016) -  they have nonetheless managed their forecasts down, leaving themselves plenty of headroom for showing the positive impact of their policies.

Public investment is important. In infrastructure, in education, in housing, in healthcare. All of these materially benefit everyone, even tackle inequality. Yet despite the Chancellor's obvious pleasure at announcing investment projects, there has been little to back it up (Pidd, 2015; Boffey, 2015) - with announcements seemingly serving as publicity to encourage private investment instead of the making of public commitments.

Sooner or later, the public will have to face the reality of the Conservative failure to invest - in education; in affordable housing; in technology, science and research. Long term public investment will be missed when the reality of selfish, short term, private investment is grasped. In the meantime, progressives have to do what they can, building the credibility of the argument for a smarter state that invests in the common good.

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.

Shift in Canadian federal election from three party race to two party polemic shows importance of electoral reform in ensuring a truly representative politics

Polling suggests Justin Trudeau has brought the Liberals back into contention from their worst ever result in 2011. Photograph: Toronto Centre Campaign Office Opening with Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau by Joseph Morris (License) (Cropped)

As Canadians go to the polls, the tight three-way race, in which the Canadian federal election campaign has been tied, finally seems to have broken in favour of the Liberals and Justin Trudeau (Woolf, 2015). With momentum pushing towards a minority or possibly even a majority government, there are signs that the well known affects of the first past the post electoral system are, at the last, making themselves felt.

Over the final weeks, polling has seen the Liberal Party vote rise by a very significant ten points since the summer to 37% - with some polls even indicating support as high 40% and with momentum still moving their way - while left of centre rivals the New Democrats (NDP) has fallen back (Grenier, 2015).

With a guarded acknowledgement of the huge impact that 'Shy Tories' can have (Grenier, 2015{2}), the polling, the momentum and the impact of tactical voting all appear to favour a Liberal victory and a progressive leaning government (Grenier, 2015{3}) - whether a minority or coalition (Gollom, 2015).

And yet, it isn't hard to be sceptical about the polling shift towards a polemic division between two parties just as an election under a polemicising electoral system approaches. The majority of the campaign has shown that Canada is a country with diverse political ideas, split at least three ways between Liberals, Conservatives and Democrats - with other groups like Greens or Regionalists and Nationalists holding influence amongst certain demographics.

Quebec has a long history of producing its own distinct electoral results, with an influential Nationalist movement. Yet Quebec has seen its Nationalist government displaced by the Liberals just last year, despite polling suggesting that a majority Parti Quebecois government was possible.

At a different end of the scale, traditionally conservative Alberta saw a huge upset of its own this year. Alberta's so-called 'Progressive' Conservative Party majority government was swept away by the slow rise of the 'alternative' conservative Wildrose Party to become the official opposition and the surprise landslide majority victory for the New Democrats.

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, has been keen to point out the strength of her party amongst certain demographics. May stressed that the Greens are bringing many disaffected voters back to politics, and creating an entry point for younger voters, that is increasing voters turnouts rather than taking votes away from other parties.

What all of these factors tell us, including all of the peculiarities and upsets, is that a more representative electoral system is needed. The tight, divided race that marked the early part of the federal election campaign shows that political beliefs are clearly spread across many positions.Yet the electoral system forces voters to prioritise, even to pick least worst options, rather than make the politicians themselves listen, compromise and act like elected representatives.

While polls have shown for months that there is a clear progressive majority, split fairly evenly between Liberals and New Democrats, in practice that may transform into a government and parliament dominated by Liberals with the New Democrat voice much reduced.

The pressures that lead to these distortions reduce the representation of a diverse citizenry - leading only to disillusion amongst voters who feel their choices are narrowed - and, when they produce majorities, shut down parliamentary debate. Voters should not be forced to realign away from their beliefs and prioritise, just to pick partisan sides in a politics reduced to an artificial game that is context-restricted and held hostage by polemic factional disputes.

A progressive society is one that embraces diversity, embraces debate, and rejects polemic division. Progressives need to champion an alternative system that rejects the artificial settling of splits between parties and supports true representation.

Elizabeth May is right - the real possibility of seeing their ideals represented can bring back disaffected voters

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, at the StopC51 'Day of Action' at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto. Photograph: Elizabeth May at #StopC51 'Day of Action' by Alex Guibord (License) (Cropped)

During Thursday night's Canada leaders debate, Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, stressed that her party did not need to take votes away from the three major parties (Wells, 2015). May said, as she has said before (May, 2015), that her party could instead focus on bringing disaffected voters back into the political fold.

With Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid, there are few subjects more sensitive for the UK Labour Party than the matter of who they should be looking to for support. May's comments touch on a sore point for the Labour establishment, who seem to have set out, with determination, to put Corbyn down and discredit his supporters (Watt, 2015).

What the mainstream of the Labour Party demands, instead, is a focus on wooing just enough of the two-thirds of Britain who regularly turnout to vote. To gain their support, the party wants policy pitches to be based on opinion poll data of the most popular, currently held, views on a range of issues (Wintour, 2015) - from the economy to immigration.

Between May and Corbyn on one side, and the Labour establishment on the other, there are two very different mindsets at work.

At the leaders debate, Elizabeth May's statement was made in response to accusations that her party would split the, already fractured, anti-Harper vote. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have led Canada since 2006, first as a minority and then as a majority, through one controversy after another, against an opposition split between the historically dominant Liberals and the New Democrats.

What the leader of Canada's Green Party makes clear is that people will turn out to vote if they believe that their ideals will be represented (May, 2015). Yet, where voters can be split into two distinct groups, progressives and conservatives, by a one-member one-constituency system, there remain obstacles to representation. Despite May's optimism, even if you can bring back the voters who have turned away, you would still risk dividing up the support of progressives between several parties in a manner that allows conservatives to triumph (Lucas, 2015).

In most countries with a one-member one-constituency system, a solution of some sort tends to develop that addresses vote splitting. The solutions vary, ranging from a two party system to the acknowledgement of formal electoral alliances.

For Caroline Lucas, the sole Green Party MP at Westminster, the solution is a one time electoral pact amongst the UK's Left parties, with the aim of reforming the electoral system into a more proportionally representative form (Lucas, 2015). With one more pragmatic vote, cast for an alliance of progressives, pragmatic votes could be a thing of the past.

However, Labour, the biggest party of the UK Left - at least historically - has remained determined to pursue its approach of forcing everyone on the Left to align within one big tent. For the Left, this is a huge disadvantage. The Left is vibrant and diverse. From Liberals to Socialists, to Environmentalists and Feminists, they all have their own priorities - which can be mangled or suppressed by a big tent party with its focus solely upon achieving victory by collecting the 51% of votes.

Labour, in pursuit of that goal, remains focussed on, and talks a lot about, 'the Centre': home to the broadest group of voters. For them, the Centre describes a particular consensus. It is an approach that has led the party steadily to the Right, as they try to suppress the fractiousness of the Left and, under the first past the post voting system, force voters to check their ideals at the polling station door - all in the name of anti-conservative unity.

Yet the Centre can also describe a place of compromise, where you seek to create a balance between the ideals and priorities of the different ideologies. If the aim of Centrism is to be broadly inclusive, then its cause would, surely, be better served, in finding both consensus and balance, by voters being able to choose representatives that actually fit with their priorities.

In Canada and the UK, the Green Party is making the case that people will turn out to vote if they can vote for their ideals - with some legitimate hope that their vote could actually turn a significant, and proportional, percentage of those nominated into representatives. In that task, one-member/one constituency, first-past-the-post type, voting systems are inadequate.

If people are to see their vote count, and have the chance of seeing their ideals turned into policy and put into action, proportional representation and coalition government present the best means. But first come the pragmatic choices.

The parties of the Left have to be willing to stand up for the ideals that make them distinct, while showing solidarity with other progressive parties in the general cause of opposing conservatism and reforming the establishment. If they can respect and nurture their supporters idealism and are willing to support reform that lets it flourish, the voters will return.