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.

Richmond Park By-Election: Zac Goldsmith's horrid London Mayoral Campaign should be lightning rod for rallying progressive support behind a challenger

Zac Goldsmith, once the darling of 'decent' liberal conservatism, chose the low road against Sadiq Khan in London. Photograph: Zac Goldsmith MP at 'A New Conversation with the Centre-Right about Climate Change' in 2013 from the Policy Exchange (License) (Cropped)

Zac Goldsmith's promise to resign should the Government go ahead with plans for Heathrow expansion was triggered on Tuesday. Theresa May's Ministry gave the go ahead to Heathrow plans, triggering a by-election in Goldsmith's Richmond Park constituency (BBC, 2016).

Goldsmith will nominally stand as an Independent, but with the Conservatives not standing a candidate against him - for the clear tactical reason of knowing Goldsmith will vote with them on most issues and so wish to avoid splitting the conservative vote - he remains a pro-Government candidate.

For the main opposition in the area, the Liberal Democrats, facing a conservative support split between two Tory candidates would have been a gift. But as it is, the seat remains one of the best opportunities the party will get to demonstrate its 'Lib Dem Fightback'.

The Richmond Park constituency was in fact a liberal seat from 1997 until 2010, when an upsurge in people voting in the constituency tipped it into Conservative hands. Goldsmith defended his seat with an increased majority in 2015.

Yet that defence came under peculiar circumstances. The Lib Dem's general collapse found its way to Richmond Park, where the party lost around half of its support, to the benefit of all the other challengers.

But, regardless of the party voters chose in 2015, the constituency as a whole still seems to be pretty liberal in its make up. At the referendum, going against the Eurosceptic Goldsmith, the area voted by 75,000 to 33,000 in favour of Remaining in the European Union (Dixon, 2016).

What should go a long way towards advancing the challenge of the Liberal Democrats is that certainly no progressive should be giving Goldsmith any consideration after the horrid London Mayoral campaign run his name - with its blatant racial profiling and anti-Muslim attempts to smear Khan as a friend to extremists (Jones, 2016).

In fact, that makes Richmond Park look like the kind of idealistic rallying point for which a Progressive Alliance is intended to represent. Some sort of united progressive stand against the overwhelming majority of Tory policies that Goldsmith still represents and his disgusting divisive tactics in the London campaign would be entirely justified.

With the Lib Dems as the clear sole challenger - it being formerly their seat, the seat being very pro-EU and the Lib Dems sharing the anti-Heathrow expansion position of Goldsmith and Richmond constituents - their candidate would ideally, and tactically, be the focus of allied progressive support against Goldsmith.

Certain Labour MPs have certainly expressed their openness to such an arrangement (Casalicchio, 2016). Sian Berry, Green Member of the London Assembly and their 2016 Mayoral Candidate, has already stressed that she won't let anyone forget Goldsmith's divisive campaign in London (Berry, 2016).

However, officially, Labour have said they will stand their own candidate. But that does not necessarily mean that they ultimately will- or that, having stood a candidate, they will necessarily campaign as hard as they could.

For the Lib Dems themselves, this is clearly a great opportunity. While they will need a huge 19% swing, they achieved that at Witney - and in Witney they showed how thin the Conservative majorities are were they benefit previously from the fall out from the Coalition.

For progressives more widely, the Richmond Park by-election is the first clear chance they've had to significantly defeat the Government at the polls. Local council and Mayoral defeats have been waved away with excuses. But a progressive topping the poll at this by-election would be a serious indicator that the Tory majority was even more tenuous than it already seems.

However Goldsmith and the Government may try to make sure the 'Independent' label sticks, Goldsmith stand with the Government majority on the rest of its programme. Rallying to defeat his candidacy would be a definitive rejection of the Government's policies. It would also demonstrate that even the largest Tory majorities are far from safe when a new election comes around.

Where is there left to go when politics breaks down into stark and implacable camps? The hidden peril of conflict

The latest junior doctors' strikes breached a controversial threshold when it withdrew emergency care. Ahead of the two days scheduled for the strikes, scare stories circulated talk of the NHS creaking - maybe encouraged by how the polls had previously suggested that public support would weaken.

In the event, support for the strike action actually remained in the majority with only a small percentage fall from before emergency care was withdrawn, with the public still largely seeing the government as culpable, and the NHS appeared to cope with the strain (Triggle, 2016; Broomfield, 2016).

The emergency threshold was breached and support for the strikers remained. That would seem to put matters in favour of the junior doctors. But the big question is - did the full strike change anything?

The short answer is... probably very little.

For those familiar with how things are actually achieved in politics - that is, usually through some kind of compromise - that shouldn't come as a huge shock. What the emergency strikes have not altered are the fundamental positions on either side of the divide.

The government didn't see the weakening of public support for which it might have hoped. And, short of those in other professions walking out in support, more akin to a general strike, the withdrawal of emergency care is as far as the strikers can escalate.

The doctor's duty of care means there are limits to the withdrawal of labour - unless a lingering rumour of mass resignations by doctors has any truth in it (Campbell, 2016). At this point, breaking the deadlock may require different kinds of resignations.

Not least forth in the queue for an exit has to the Health Secretary himself Jeremy Hunt, whose belligerence has allowed and encouraged the escalation of the dispute. The BMA - the British Medical Association, the doctor's union - has also firmly staked out a position specifically counter to that of the Health Secretary due to what they felt was a pointed threat to impose new contracts without negotiation.

On both sides, it seems only a toppling of their respective leaderships could allow for a change of direction while, as is often a priority in politics, saving face. The sides have so committed themselves to their respective courses, enough as to become completely entrenched, that it is hard to envision either being able to back down.

Therein lies the peril of competition and confrontation. Whatever can be said about the American, deeply partisan, political system, it is not a place where things are getting done. Instead, these grand monolithic forces butt heads, shaking the landscape and leaving people divided.

And that is the value of, not only compromise, but of cooperation. The ability to work with others is more than just cutting crude and dissatisfying compromises. It is also about creating a mutual respect that allows for healthy discussion, debate and an arena for grievance with effective means of redress.

A society at odds with itself would have a hard time finding resolutions in which all parts of society feel themselves to have a stake - which, in politics, is the short and medium term aim. Feeling represented is an important aspect of building engagement on the part of the public with the complexity of the challenges that their communities, their societies, face and the trust and comprehension of the outcomes.

That, more than anything else, puts Jeremy Hunt's name at the head of any list of those who need to resign. He has escalated and divided, an we are poorer for it: we have less cooperation, less engagement and less chance of an outcome in which all parts of society feel they are represented.