The Alternative General Election 2019: Progressive parties need to settle their differences

This is another election that will come down to a simple arithmetic: how can progressives prevent another Tory government, led by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. That simple arithmetic is given a crudity by the fact that most of the progressive parties do not get along.

It's a particularly extraordinary factor in British politics, when you consider how close our progressive political parties are to one another - in their concerns, in their approach, in their policies. Those crossovers continue into this election.

Progressive Goals

All of the progressive parties share a commitment to tackling the climate crisis, with emissions goals set for the 2030s. The features vary, but include tackling energy costs for households and funding the reorganisation of the energy sector and industry to reduce pollution.

Lifelong learning is also a common feature, committing progressives to spending more to enable people to retrain during their working life, and adapt better as the economy changes.

Across the progressive parties is also an instinct to ease the burden that comes with welfare, including, in some form or another, a trial scheme for a basic income.

And of course, tackling the housing crisis is a key priority for all of them, with each making their pitch for how many and what kind of homes they will build.

As ever though, the parties have their differences. What primarily divides the progressive parties are their jealous priorities - and also their deep seated dislike for one another's approach to politics.

Priorities

For Labour, it is what they call real change - the role that public ownership could and should play in giving people a fair chance at a good life. A possibly expensive policy objective that has riled up a lot of people within and without the party.

For the Greens, it's the climate emergency. The centrepiece to a manifesto with some big commitments is £100bn to reach emissions targets by 2030 - much more ambitious than those of the other parties.

And for the Liberal Democrats, they have made "Stop Brexit" their slogan, and to the annoyance even of some of their own supporters, almost the single issue for which the party now stands - even when they might make meaningful pitches on welfare or education reform.

None of these priorities ought to rule out cooperation, but the mutual antipathy between the parties and their memberships always makes things difficult. But imagine if they could cooperate?

For now, see for yourself how close the two biggest progressive parties get in their manifestos, which we breakdown in these articles below:

Labour manifesto review, 'Real Change';

Liberal Democrats manifesto review, 'Stop Brexit';

and then contrast those with the manifesto, and the record in government, of the Conservatives, 'Status Quo';

How badly do you want the Tories out?

This election has all the makings of another two horse race - however much Jo Swinson may be hoping for a Canadian Liberal scale landslide shift. This country's two-party system is just too hard to crack without extenuating circumstances, and the Lib Dems have made too many people mistrustful.

Which makes Labour's determination to stick to it's majoritarian big tent attitude - even in the Corbyn/Momentum era - all the more absurd. Yes, Britain has a two party system. But it has many more parties, that all gain votes and all have devoted supporters who at times are openly hostile to the big two.

Not working in alliance with the third parties, and not working to break up this inequitable electoral and parliamentary system, is a ludicrous act of self harm by the Labour Party - which clings to the remnants of power, mostly expressed these days in the one-party-state level of control it holds over some communities.

Not that other parties have been displaying much of an appetite for unconditional cooperation. The Lib Dems have been trying to oust Corbyn, or deny him the Premiership, as their price for working with Labour. Meanwhile, the SNP want a second referendum on Scottish Independence as their price - one that is too high for most English parties.

That's not to say there has been no cooperation. Working in a small progressive alliance, the Lib Dems, the Greens and Plaid Cymru will probably be able to pick up some crucial seats among the sixty where they are working together. Taking seats away from the Tories, but perhaps also taking seats from Labour.

Labour need to be on the right side of these political alliances if it wants to get into government. The balance of support, in England in particular, means that Labour depend upon tactical voting for them against the Tories, and voters elsewhere leaving the Tories for parties who have a chance to oust them where Labour are outsiders.

Like at the last election, it may be left for ordinary voters, campaign groups and local party associations to work out the cooperation that the national level party leaderships can't if progressives are to oust the Conservatives and their damaging era of austerity and government-by-press-release.

And the damaging era of Tory rule must end. It's been a disaster for the most vulnerable, with the return of Dickensian poverty. Austerity is bad and there is no end in sight under the Tories.

European Parliament elections 2019: With dangerous times ahead, progressives need to carefully consider their vote

The facts haven't changed. The first referendum had little to do with the lives of working people. It was one lot of middle class who were pro-market liberals arguing with another middle class group of pro-market conservatives. There was no working class option on the ballot.

Remain meant continuing a framework in need of reform, as it wasn't serving Britain's poorest regions. Brexit was a bad joke, offering more of the same, but with less rights, lower standards and a chance for the rich to prey on all of the instability and austerity that would follow.

Two Years On From the Referendum

Of the two choices, Remain was the least worst option - as we spelled out in our guide to the EU Referendum. That hasn't changed and is still the case two years on. Meanwhile, voting for Brexit - even for most of the middle class, never mind working class - is still the turkeys voting for Christmas.

You can see it most clearly in the calls for Leave on 'WTO terms'. The far right charges the European Union with attacking the UK's sovereignty - a claim entirely undermined by the WTO's priorities, of which meddling with domestic lawmaking is paramount to tackling 'non-tariff barriers' to trade, as we debunked in our article on the World Trade Organisation and Trade.

While these two middle class groups argue about which is the best way to make a quick buck, it's the far right who feed on the resulting turmoil. Slick media campaigns, scrubbing their candidates clean for their supporters - covering up racism, intolerance and greed - break traditional editorial filters.

In Britain, that's letting all of the creepy-crawlies come out of the woodwork - the bogeymen are assembling. From the odious charlatan Nigel Farage, to petty thug Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who hides under the disguise "Tommy Robinson", a dangerous crowd are trying to get elected to the European Parliament.

But the danger is amplified by alliance building going on among far right nationalists in the rest of Europe - under Matteo Salvini, Lega leader and Interior Minister in Italy. After years of forcing their way into the system, they're now gathering for a concerted push on what they feel is their ripest target - the European Union and it's vision of a borderless continent.

Conservative ministers are briefing that the 2019 European Parliament Elections will be the biggest protest vote in history, and they might not be wrong about that. But that only adds to the danger - with voters choosing the far right to convey dissatisfaction, they risk the creation of a powerful far right bloc in the European Parliament.

Vote Remain, Vote Green, Vote Liberal

For progressives, the options are fairly straight forward. This isn't a second referendum. This election has lasting consequences if Brexit doesn't happen - elected representatives taking seats in the European Parliament on our behalf, voting on the European agenda for the next five years.

There are two parties in these elections that have clear pro-European and pro-Remain credentials, and who are well organised with other parties across Europe to have a big influence on the future policy. Labour is neither of them - though well connected, it's stance towards Europe has long only been about convenience.

The obvious party are the Liberal Democrats. They are a part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, led by Guy Verhofstadt - one the European Parliament's most recognisable figures - and the public clearly know that a commitment to Europe is one of their primary positions.

The Liberal Democrats are moderately progressive, but mostly lean towards the centre and compromise positions when in power - indeed, their European group includes plenty of liberals who would be comfortable with David Cameron's 'modernised' pro-Business, pro-Market Conservative Party.

The less obvious of the two parties, but growing into becoming a real factor, are the Green Party. Consistently pro-European, and well-organised across the continent alongside other Green Parties and small progressive parties, this election is their chance for a big breakthrough in Britain.

Green parties have been making headway in a number of countries, such as in Germany where they now have 67 seats in the Bundestag and have polled above 20% of the vote - ahead of the old Social Democrats - heading towards taking over as the party of the progressive opposition. Further headway has been made at the regional level in a number of countries.

A Cure for Toxicity

Something needs to change, because the political atmosphere has become stiflingly toxic. In Britain, it has become hard to breathe in political spaces filled with the billious air of Brexit, that leaves no room for many more pressing matters.

I am honestly unsure that the Liberal Democrats can provide the kind of change that is needed. I might have thought differently ten years ago. There is a pro-Business, pro-Market, wing to the party that wields a lot of influence where it matters, and keeps dampening the party's more radical voices.

The Green Party on the other hand, unsullied by government and toxic alliance, could inject a new energy into progressive politics - if they can make a big breakthrough. It may be time for something new, to sweep away the old. But that, first, has to find a place to start, a way into the public consciousness.

One thing I am sure of, is that the far right will not give people what they desire. Their path is only to more division, more suffering - because that is what feeds the far right machine, what gives the far right support and power.

In this election you get one vote, though the system is a little more proportional than Britain's first-past-the-post. Tactical voting is not a priority, with turnout much more important - and convincing people to turn out and vote for a progressive and Remain candidate, prepared to work hard in Brussels. For progressive voters, you need to consider who you want to represent you in the EU, and which party can do that while sending the right message at home.

Conference round-up: What are the main takeaways from party conference season?

The time of austerity is coming to an end. Or at least that is the overaching message of party conference season. It invites the bigger question of whether the Conservatives would actually be willing and able to deliver it's end.

Last year's election showed the Tories that even a coordinated media bashing of Corbyn wasn't enough to dampen enthusiasm for the content of the Labour manifesto and their call for a step change away from the time of austerity.

The Conservatives know they have to adapt. But they will start only by changing their message, rather than reinforcing that with any particularly drastic change in funding - hence Theresa May telling Prime Ministers Questions that austerity was going to end, but not 'fiscal responsibility'.

The Chancellor Philip Hammond used his conference speech to hint at a change of message, telling party members the Conservatives couldn't afford to be a party of 'no change'. The Prime Minister followed that up by saying austerity was coming to an end.

Opposition scepticism is entirely appropriate.

The Tories will be reluctant converts to the anti-austerity cause (except, perhaps those in local government), and the move was probably forced Labour's unabashed commitments to higher taxes, more spending and a definitive end to austerity.

In fact, Paul Johnson at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) called the Labour proposals the most radical in a long time, capable of deeply affecting the UK economy, and transforming expectations and assumptions about how the economy will work.

The other main lesson of conference season was, obviously, Brexit. As it has taken over every other aspect of politics in Britain, so it has taken over party conference season.

The Tories were, as usual, mired in their three way factional splits - hard right Brexiters, moderate Remainers and Theresa May's split the difference

However, Labour took a step towards laying out in more certain terms their position - with the party more or less all onboard. The party's red lines, particularly a customs union agreement, were supplemented by a commitment to a People's Vote second referendum in the event that final deal fails to pass muster.

The party's preference remains to force an election on Brexit, but the concession Labour's Remainers, to support a People's Vote to ensure the public get a say, is a step towards bringing the party to a (mostly) united position.

Meanwhile, as would be expected, the Liberal Democrats lambasted all who would oppose a People's Vote second referendum. But beneath the business as usual, it was good to see the party's radical liberal factions put some progressive ideas on the table - such as a sovereign wealth fund and more support for cooperatives.

The Greens had the same mix of Brexit and domestic policy at their conference. On the domestic front, they pushed for wellbeing - particularly relating to free time - to get a higher place in our measurement of the UK's economic and living standards.

Finally, the SNP joined their push for a second referendum on Scottish Independence with opening the way for their MPs to support a second referendum on Brexit. While it isn't a straightforward piece of arithmetic, opposing Brexit is consistent with how people in Scotland have voted and may prepare better ground for their own ambitions.

The onrolling Brexit steamroller aside, the end of austerity was the biggest headline. It would seem that Theresa May is right, that austerity coming to an end - but in spite of them, not because of them. The Tories seem to sense the mood is shifting.

There is a big opportunity ahead for the progressive parties, to undermine the case for austerity and drag out into the light the ideological choices that enforced it and the consequences of the Conservative choice to impose it.

Local Elections 2018 Preview: Labour look set for gains, but what we need more is a greater diversity of perspectives

Manchester City Council, with 95 Labour councillors and 1 Liberal Democrat, is a prime example of the need for a greater diversity of unwhipped perspectives in local government. Photograph: Manchester Town Hall by Stephen Douglas (Licence)

After last year's opportunistic election did not go to plan for Theresa May's Conservative and Unionist Party, her government - propped up by the Northern Irish loyalist Democratic Unionist Party - has been stumbling from one potential crisis to another.

These elections come at a strange time. Despite both main parties struggling, they both remain at around 40% in the polls and have a strangling grip on local government. Is this a chance for smaller parties to make some breakthroughs on councils?

With the majoritarian two-party system reasserting itself, some pushback from smaller parties like the Greens or Lib Dems would be welcome, to ensure representation of a wider set of perspectives - and to increase the accountability of local councils.

Conservatives

This will be the Tories first big electoral test since then. The final totals will need to weighed against the fact that half of the seats up for re-election are currently held by Labour. Yet there could be some headline defeats for the government.

Theresa May's party is particularly at risk of losing council seats in London. This includes control of Wandsworth, their flagship council from the time of Margaret Thatcher, which was used as the pioneer for contracting out local services.

The Conservative have taken a low key approach to the local elections. This may be a result of their own strategists projecting heavy losses to Labour. Downing St may have accepted that and prepared to downplay the significance.

This hasn't stopped local Conservative branches from pursuing aggressive campaigning tactics - including repeating the racist and Islamophobic overtones of the Goldsmith campaign for Mayor of London, which targetted Sadiq Khan's ethnicity and religion.

This time around there has been condemnation from Tory voices. But is the Conservative establishment distancing itself simply because of the timing? Local councillors have said their leaflets were signed off by Conservative HQ.

Mired by the Windrush scandal - entirely of their own creation - and with the media pursuing Labour hard over antisemitism, did the Tories just find it an inconvenient moment to be pursuing openly divisive tactics themselves?

Labour

With Labour holding most of the council seats up for grabs this time around, the party has to make inroads in Conservative areas. Part of that has them focussing very heavily on London - perhaps sensing that there are big headlines to be written.

Key Conservative controlled areas could be vulnerable to Labour and sweeping gains - on a night when they will begin already in a dominant position - will be an emphatic statement that can be milked for publicity and be used to continue the narrative of a Labour Party on the ascent.

For the Labour Party leadership, that would be a much need boost as their forward momentum has been arrested - despite the Tories creating problems for themselves - by their inability to adequately address the issue of antisemitism.

The media and critics have run roughshod over Labour on the issue, and Corbyn and his team have not come up with a way to convincingly show that antisemitism will not be tolerated - and thus diffuse the issue. As a result, a cloud hangs over the party.

So too does the ever looming prospect of a split. It's hard to see how anyone on the opposition benches would benefit, in the short term, from an inamicable split - even though a split increasingly seems like a good idea, to end the spiteful internal squabbling.

A split is hindered however, by the archaic quirks of our electoral system, that does not abide multiple parties and the increase in critical perspectives it can bring, nor the prospect of groups working together despite holding different membership cards.

Opposition

The Green Party laid out this, the big theme of the local elections, in the UK in their campaign launch. Co-leader Jon Bartley called for an end to Britain's "one-party state" local councils, to increase their transparency and accountability to local people.

It's an argument that thinktank Compass and it's chair Neal Lawson also press, stressing that Labour need to overcome their obsession with claiming a monopoly on power - which leads it to absorb or crush any possible rivals, rather than working with them.

In terms of the Green Party's own prospects, their best hope may be in trying to make inroads into Labour dominated councils, whose unchallenged authority has resulted in some poor outcomes - that have left some voters disaffected. Consider, for example, the goings-on under Labour at Haringey or Sheffield.

The other visible party of opposition in local government are the Liberal Democrats. Buoyed perhaps by their consistent - as usual - good form in council by-elections, they've been talking up their chances of a mini-revival at the local government level.

With the polls consistently putting the Conservatives and Labour neck and neck, 40% to 40%, it's difficult to see where the Lib Dems will make inroads - especially after several years of desperate defence, to hang on to what they hold.

As supporters of a Progressive Alliance, The Alternative wants the Lib Dems to refind their progressive side. But at present their best chance of picking up seats may be by, finally, convincing Conservative voters that what they liked about the Coalition was actually the Lib Dems all along.

So watch Lib-Con head-to-heads. This is a dynamic that could have a gigantic affect on a future election, where Lib Dems taking votes and seats directly from the Tories could tip Theresa May out of office and open the way for Labour.

Voter ID

These local elections will also be the first to trial the controversial new Voter ID measures that the Conservatives hope to roll out nationally. Such measures have been deeply criticised by electoral and rights groups.

The reality is that, first of all, Britain has very little in the way of electoral fraud, and second, that Voter ID does little to stop voter fraud. In fact, it does little but deter voters - discriminating particularly against the poor.

The trial runs will take place in Swindon, Gosport, Woking, Bromley, and Watford.

Municipalism

If we are to have effective local government there must be no barriers to participation for the community. Their representatives must be accountable and transparent, and able to hold local bodies to those same standards on the public behalf.

Erecting barriers, especially those disproportionately impacting voters from minority groups, and leaving one-party local councils unchallenged, is a recipe for bad governance. Well run, accountable local government can achieve so much at the municipal level.

There are big ideas out there, from Barcelona to Preston. Municipalism taking root. Local government can empower local people. The first step is to break up the local political monopolies, to leave them no choice but to start hearing criticism and engaging with it.

General Election 2017 - Green Manifesto: Openness, compassion and cooperation

The Greens' manifesto must be read as what MPs will stand up for, rather than expect to implement.

At a modest launch, the Green Party put forward its manifesto for General Election 2017. The low-key event aligns well with the party's realistically focused, targeted election campaign.

The party's co-leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jon Bartley, have been at the forefront of calls for a Progressive Alliance and local Greens have worked to unite support behind the best placed anti-Tory candidates across the country.

Their own efforts will focus on a few constituencies, to concentrate on re-electing Lucas in Brighton Pavillion and putting some new Green MPs alongside her - such as Natalie Bennett in Sheffield Central, Molly Scott Cato in Bristol West and Vix Lowthion in the Isle of Wight.

So this manifesto must be understood in that context: these are the things that Greens will put on the agenda, that they will speak up for, fight for and vote in Parliament to defend. Openness and cooperation will be key to that effort.

Openness and cooperation appeared in Caroline Lucas' introductory speech, along with compassion, as the values that the Greens will protect. That theme runs through the pledges the party makes in its manifesto.

The headline pledges for the Greens are their commitment to a basic income trial scheme, a shorter working week and a £10 minimum wage. At the core, there is a lot of crossover with Labour: the living wage, higher tax for the wealthy and support for "small businesses, co-operatives and mutuals".

The party, of course, ranks addressing the environment among its highest priorities. There are commitments to fund a public work programme of home insulation to make energy use more efficient, to end fossil fuel subsidies and replace them with investment in renewables and community owned energy, and to protect green spaces.

There is also crossover with Labour here - who, in particular, have called for local public energy companies, with a focus on renewable energy, to compete with the big energy corporations to drive down energy prices.

The Liberal Democrats also share commitments here, to rolling out insulation, to invest in green energy and, with Labour also, to tackle air pollution and support new energy companies coming in and take on the "Big 6" - with a focus on how these efforts could all boost the economy and be the start of a job-creating clean industry in Britain.

These stand in stark contrast to the Conservatives, whose almost only reference to the environment was to offer its support to energy derived from shale gas - otherwise known by its more controversial name of fracking.

On health, the Greens continue their commitment to fighting against privatisation in, and of, healthcare services. They renew their commitment to passing their NHS Reinstatement Bill that would even restore dental services to public funding.

Their focus on support for matching the status of mental health to physical health matches with the Lib Dems and Labour, along with calling for increasing funding for the NHS and social care.

On other public services, the Greens go further than Labour, calling for energy, water, rail, bus and mail services to all be brought back into public ownership - and for an increase to local government funding to help authorities provide good quality services.

There are crossovers on education as well. Scrapping tuition fees has been committed to by the Greens and Labour - and still has support among Lib Dems. Restoring student grants is a Green and Lib Dem priority.

Restoring young people's benefits is a shared goal across the progressive parties. The Greens stand out on welfare, however, for their headline commitment to the basic income and to rolling out a trial scheme.

The Green Party commitments on house building align with all of the progressive parties and specifically matches Labour's commitment to 500,000 new social rent homes over the next five years. Along with the Lib Dems there are commitments to take action on empty homes and to scrap the Bedroom Tax.

Long shared with the Liberal Democrats, and being newly considered by the Labour Party, there is support for the much needed switch to proportional representation - to make votes matter, by making the votes people cast more clearly represented in how the seats in Parliament are distributed.

And not least there are commitments to the Human Rights Act and to the UK's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights - the Tory attitude to which has made this a high priority concern for liberals and human rights and civil liberties groups.

The Greens have only modest electoral ambitions for themselves. But in the face of the threat of a landslide Tory majority they have stressed the need for a Progressive Alliance - for progressive parties to come together to defend their shared values.

While they may be the most humble of mainstream progressive parties, their approach is grasping best the bigger picture. A Tory landslide would be a disaster - for the poorest, for transparency and accountability, for the values of openness, compassion and co-operation.

Whether a supporter of Labour or the Liberal Democrats, if the Greens are the best placed to defeat the Tories in a constituency, there is plenty of crossover to make voting Green tactically an easy decision.

The same extends in the other direction - Greens can find plenty of policies that align with their priorities in the manifestos of the Lib Dems and Labour. There is a real progressive consensus on many issues.

But it is only through cooperation and working together, by voting tactically and campaigning positively in collaboration with the best placed candidates, that progressives can fend off the latest round of Tory assaults on the rights, liberties and wellbeing of the most vulnerable people in Britain.

General Election 2017 - Housing: There is a progressive consensus that Britain needs more homes and more protection for renters

The future of housing in Britain is a key issue, for which the main parties rarely have a convincing answer.

It is not an overstatement to say that housing is in crisis in Britain. The housing and homelessness charity Shelter are stern in their assessment of a Britain that is short on affordable housing and facing the rise in precariousness and powerlessness that follows.

The Conservative approach to the crisis has been half-measures and pointed fingers. Despite the facts not agreeing with them, the Tory government has insisted it has built more houses than Labour - placing the present problems at their opponents feet.

Meanwhile their own response has amounted to mostly shoring up their own supporters. Disproportionately to the disadvantage of the least well off, the Tories have raided the public sector- councils and housing association - for more homes to prop up a housing market reluctant to build.

The Conservatives continue to make promises. In the Autumn, as they acknowledged they have failed to meet targets, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Sajid Javid announced plans for a mix of funds and loans to get back on target.

Theresa May has announced, during the current campaign, that new land will be made available for Councils to build social housing - though, they'll still be sold off after ten to fifteen years. And the plan isn't new, just a re-announcement of previous spending commitments.

It is painfully unclear that Conservative plans will not do much of anything to affect the fundamental problems.

What is clear is that there is a progressive consensus to be found on housing. Across the Left and Centre, there is a realisation that - at the raw heart of the matter - more homes need to be built. There is no escaping from that reality.

The Labour response has been to pledge a million new homes over five years. The plan accounts for half of those to be council and housing association homes, to be made available for affordable rents. The pledge was accompanied by a commitment to ensuring more secure tenancies and end bad letting practices.

The Liberal Democrats by comparison have pitched for 300,000 new homes a year across the next parliament. As is becoming more common, they have combined this with a plan to allow councils to levy penalty fees on absentee landlords with empty homes - up to 200% of council tax.

This theme of building homes, tackling bad landlording and taking on the problem of empty homes is also present in the Green Party's policy announcements. Their proposals pretty much match Labour's step for step and include the Lib Dems focus on bringing empty homes back into use.

However, what no party has offered is a concrete means of dealing with the fundamental problem: a 259% rise in house prices over just twenty years. The standard response has been simply to increase the sheer number of houses - hoping that increasing market supply alone will drive down prices.

Certainly, making rental more secure, longer termed and protected from bad practices - like hiked rents or exorbitant fees - more widely available will go some way to providing viable alternatives to home ownership, that will increase competitive pressure.

But at some point, some party or movement will have to address the fundamental roadblock to housing reform in Britain: the interests of homeowners, landlords, developers and the government being so closely aligned and deeply invested in the continued increase in property values as to form a cartel.

This problem goes deep into the heart of Britain's economic system and find there problems that are supposed to be extinct.

The rentier - the magnate who makes their unearned income from rent - is seen as an issue of the early twentieth and even nineteenth century, but remains a problem in modern Britain.

It was one of the things that originally led liberals to coalesce into a party to fight: the power of aristocratic landlords who maintained their wealth and privilege on the back of the work of others. Their answer was to fight for earned income to replace rent income.

Yet conservatism adapted and capitalism has kept alive at its core a rentier class, that finds disproportionate advantage. The continued prevalence of inherited wealth and the huge privilege afforded to wealth, allows a class to virtually exclude others from access to one of the most basic needs: shelter.

Addressing the grip of this cartel just simply isn't in the interest of a government - not least conservatives. In Britain, so much has been staked on 'financialisation' and that investment speculation is deeply entwined with property.

But what is the answer? The strong or expansive economies of countries like Germany and Singapore both have huge public ownership of land and housing and in the last twenty years have not seen prices rise like they have amidst Britain's private finance and privatisation boom.

The progressive parties are all putting forward plans that will be an improvement upon Conservative policy and there is real and meaningful overlap in their ideas. They recognise that Britain needs more decent affordable homes and renters need protection. That alone is enough to vote for progressive parties on the issue of housing, over Tories that raid social housing to feed an out of control market.

But the big answers on housing have yet to make their way into the party mainstream in Britain.

General Election 2017: The Alternative guide to a critical general election for Britain

The priority for progressives in 2017 is to stop the Conservatives sweeping aside all opposition, that would leave the way clear for Theresa May's regressive government and impoverishing policies. Image: Made from @TheProgAlliance campaign images (Adapted)

Not since the time of Margaret Thatcher's rise have the Conservatives been so strong and the progressive opposition so weak. For that reason alone, this could be counted an extraordinary election. But there is much more at play.

As the pollsters have been keen to point out, this election has so many factors - from Brexit to the prospect of a second Scottish independence referendum - that conventional assumptions cannot be relied upon for predictions (Duffy, 2017).

The view of The Alternative is that the way forward for the Left and Centre at this election is to work together, and our coverage will reflect that. We'll argue at each step for a Progressive Alliance and advise voters not to wait on leaders to make the first move.

As campaign the progresses, this article will act as a hub for our election coverage. In particular, you will find below links to our analysis of each party's manifesto, as they're released. Our focus will be on what unites the progressive parties.

Conservatives - Demanding unity, making no promises.

Labour - Stepping up the role of the public sector.

Liberal Democrats - Practical pitch to rebuild trust.

Greens - Openness, compassion and cooperation.

Scotland - Scottish MPs must bring soft power to bear.

Wales - Poor, fractured and ignored, needing a radical alternative.

Over the course of the campaign we'll also compare how progressives and conservatives are approaching each issue, and how major events, like the local elections or tv debates, have affected the campaign, with links here.

Local Elections - What did we learn?

Budget - Progressive optimism vs Conservative pessimism.

Housing - Britain needs more decent affordable homes.

Health - Ousting Jeremy Hunt would send a strong message.

Check back here as the campaign goes on for more articles on each factor and policy area in this critical election.

An Introduction to General Election 2017

The Conservatives enter this election from a position of strength and have everything to gain and, just maybe, everything to lose. Meanwhile, the polls say that Labour are vulnerable and might finally crumble. The local elections were not reassuring.

The local elections where a preview of the danger the Tories pose to Labour MPs. Up to this point, Labour under Corbyn had held it's own in most contests - though with one significant exception, in the Copeland by-election.

In a major shock, Labour lost a seat at a by-election to the government. Those in government usually focus on not being whittled away through successive by-election losses - winning a seat from the oppositions is an almost unheard of gift.

Corbyn's divided Labour lost ground in some key areas, like Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and parts of Wales. There Tories will be throwing their weight fully behind widening these cracks in the Labour front.

So for the opposition, things hang at a delicate balance. Worse than being vulnerable, they're also divided. Labour are split internally, but are also part of a progressive wing of British politics that can find dozens of reasons not to cooperate. But this time, there is one big reason to consider it.

The Progressive Alliance

With the opposition so weak and led by problematic leaders, progressives are being forced to break down a few of the old walls and rally together. In that effort, the grassroots have taken the leading role.

Local party branches, independent organisations and individuals have started organising cross-party cooperation. Led by the grassroots, 2017 looks like being the year of tactical voting.

An anti-Tory tactical vote looks like it will to be a factor in June - even if the party leaderships are reluctant to support cooperation. And, perhaps a little thanks to their reluctance?

But it's hard to gauge whether it will be effective at halting the Tory machine. The local elections made clear that the efforts of progressives will be mostly about rallying a defence.

There are also, of course, the usual objections and questions to consider: what do these 'progressive' parties have in common, and are their voters really that well aligned?

The Alternative will certainly argue from this position over the weeks ahead. And there are those in each party who also believe that parties like Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens have a lot in common - belief in equality, working for social justice, defending liberty. In fact there has been a long standing aim amongst members of Left-leaning parties to 'Realign the Left'.

One of the more controversial parties usually added to the progressive line up is the Liberal Democrats. Yet it is home to some of the most vocal progressives. For example, the Social Liberal Forum, an internal pressure group that represents the progressive wing of the Liberal Democrats, endorses progressive alliance cooperation and has been vocal in its belief in unifying progressive values (SLF, 2017).

Their positive attitude to cooperation matches that of the Green Party, that has been firmly behind alliances between Left and Centre parties for a number of elections. Local Greens have in fact already started organising behind single anti-Tory candidates (Left Foot Forward, 2017). Local Lib Dems have, in turn, stood aside in Brighton to back Caroline Lucas.

The big question mark on progressive cooperation has always been Labour, traditionally zealous in its presentation of itself as the one and only representative of progressives. But the run up to this election has seen a number of Labour MPs getting on board with cross-party cooperation, such as Clive Lewis and Lisa Nandy.

The biggest factor will not be whether the party leaderships are willing to endorse some sort of alliance. Rather, it will depend on people taking up the responsibility and organising themselves if the Tories and their regressive government is to be held to account.

It will be from grassroots efforts that a Progressive Alliance will flower. From tactical voting, from vote swapping and from individual citizens and local organisations making their own decisions and running their own campaigns.

Election 2017: Is this the Progressive Alliance moment? It's up to you

Out of the blue, Theresa May turned tail yesterday and called an election. Perhaps the numbers were just too enticing to refuse? Whatever her motivation, the Prime Minister made her rather chilling call for support to defeat 'jeopardising', 'weakening' and game-playing opposition.

The next step was a formality. Parliament, required to vote in a two-thirds super majority to dissolve Parliament and call a new election, did so with a minimum of fuss and an overwhelming majority of over five hundred. The next step for progressives is to figure out how to fight the campaign ahead.

It might seem like a harsh assessment, but this is an era of disappointing leaders. May, Corbyn and Farron are all flawed, and all present contradictions and difficulties for their parties and followers. Progressives are feeling the impact of this more deeply in this time of conservative ascendency.

Fortunately for progressives, it isn't necessary for high level party establishments to lead the way. Local parties and voters themselves can take the lead. Now more than ever there is a need for people to take the reins and face an election one constituency at a time.

In any given constituency that produces a simpler question: who is the progressive who can defeat the conservative opponent?

That is what lies at the root of a progressive alliance. Not a party-led, top-down, electoral alliance, but a community-led campaign to support the best candidate standing for, in hope and in defence, progressive principles. For social justice, individual liberty and a sustainable, democratic future.

The parties themselves will fight how they see best for them as organisations, with their own self-interest at heart. But established organisations and their leaders are rarely bold in plotting their course, sticking to safe lines far from the radical frontiers.

The first step is organising in your own community, rallying members, activists and supporters of each progressive party around a single progressive candidate. The next will be to figure out who has, historically and currently, the strongest support and where - so the candidates with the best chance to beat conservatives can be chosen.

This isn't ideal, but the political system is designed to punish anyone who doesn't conform with exclusionary majoritarian thinking. That makes it all the more important to get a progressive government, because the Conservatives have never and are unlikely to ever, support proportional representation - first past the post reflects and protects conservatism and its creed of minority rule.

But that is just one of the values that progressives share, though it's sometimes hard to cut through the partisan divisions to see the commonalities. On equality, liberty, justice, progress - liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, socialists, trade unionists, feminists, municipalists and environmentalists, and many others, share so many values that enable them to work together.

For a progressive alliance to happen, it's not necessary to wait on the approval of leaders to discover the will to be bold. The people can make it happen. They can set the pace and the tone and let the leaders be led, to catch up with the new reality in their own time.

Richmond By-Election: Lib Dems take an upset win, but all progressives must now keep their eyes forward, take the lessons and repeat the success elsewhere

For Tim Farron, the Richmond Park win is the perfect start to his second year in charge. Yet he and other progressives leaders must be aware how entangled are the fates of progressive parties. Photograph: Tim Farron at the Lib Dem conference rally on 19 September 2015 by Dave Radcliffe (License) (Cropped)

Last night the Liberal Democrats pulled off a pretty spectacular upset, overturning Zac Goldsmith's majority of 23,000 to oust him from his seat. Goldsmith, who though having stood down over Government plans to pursue Heathrow expansion nonetheless appeared to receive Conservative backing, was defeated in a second major election in a year.

But the win was not for the Liberal Democrats alone. Sarah Olney, the Lib Dem candidate and new Richmond Park MP, received support from the Green Party, some Labour MPs, the Women's Equality Party and other campaigners, all uniting around her as the progressive with the best chance to topple Zac Goldsmith - who had endorsements from both the Tories and UKIP.

That tentative venture into Progressive Alliance politics was soured a little by the hostile attitude of the official Labour position, but otherwise it proved a limited but important point: an alliance of progressive parties, behind a common candidate and on favourable ground, can defeat a Conservative candidate.

But perhaps the clearest lesson from Richmond Park, and perhaps it is right to include Witney as well, is that the Liberal Democrats pose a genuine threat to Tory seats - a lesson that should not be lost on Labour. Labour cannot topple the Tory majority alone: they need the Lib Dems to take seats away from them as well, in their head-to-head contests.

In the post-result speeches, defeated Labour candidate Christian Wolmar told Olney that Labour voters had lent their votes to her to defeat Goldsmith. But Labour need to keep in mind the reality that it is Labour who stand to gain most from Lib Dems taking seats from the Conservatives.

Especially if boundary changes come into force, Labour needs to take a pragmatic view of the challenge ahead. To defeat the Conservatives and get back into government, the shortest route will be to back whoever the ideal progressive candidate may be to challenge in each constituency.

While the by-election itself was pitched as a battle over Brexit, or over Heathrow, the reality is that the main impact will be on the Government majority. Theresa May was already governing with an extremely narrow majority, making it hard for her to ignore her own party's loud and organised far-right backbenchers.

As her majority is whittled away, the Prime Minister will have to chose between picking up votes from her backbenchers by pushing more starkly conservative positions, or finding opposition support for more moderate measures. And being caught between such forces, that limit her available moves, makes a fresh election look all the more desirable.

In a final note: Zac Goldsmith went from the favourite to be the next London Mayor, to being bounced out of Parliament in a by-election, in the span of just six months. If that sends no other message, hopefully it might serve as a reprimand for his horrid negative campaign to become Mayor.

A candidate who ran a divisive campaign for Mayor and had the backing of the forces of division, of cuts and Brexit, has been rejected in favour of one calling for openness and tolerance, with the backing of progressives of all stripes. In a tough year, that's a nice change.