The Alternative Election 2019: It's the morning after, again

The country didn't suddenly becomes heartless overnight. Sorry, I should rephrase that. I don't believe that Britain is (enitrely) a place of selfish, intolerant, poor-bashing Tories. And, really, the statistics agree with me on that.

More people voted for progressive ideas (Labour-Lib Dems-Greens) than voted for the conservative ideas (Tories-BXP), both in the UK as a whole and more narrowly in England. And I'm inclined to believe that the conservative vote was artificially inflated by Brexit, the divisive issue of the day.

For those who see "Getting Brexit Done" as the main issue, it is not a simple matter to write them off as secret Tories voting for privatisation. I'm sure many of them want to save the NHS. I'm sure many of them care about the least well off.

But are electoral system is flawed and our institutions painfully rigged up for hostility to radical progressive change. And last night, that resulted in Boris winning 50 more seats and a majority with an increase in support of just 1%.

More damaging for progressives was that Labour lost 8% of their vote compared to 2017, which spread out across the other parties. Conservative gains where less impactful than - or perhaps rather depended upon - Labour losing votes to other parties.

The stats present a picture of progressives playing the electoral game less well than the Conservatives.

Part of that, but only a part, was Brexit. The Conservatives identified themselves clearly with one polarised side of the debate and got their message through. Labour hedged bets.

But the reasons people voted for Brexit were more complicated than people perhaps like to admit - and Brexit supporters, even in the North, were more middle class than people like to admit.

Sure, former industrial towns in the North voted for Brexit, and then for the Tories yesterday. Yet, as Anoosh Chakelian of the New Statesman wrote, it's a long time now since these places were industrial. I'll be keeping an eye out for a demographic analysis of Tory voters in the North.

However, none of this will be terribly reassuring for those who wake up to the terror of a five year Tory majority.

Those people are on my mind this morning. I think those people were on George Monbiot's mind too when he put together a thread of what we can do next - stressing that community action becomes imperative now, to protect as many people as we can.

And that, I think, feeds how progressives fight back politically.

 Something has to change to make the outcome different next time. I think Monbiot is right, we need to start in our communities. And I think Chakelian is right, too: Labour's problems in the North didn't start with Corbyn and won't end there.

People are terrified by their declining living standards. Others are helpless, their living standards having hit rock bottom with food banks and mounting debts. We need to start organising help for those most in need and maybe find there, or build there, a sense of optimism with which to appeal to the 'squeezed middle', to bring them back into a progressive coalition.

For that, progressive politicians need to get their heads out of Westminster. Labour vs Lib Dem vs Green infighting serves no one but the Tories. They need open, amiable leaders committed, not just willing, to cooperating to offer something optimistic.

And I think maybe more needs to be done on top of that. This can't just be won in Westminster and on social media. There needs to be some tangible movement behind it.

A proper electoral alliance. A proper progressive front. And beneath it all, community action. Municipal movements, rallying individual, concerned citizens together with campaign groups on homelessness and rent, payday lending and benefits debt, on all these cause and more than leave me cold and afraid.

The government for the next five years is not going to represent the majority. Well, nothing new there. But there are plenty of people - the most vulnerable, mostly - who depend upon the state.

We need to do what we can to try and pick up the slack for those people and start building towards winning back the support they need and put that central to our thinking as we move forwards.

The Alternative Election 2019: The Labour Party, 'Real Change'

There are headline grabbing, radical changes in the Labour manifesto. And yet in some policy areas, like welfare, they're less progressive than the Lib Dems - that is the paradox long at the heart of the Labour Party, that will stay hard to challenge so long as they remain simply the best shot at ousting the Tories from government.

For Labour, their priority is how they are pitching to people that they can take back control of their lives. The starting point for that in the Labour manifesto is for the wealthiest, those earning more than £80,000, to pay more in tax and for the government to borrow a sum of around £500bn, at the historically low interest rates available, to fund some hugely transformative policies - including the ambition to "make Britain’s public services the best and most extensive in the world". 

How does Labour plan to do that?

Well, public ownership is a big feature of their manifesto. On that front, in all parts, this manifesto goes further than in 2017. From bus networks returning to public ownership, to rail as the franchises expire, to water and energy, and putting workers on company boards, this is a manifesto that wants to undo the privatisations overseen by the Tories in the 1970s and 1980s.

Together with a boost in priority for environmentalism, the twin themes of Public Ownership and Green Industry run through this manifesto, bleeding into most of the policy ideas and frequently being tied one to the other - expressing the idea that the profit motive is destructive to our community and environmental wellbeing.

You can see this in their response to the first of the key progressive priorities: addressing the climate crisis.

On the climate emergency, Labour are promising a Green Industrial Revolution. Of the £400bn that Labour is going to borrow to form it's National Transformation Fund, £250bn is to be directed to Green Transformation - with additional funding coming in the form of lending from the proposed National Investment Bank.

This plan, that appears to be founded entirely on borrowing and lending - with an unspecified amount coming from a windfall tax on oil companies - is how Labour intend to provoke a shift to renewable and low-carbon energy and transport, that delivers net-zero carbon emissions by the 2030s.

Part of the Labour plan to deliver this Green Revolution is to nationalise the energy companies. This goes a step further than what they offered in 2017 (a low-cost rival state-owned supplier), though how this will be funded is left to the reader's assumptions. Readers will likely infer that the money will come from the tax rises on the rich and the intended borrowing - though it is worth keeping in mind that with any nationalisation, the government gains an asset that may ultimately be able to pay for itself.

On health, cutting out private provision is the headline that fits the broader narrative of public control before private profits. Labour promise a 4.3% a year rise in the budget for the health sector - and clearly expect ending outsourcing to private providers to save a significant, if hard to verify, sum of cash to help fund ambitious promises.

There will also be a National Care Service for social care, although the specifics are lacking in the party manifesto - beyond the intention to impose a lifetime cap on personal care costs.

On education, the Labour contribution to the progressive spur of lifelong learning is the National Education Service. At it's core, it represents a massive recruitment drive, with huge numbers of new educators needed to deliver the expansive promises on everything from preschool to adult retraining. These plans come with a lifelong, entitlement to free training up to certain standards and the return of maintenance allowances.

However, the manifesto focuses more on criticising the state of education under the Tories, instead of actually clarifying the detail of changes or how any of this will be paid for - beyond, it is assumed again, that this falls under what Labour hope to pay for with it's tax rise on the richest.

The theme of public ownership is present here too, as Labour promise to abolish tuition fees and engage in a clampdown on private schools - even going so far as to look into integrating them into the comprehensive education system.

Public ownership runs into housing too, as Labour are saying they will build 150,000 social rent homes a years - 100,000 council homes and 50,000 housing association - by the end of a five-year Parliament. And the party commitment to reducing energy consumption, and thus energy bills, by making homes to a greener standard keeps the key Labour themes entwined.

Conclusions

The theme of public ownership and green revolution run through these plans. They are the foundation for an, at times, deeply radical offering.

But there are flaws. The focus on simply undoing the Tories destructive welfare plans, results in Labour offering what is ultimately a less progressive than pitch for welfare reform that what the Lib Dems have offered.

On welfare, however, Labour are promising to run a basic income trial - which is a welfare policy with revolutionary potential should it be implemented, and implemented well.

And then there is the wider context. Labour and Jeremy Corbyn in particular have been besieged by the right-wing press and have found themselves unable to wade out of the antisemitism scandal in which they have sunk.

And Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn wants to stand neutral on the matter, taking no side in a second referendum between whatever he can negotiate in Brussels and the choice to cancel Brexit and remain in the EU.

The reality, however, is that for voters the controversies and flaws will simply play a part in a sadly two-dimensional election fight.

Rather than choosing between nationalisation and privatisation, or between radical funding boosts and more austerity, it's likely people will choose between whether they can tolerate more Tory government or can take a chance on what may seem like drastic change.

The fight between Labour and the Tories, Corbyn vs Boris, will dominate the election - and which of them you don't want to win will probably dominate your voting strategy, in a very tactical battle.

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.

Local Elections 2019: What the most vulnerable need from their councillors

On Thursday, most of the English councils outside of London will hold their local elections. These elections range from a third of seats on the council to whole council elections, meaning a lot of local areas could see control of their councils switch to different parties.

Considering the policies of the governing Conservatives, the austerity they have reigned over that has hurt local areas badly, and the backlash being predicted, the fact that they have the most seats and councils to defend - more than twice second place Labour - could make Thursday a damaging night for them.

That would be good news for the most vulnerable in our society, who desperately need representatives in local government who will push back. And there are some crucial issues that need outspoken councillors.

Just this week came the news that funding to help the homeless has plummeted under the Tories. With resources stretched by the cuts, it's the most vulnerable who lose out. Local government spending on single homelessness fell by £5bn over the last decade, even as rough sleeping rose by well over 100% - with new funding failing even to cover cuts.

That desperate situation for the working age poor is matched by the hit that social care for the elderly has taken under the watch of the Conservatives. Bailing on their centrepiece manifesto reforms, the Tories simply haven't arrested this dangerous situation - and while debate over the way forward continues, the care sector is collapsing.

At the core of the problems facing local communities are the cuts inflicted by the Tories at Westminster. On all of these issues, Westminster government holds decision-making on funding in an iron grip. And, right now under the Tories, that power is being used to choke off redistribution from richer to poorer communities.

The relationship between central government and local government cannot continue to be top down. Westminster needs to be a coordinator, helping local governments work together on mutual projects and for mutual positive outcomes. It seems unlikely that we will get that as long as the Tories and Labour keep their grip on power.

While Labour do at least pursue redistribution, in parts of Britain their local government presence is so powerful that the party is practically indistinguishable from the local administrative structures. One party states are as dangerous as states built on top down authority that divide communities against each other. We need new options. The most vulnerable need new options.

For progressives, the priority for now is ousting the Tories wherever possible. Labour's primary pitch, of introducing the Preston model to other councils is a sound proposition. But the reluctance of the party to accept pluralism means in the long run that party also has to be challenged.

So look closely at your councillor candidates and consider: how they will deal with the issues pressing upon the most vulnerable? Are willing and able to push back against Westminster? Will they open up local government to more voices? And when you've made up you mind, get out their and vote!

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.

Universal Credit: Labour say no to universal credit, leaving the future of welfare uncertain

Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has let it be known that Universal Credit, the government's controversial revamp of welfare, faces being scrapped. McDonnell called the system unsustainable, as he finally appeared to move the party off the fence on welfare.

Universal Credit was the flagship Conservative policy and was intended to merge a range of benefits into one, simpler, payment - with better tapering and stricter limits - in theory to 'make work pay'. However, the rollout of the policy has been a disaster.

The policy rollout has gone over budget; it has created delays in processing applications and making payments, leading to individuals running up debts and turning to foodbanks; and with the full rollout, even single parents could be over £2000 worse off.

For the government, welfare reform has been a constant hazard. It's approach, dubbed 'workfare', has been picked apart at every step. Scandals like welfare claimants finding themselves farmed out for unpaid labour - a practice that was challenged and criticised through the courts, though continues - has undermined reforms.

So has the Tories' handling of disability welfare claims. Causes ranging from maladministration to deeply flawed fitness to work assessments have left many claimants with disabilities thousands of pounds out of pocket and denied crucial support.

The government has done itself no favours with revelations that officials were given targets to reject 4 out of 5 applications, and through spending tens of millions in legal action to avoid having to meet denied disability welfare payments.

Funding issues have undermined the policy too. The policy's architect, and former Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith eventually quit as the Minister responsible with a flurry of criticism - at the core, furious that funding was not were he wanted it to be for the reforms to work.

It is unsurprising that Labour doesn't want to handle this shambles.

However, for Labour this marks a significant change in their stance. In their 2017 manifesto, the Labour Party barely touched the subject of welfare. The limits of their interest had seemed to be in getting the Conservative system working - not even committing to more funding.

Labour have not proposed a replacement system. For that, it may be necessary to wait for a new manifesto. But it seems unlikely that either the old system nor Universal Credit will now remain in place under a Labour government.

Without tacit opposition support, the policy's days are numbered. The questions now is what comes next? Where does Britain go next in search of a fair and sustainable social security safety net?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

A New Party? Opportunists wait in the wings to seize upon a Lab-Con governing impasse

This weekend revealed that a number of rich donors are working on putting the pieces in place for a new political party. The revelation did not go over well, with a lot of criticism aimed at a party based on money first, and supporters second.

There is a strong impression among commentators that the plan is for a new party of neoliberalism and vague bureaucratic centrism, to unite the Blairite trend of New Labour with the Cameron and Osborne wing of the Conservative Party.

Is that really where the future of British politics lies?

Well the certainly times haven't been favourable to the Liberal Democrats, for instance, whose Orange Book wing that led them into The Coalition represents this same kind of neoliberal platform. They have largely been forgotten by the electorate - though there are more complex reasons for that.

Is a new neoliberal party the catalyst that will 'remoderate' an electorate that the 'centrists' perceive as being torn apart by the militant division between the Tories turning rightward and Labour turning leftward into Corbynist socialism?

Who would even lead such a party? Are Tony Blair and George Osborne hoping to make a dramatic political comeback? Maybe the plan is to push forward Yvette Cooper, the Labour leadership contender and figurehead of 'moderate' Labour?

This kind of party certainly seems to be a long term aim of Tony Blair, as we previously wrote about the direction he took at the helm of New Labour, steering Labour towards being a sort of big tent, middle ground, Democratic Party.

Blair and New Labour did not, however, complete their 'modernising' project. He and others tried to have things both ways - clinging to left-wing pretensions, and trade union backing and funding, even as they embraced right-wing economics - when an irreversible transformation of British politics was in their hands.

But that moment has passed. How would such a party even launch in the present climate and who could stand for them as a candidate?

The only practical route to such a party would be to rip the Labour Party in two, perhaps with some sort of agreement in place, at least in the short term, to not stand against each other - a possibility even Owen Jones has acknowledged.

The time when this might be a realistic possibility is not now, but in the aftermath of the next election if Labour do not beat the Conservatives. Would those who are anti-Corbyn leave or use the opportunity to topple him?

Whether to stand or walk is a dilemma the so-called centrists have been wrestling with. So far they have favoured staying and fighting. But with the strength of Labour's left-wing - pushing Corbyn to two leadership elections and gaining control of the party - if power isn't a prospect, then maybe the so-called centrists will see exiting as their only way to pursue their electoral agenda.

It has to be noted that new parties have little luck on the British political scene. The anti-EU movement had more success out of Parliament than breaking into it. Ripping current MPs and their seats from current parties, en masse, would increase the chance of success.

So another possibility, that might have more pull with 'moderate' Conservatives, would be for a party to launch in the aftermath of the election if Labour win only a minority government - but with more seats and votes than the Tories.

In that scenario, a new party would be able to prey on the opportunism of MPs on all sides of the House amid what would be seen as a very unstable impasse, with the Conservative Party humbled but Corbynism unable to deliver a majority.

However, there would seem to be little inspiring about a party of opportunists assembling to break an impasse. Would voters be grateful to them or see them as responsible leaders? And does such a 'party of the centre', a big tent Democratic Party, even have much of a vision to offer?

There is nothing convincing in any of this. It is still the view of The Alternative that - far more than a new party - we need political plurality and a Progressive Alliance fighting for a proportionally representative electoral system.

Private owned public spaces, online and off: What do they imply for the future of public life? And how does data factor in?

Online and off, free assembly in public spaces is threatened by the liability of private owners, and by surveillance. The Facebook data scandal only makes addressing these threats more pressing.

When the government announced it's intention to follow the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, all of the focus was on the proposals for a new electoral offence. However, the timing of the announcement may have buried the lead.

That report also criticised the state of affairs where social media companies are not held liable for what is said and done on their platforms. It recommended new measures to hold the companies liable like publishers, based on the interpretation that social media companies don't just provide a platform but shape user experiences.

This section of the report has become all the more important in the light of the work of Carole Cadwalladr, and others at The Guardian and at Channel 4, in uncovering the data harvesting involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytics - and the subsequent use of that data in formulating election 'strategies'.

The questions being raised about the future of social media have no simple answers. Among the complicating factors is that social media fulfils online the role of an open public space where people can freely assemble.

In the physical world, there has been growing concern about the rise of privately owned public spaces - and their possible use not just to ban ball games and the taking of photographs, but also suppress the right to free assembly for public protest.

Allowing the privatisation of public spaces comes with the risk of the public being excluded from them - in turn increasing isolation, that can spur both loneliness and extremism. Now, urban planning has been used in the past to suppress the public, and to suppress dissent.

Louis-Napoleon's remodelling of Paris prevent riotous neighbourhoods from being easily able to construct barricades. Yet, the historical trend has been towards freeing people to peacefully demonstrate.

So how do these issues extend to the digital world?

Firstly, it is important to understand that there has never been a mass use, public owned, digital public square. Online public spaces have been privately owned from the beginning. However, up to the present, they have been free to use and free speech has prevailed under light-touch moderation.

Secondly, the matter of data complicates things. The 'free' use of these privately owned spaces comes with hidden costs in terms of data - complex profiles, mapping specifically you, the user, and your habits. This is not something easily replicated in the physical space.

The Facebook-CA controversy, the harvesting of user data to build complex profiles on citizens, has blown open the question of online spaces and the data they gather - only bringing forward debates that would have to happen eventually anyway.

Paul Mason's response to the Facebook-CA controversy was to suggest three ways forward: Regulation, breakup and nationalisation. Mason argues that, in each major region, Facebook could be broken into several competing platforms - with public ownership of at least some of the 'technical infrastructure' that supports social technology.

The idea is no more radical than public ownership of highways or rail networks, or municipal oversight of local high streets or planning. With democratic oversight, there could at least be a little more hope for a regulatory system that protects a person from exploitation.

For some this will be too much to ask. And yet, offline people have tolerated the rise of the surveillance society in the name of public safety - letting authorities install cameras in public spaces to watch your movements, to track money and correspondence.

Online and off, this surveillance - and the data generates - is being outsourced along with our public spaces. And even the invasiveness of surveillance isn't comparable to what can be harvested online.

This matters, because privacy is about far more than what it is often reduced to: getting away with wrongdoing. Privacy is about defending yourself from coercion and manipulation by powerful bodies - governmental and private, and even peer pressure.

And, we are discovering, privacy also guards a commodity you possess that may ultimately be more valuable than your labour: data.

In essence, this is not just about invasion of privacy but also theft of property. We are learning that everything we know about how people live is crucial data, not just economically, but for the development of all next generation technology and decision-making.

That is so much for the economic questions - for how we adequately protect the right's of citizens to consent, and to ensure their power over, what they posses that is of economic value to the community.

But what are the consequences for free speech and free assembly? What will be the fall out of demanding the owners of privately owned digital public spaces, like social media, become liable for what is said there?

As it stands online public spaces are subject to the same government regulation as offline - and this has already been seen in a number of cases involving things said on social media platforms. So regulation and enforcement of behaviour does exist.

What is it that we are asking private companies to do in terms of becoming liable? How are they going to enforce the law online? Offline, private companies running public spaces and it is not clear that not enough has been done to ensure that public liberties remain free from infringements.

The next steps must be careful. People must have control over their data, of such huge economic and technological value. People must be free to assemble, to talk and to protest. But both of these be balanced with safety.

People's data must be secure. People must be protected from harassment and abuses of free speech. The next steps must be cautious, with responsibility as the byword.

The Opposition: The progressive parties have begun to look outwards again, but cooperation is still far away

The opening fortnight of Britain's political conference season was all about the opposition. First the Liberal Democrats and then the Labour Party took their turns to gather, talk policy and present their priorities to the country.

There were two notable currents: the first was a focus on calling out others for their failings, rather than presenting plans that can fix those problems; the second was the lack of some common progressive goodwill.

The Liberal Democrat conference came first. The most prominent product was the acceptance by leader Vince Cable, on behalf of the party, that they must do right by students, with a plan now in the works to back a graduate tax to replace tuition fees.

That aside, the Lib Dem conference was policy light. The focus turned instead to establishing who the party opposes, which it turns out is a long list - and included Jeremy Corbyn and the supposed 'hard left' that surround him.

What Cable did however do, was put forward an outline of a government committed to the fair taxation of wealth, to public & private sector cooperation, and a government prepared to intervene to correct market failures - laying out a centre-left stance for the Lib Dems that leaves plenty of room for progressive cooperation.

The Labour conference provided a little more in the way of policy. However, the announcements didn't stretch far beyond the limits of the 2017 manifesto. John McDonnell said that Labour intend to tackle PFI and end it's siphoning of public sector resources.

There was also a plan announced to tackle credit card debt, along the same lines as pay day loans - by capping the maximum interest that can be accrued on debts owed.

In his leader's speech, Jeremy Corbyn followed Cable's lead and had criticism for many - including the right-wing press and the US President. He said that the country had become more brutal and less caring under this Conservative 'regime'.

Corbyn too stated values on which progressives can work together. On froeign policy, Corbyn argued that rhetoric must be wound down, that dialogue must be opened, that peace must be pursued and cooperation must be at the heart. He argued that the British values of democracy and human rights could be deployed selectively.

However, the leader speeches of both Corbyn and Cable focused on laundry lists of people deserving criticism. Cable even took shots at Corbyn and his leadership, criticising the 'hard left' drift of the Labour Party under the long time Islington North MP.

Corbyn didn't bother to mention the Lib Dems, but - from Labour's point of view - that's hardly a surprise. Labour still see the Lib Dems as rivals and, at present, vanquished rivals that are beneath their notice.

The continued lack of some sort of common goodwill between progressive parties is disappointing, though not surprising. No one ever said that building a progressive alliance would be easy. But taking shots at each other is a waste of breath.

It is also doubly negative. On the one hand it serves to divide opposition to the Tories. While on the other it also ignores how close on policy the two largest (historical) progressive parties are to one another.

The division between their manifestos in 2017 was as just thin as it has been since the 1920s. The Liberal Democrats and Labour pursue similar goals and even take a similar economic approach, rooted in Keynesian thinking.

Herein lies the fundamental problem of the left: the inability to prioritise what we have in common, over what would be a cause for division - a failure to develop a dialogue that allows for dissent to live alongside cooperation.

It is good to see the opposition parties looking outward again, rather than turning in on themselves. The narrative around Corbyn has already begun to shift, to morph into something that accepts him, and crafts a place for the movement in the conventional order.

However, the long term future of the left, of progressive politics, lies in building dialogue. And, hopefully, upon that foundation then cooperation and ultimately an alliance between progressives.

Macron and Popularity: The President of France has yet to win a sceptical public back over to the political process

Photograph: LEWEB 2014 Conference - in conversation with Emmanuel Macron by LE WEB (License) (Cropped)

The victory of Emmanuel Macron attracted the attention and plaudits of centrists across Europe, desperate for a way out of the slump that has undermined social and liberal democratic parties. But the talk in many countries of needing their own Macron and En Marche is all just buying into a myth, because the rise of Macron was an illusion.

Reports this last month talked of Macron and his government already facing a decline in public support. But what those reports ignore is that support was never that high in the first place - the election landslide was more due to the electoral system than a swell of support.

Macron's movement was perhaps well organised or made a particularly well tailored pitch, but En Marche mostly benefited from a system that favours voters' picking their least worst option - which served En Marche who were the heirs of the collapse in the credibility of the centre-left and centre-right.

Macron took just 24% in the full field first round of the Presidential vote, and La Republic En Marche took 32% on a first round legislative election turnout of just 49%. These numbers delivered political power, but not broad public support or high approval. There was no rising wave, just a window of opportunity.

The problem for Macron is not that he has been discredited, but that he has yet to win voters back to the political process. Taking power on the support of a quarter and a fifth, his approval ratings will begin low, with scepticism high and everything to prove.

Turning political power in decent approval ratings was never something that was going to happen overnight. The pledges of Macron were built around big promises with no easy solution, like cleaning up politics.

The difficulties faced by Macron and En Marche were underlined when, within the opening weeks of his new office, his MoDem political allies and their leader Francois Bayrou were hit by corruption investigations.

The other big promise Macron made was to reform France's labour laws, famous for their scale and complexity. It is an issue on which there is a clear public support for action, but no real consensus on what action.

Macron has his own ideas, but has set about a negotiating strategy, rather than trying to force it through. Even trade unions have gotten around the table for talks - with the two of the largest unions even declining to take part in protests against any watering down of labour protections.

While the left under Jean-Luc Melenchon and the union CGT push for protests and strikes, Macron's consensus approach with no legislative surprise has got enough of the key players involved to reduce action to the harder left organisations that media find it easier to discredit.

But the dissatisfaction with politics in France is too broad to be convincingly reduced to the bellyaching of the radical left. And despite the lean times and discrediting of the centre, neither the radical left nor the far right have taken a decisive advantage.

The people of France are not itching to rise up for either extreme, but nor have they fallen back in love with the Republican centre. Macron was never the unquestioned messiah and he has yet to win the public over.

The election results showed all of this. The approval ratings just confirm it. The task ahead of Macron is to rebuild the Republic and he has no gordian solution. A facsimile of Macron in another country would face the same problems.

Macron's ascendency is not the revival that liberals crave, nor are his low approval ratings the death knell of moderate-led reformist capitalism for which socialists are straining their ears. Macron got enough support to get through the door.

But to stay there, Macron and En Marche must win people back to the political process. Sure, his failure to reengage people would be a blow to neoliberals trying to cling to power. But it would be just as bad for progressives of all stripes, for whom public faith in democracy and a politically active and interested people are a cornerstone.

Theresa May has fatally undermined any Conservative claims to moral authority

Theresa May decisions as a leader, to do deals with the DUP and keep out of the public eye after he Grenfell fire, have severely undermined any Conservative claim to moral authority

When talking about British politics, there is a note of caution to keep in mind about the Westminster system: the rules are more like traditions that can be interpreted to suit the situation and that this happens mostly to protect the status quo.

It's that favouring of the status quo that Theresa May will be clinging to right now. Even though May won the most seats and votes, she staked the house on winning a majority and she failed. That result hurt her hopes of remaining leader, but it shouldn't have fatally undermined the party.

Yet the Tories are teetering. Theresa May's leadership has taken the party from dominance amidst struggling opposition, and it has been the result of poor decisions and poor leadership.

There were the absurd decisions on the campaign like avoiding the public and staying away from debates. But her failures have been most stark in the past ten days since the election.

The decision to seek a coalition for the DUP has antagonised, divided and provoked - even putting the Good Friday Agreement at risk. In fact it has done everything except what the forming a coalition is supposed to do: bring stability. It's also a choice in stark contrast to her own, and her supporters', rhetoric.

Then came the Grenfell fire, symbolising everything wrong with the austerity creed that May has continued. The working class left in unsafe homes by profiteering landlords protected by Tory deregulation. And her response, in this moment that cried out for leadership? Absence.

Theresa May's administration has form when it comes to disappearing. When the Right-wing press launched an attack campaign on the entire principal of judicial independence, the government went quiet. It would be days before a small, quiet statement of support for the judiciary would emerge.

As the working class died or were left homeless, Theresa May was working on a working on a reponse, undoubtedly. But she was invisible. Moving about under the shelter of police protection. Hidden behind closed doors. Hidden from the people suffering through the tragedy.

As the poor response of the Bush Administration to the disaster left in the wake of Hurricane Katrina undermined confidence in the GOP, Theresa May has damaged public confidence in the Conservative & Unionist Party with her very public absence during a time of crisis.

Combine that with the divisive decision to try and go into government with an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, morally extreme party with historic connections to paramilitaries, and you have a toxic brew.

As hard as it is now for May to lead, she has been left little other choice. The Tories made their election campaign one dimensional. It was all about the leadership qualities of Theresa May. That may well continue to backfire well beyond the present crisis.

May campaigned for a personal show of support. The largest number of votes and seats in Parliament was won, not under the brand of the "Conservative & Unionist Party", but under the brand of "Team May". As difficult as May's position is now, it's hard to see anyone else from the Conservative benches having an easier time. They could not even claim to represent the mandate, however limited it may be, won on 8th June.

If the Conservatives see sense and listen to concern about the DUP deal, and if Theresa May stands down, the most votes and seats may not be enough to keep them in government. Their poor response to the Grenfell fire has done more than hurt public confidence - it has fatally undermined their claim to hold moral authority.

Without it, no ministry can hope to govern for long.

Theresa May's leadership has weakened the Tories profoundly, but her personal mandate and her negotiations with the DUP is all that's keeping them in office. They still need her - and as long as they do, the Westminster preference for the status quo may yet save her and her party.

However, from the morning of 9th June, Labour have told anyone who would listen that they were ready to run a minority government. They may soon have to.

General Election 2017 - A hopeful night for progressives: It's time to do opposition right

The provisional results, that give the Conservative-Unionist pact a very slim working majority.

The aim for progressives going into last night was supposed to be damage control. As it happened, they'd gone above and beyond - in fact, as the night went on, matters so very nearly tipped the Conservatives right out of government.

It will be interesting to see as the turnout is broken down to see how much of it came down to tactical voting among progressives - not organised by the parties, but voters themselves taking the lead and making their presence felt.

In the end, progressives had to settle for seeing off the Tory advance - a goal achieved with surprising comfort in the end. It came with the cherry topper of handing Theresa May an embarrassing rejection. She demanded the country unite around her and the country said no.

So much for strong and stable.

Theresa May has lost the Conservative majority and is now left dependent upon Arlene Foster and the Democratic Unionist Party - very recently hit by scandal and criticised over mismanagement in government at Stormont - to form a government.

Despite the Conservatives constant criticism of coalitions and relying on regional parties, Theresa May showed no hesitation in cobbling together a government that relied on the support of a narrowly focused regional party with some extreme views.

While the Conservatives deal with despondency, Labour are in a jubilant mood. Although celebrating and calling this a victory might be a little loose with the truth, it's a clear step forward.

In fact it is plenty enough for Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to be justified in their stance that Labour are right now ready to govern as a minority government. It is a strong and confident stance they need to push and Labour MPs need to echo and reinforce.

You have to wonder if Corbyn and McDonnell always understood that Labour's route back to government would always take two elections. Last night they defied a threat of Tory advance, and revitalised themselves at home in their own seats.

Much criticised from within the party or focusing on boosting the party itself, in its own constituencies and ranks of members first, the strategy paid off. Labour's heartlands remained so and young turned out in droves.

Labour even expanded threateningly into Tory country. They took down junior ministers and established a following in the seats of senior ministers, that ran their incumbents very close and place them well for the next big push.

That will be at the next election. It will be a big moment for Labour. They've placed themselves breathing down the necks of the Conservatives and there will be no excuse next time. The platform is now there to launch Labour are into government.

However, Labour winning an election these days requires more than just Labour wins. It needs Liberal Democrat wins too. Last night the Lib Dems showed that they could win, but their performance was otherwise absurdly erratic.

From the nine seats they began the night with with, the party held four seats, lost five seats and gained eight seats. The Lib Dems also had a number of close calls either way - they really could have ended with anything from eight to eighteen seats.

The party largely held up its share of the vote - likely losing some to tactical voting, while gaining a little too. But the party could have hoped for a lot more and there will be some introspection among liberals in the days to come.

Honestly, considering the party's whole campaign at a distance, it's hard not to see Tim Farron's leadership as being compromised, despite the overall slight improvement in the party's position.

The leadership seemed to misjudge the public mood, unwaveringly focusing it's campaign on Brexit and rerun referendums, when many who the Lib Dems had to pitch to appear to have either gotten passed or not cared about in the first place.

And then there were the blunders Farron himself made, that were just plain ridiculous. No leaders of liberals should find themselves getting stuck with the label of intolerance on questions of support for LGBT and abortion rights.

The party's messy night speaks to the lack of clear message that connects values to policies to people, and resonated with an audience - as if the party simply wasn't sure to who exactly it was pitching it's ideas.

The return of Jo Swinson to the Commons for East Dunbartonshire on a clear majority perhaps presents the Liberal Democrats with a viable alternative leader - a woman, not least, outspoken and capable. All things the Lib Dems need to put at the forefront.

The SNP also had a dramatic night. While it is obviously on the one hand a tactic of media management to play down seat losses as best as possible, it was not unreasonable in this case. There really wasn't anywhere for the SNP to go after they swept Scotland last time out and the monopoly couldn't last.

The drama came from who the Lib Dems lost seats to: the Tories. Before the independence referendum that would have been, nearly, unthinkable. But last night, the Tories pretty much saved their political skins with gains in Scotland.

Their gains brought a particularly sad loss: Angus Robertson has lost his Moray seat. Sadly, Robertson will no longer bring his impressive performances to bear from the opposition benches in the Commons.

The big question going ahead now will be who can maintain their vote share and move forward. On several fronts, the Tories seem to have hit a wall that suggests they've maximised their reach. Labour, in contrast, broke new ground.

For Labour, this is a platform to win from. However, to turn that potential into a reality will depend upon keeping young voters, particularly first time voters, engaged and coming back time and again - and that will mean rewarding their engagement.

Labour also has to make a big pitch to Wales over the next five years. Voters in Wales shielded Labour last night, but the party hasn't really earned it - even with Corbyn's bright new manifesto. It has to start delivering.

There is a progressive majority. Seventeen million voted for the Centre-Left, while fifteen million went for the Right. Yet there is a Conservative government - a Hard Right Blue-Orange Loyalist coalition, no less.

It's mandate and majority are thin. Labour has a platform to fight and overturn that now, but first things first. All of the progressive parties have to get opposition right. There can be no messing around this time.

All progressive parties - Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens - have to start coordinating. And right now. Right from the start. The infighting must stop. The progressives turning fire on each other must stop.

All focus now has to be on holding the government to account, to prevent its Hard Right nature from getting out. On LGBT, on abortion, on human rights, on welfare - there are so many crossovers for progressives were opposition will be needed.

Corbyn's result has restored hope to progressives. It has trammelled the Conservatives. The time to make that count is now. The next election campaign starts now - and this time it'll be a fight progressives can win.