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.

Intimidation in Public Life: When creating new offences, care must be taken that there are no unintended consequences

On Tuesday, Theresa May used the centenary of women's suffrage to announce plans to implement a new offence named Intimidation in Public Life. The move has is based on recommendations in a report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

As the Prime Minister said in her speech, it is unsettling that vitriol towards public figures, particularly in politics, is overwhelmingly directed towards women. This has to be addressed. There's really no two ways about that.

But is a new offence, of intimidating a politician or candidate, the answer? Before creating new offences like 'Intimidation in Public Life', there needs to be careful consideration.

Are there laws that already cover this? What are we making illegal? Are we creating new problems?

Yes, free speech is all too often of recent used as a cover, a screen to ensure freedom from the consequences of speech.

And yet, remember that in 2016 a young female student was censured because an MP and a University didn't, wilfully or out of ignorance, understand a meme.

Ian Hislop, the editor of Private Eye, when speaking at a Leveson Inquiry hearing on the phone tapping scandal, said that:

"Statutory legislation is not required and most of the heinous crimes that came up and have made such a splash in front of this inquiry have already been illegal - contempt of court is illegal, phone tapping is illegal, policemen taking money is illegal - all of these things don't need a code, we already have laws for them."

It's something we need to remember when policy may be adopted as a reaction - such as to the incident at a Jacob Rees-Mogg talk at the University of the West of England, to which this announcement has been unsurprisingly strapped.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life have produced an in depth report. It makes for interesting reading. There are important recommendations to consider. One of them is that they report that the criminal law is basically fine.

They committee issues a bipartisan call for the major players - the big political parties, the police, the media - to show leadership and work together in cross-party solidarity.

In terms of legislation, the committee recommends a strictly electoral offence of intimidation and action to hold social media services liable for content posted on their platforms.

The recommendations of the committee are focused, strictly limited and lean towards better use of current tools - not least of which is the need for major bodies to challenge bad behaviour. Even their recommendation for a new offence they subject to the condition of consultation and comes across as a call for sterner sentencing when the target is a public figure.

Prime Minister Theresa May, however, has been criticised in the past for having a 'cavalier' attitude to civil rights and a well documented history for pursuing a path to public order through heavy-handed surveillance.

Unsurprisingly, her announcement is already being dissected by rights groups, such as Liberty, who are already expressing their concerns.

The report does not call for a heavy-hand. In her speech, May said that she would consult on the proposed new intimidation offence. Considered, tentative steps are appreciated. The way forward must be careful and measured. And, perhaps, even left a path untaken.

Labour and the Basic Income: To make automation work for people, first the relationships between people and society, work and welfare, must be reframed

To tackle the problems of the future, first we need to rethink our approach to work and welfare. Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

In the passed few weeks, the Labour Party has been talking up it's determination to make technological advances work for ordinary people, rather than disenfranchise them.

For the party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the focus has been on the workplace. Corbyn has raised the question of how to use cooperative collective ownership of businesses by workers to put automation in the hands of people - rather than let automation be their replacement in the hands of their bosses.

Meanwhile, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has focused on the state role. McDonnell, talking at a Manchester anti-austerity event, spoke of a renewed drive for public investment as the first step to anchoring technology to people and their interests.

It was left to the Labour National Youth Conference to contribute the third integral component, with the future of the Labour Party backing a motion in support of the universal basic income.

The motion acknowledged both the problems with Britain's welfare system and the concerns for the future being raised by the rise of automation. To answer these, the LNYC motion presented the basic income.

The basic income is a universal form of welfare, a payment received - with very little bureaucracy - by all citizens. It is designed to cover the basic essentials of life, so as to end poverty and it's coercive power over how people choose to live.

Labour usually falls in with the same basic conceit, shared by most right wing liberal groups, social democrats and worker's parties: that life begins and ends with work - or rather, with wage labour. That work of this sort is a fundamental component and an axiom in the building of any social model.

Work, to 'earn' the right to live in exchange, is treated as a value. As a moral component essential to any social contract. But for progressives, this cannot be the last word.

If we are to have true social progress, we must start first with a base of no poverty and no homelessness. We must begin with the right to live. If we care about choice, about liberty and justice, we must not let coercion remain the starting point for engaging with society.

For the Labour Party in particular, embrace of that wage labour conceit verges on hypocrisy - the party of workers buying into the 'moral value' of 'working for a living'.

There has not been nearly enough scepticism of it, or recognition that it is a value of limited scope. Restricted to the specific benefits it delivers within a specific social system. A system in which even certain forms of work are prioritised above others, and were these forms of work are made nearly mandatory.

Right now there is a crisis in welfare - but not the way the Conservatives think. The crisis in welfare is one of dignity. Conservative cuts have strangled Britain's social security safety net.

That has left vulnerable people at the hands of an exploitative market and put through probing, demoralising, assessments by organisations with weak ethical codes and goals that run counter to the wellbeing of people who desperately need support.

If Labour are really going to reform this country, to tackle these kinds of injustice, they first need to get the foundations right. By no means is basic income a panacea. But it is a fairer and less coercive starting point for a society.

As more and more work becomes automated, as paid work becomes more scarce, we need that fairer starting point as a basis upon which to build a new kind of relationship between people and society - one that acknowledges, from the start, their basic right to live.

Liberal Democrat Leadership: A chance to breathe progressive energy into a party sorely in need of a fresh start

Last month Tim Farron chose to resign as leader of the Liberal Democrats. This article won't focus on that, other than where it affects the way forward. However, his resignation does present the party with an opportunity.

The party has been on a rollercoaster, from their first experience of government in decades to a catastrophic loss of public trust that resulted in an electoral collapse that lost the party all but eight seats in the Commons.

Under Farron, who had no part in the Coalition, it appeared that things were turning around. Recoveries in council elections, and the remarkable by-election upset in Richmond Park, suggested that the pro-European party would do well at a general election.

The results were, by most measures, disappointing. Yes there were gains, with some of the party's bigger names returning - even as others departed. But the party went hard on one issue and it didn't land. And there were also unhelpful distractions.

With yet another election unlikely to be far away, the party is at an impasse. There was no election surge and the party has no resonating message. It now has no leader either.

Contenders

The next leader has to grasp these challenge quickly and get on top of them. There can be no room for looking inwards. When nominations close in a week's time, the contenders putting themselves forward must give the party moving forward.

At the outset, it seemed like there would be an a list of experienced contenders to debate just how to do that. The favourites included the experienced former ministers Norman Lamb, Ed Davey and Vince Cable.

But the strong favourite was Jo Swinson. Not only would she have have been the party's first female leader - an important statement in itself - the party would have had in Swinson a liberal feminist at the helm outspoken and capable.

The biggest difficulty barrier ahead of her candidacy, it had seemed, was her time as a minister in the Coalition. Yet her early Parliamentary career was so tangled up with Cabinet collective responsibility, that her voting could only really be seen as representative of the Coalition as a whole.

That gives Swinson, in her return to the Commons, something near to a fresh start. A chance to establish her own agenda and to define herself, and her party, anew.

However, despite being labelled the favourite (by a wide margin), Swinson chose not to stand. She was promptly elected Deputy Leader, however, so her voice will not be missed at the head of the party.

Her choice not to stand would become a trend. Soon after, Ed Davey and Norman Lamb both announced they would not stand either. With no challenger yet coming forward, Vince Cable is at present the only candidate to become the next leader.

Renewal

Over the years, the liberal parties in Britain have found themselves caught between two movements. The free marketers have been pulled rightward by the Conservatives and the social liberals have been pulled leftward by Labour.

And yet, the Liberal Democrats seemed to be making inroads as an alternative progressive party to Labour until the 2010 general election. In longstanding liberal tradition, the party announced it would respect pluralism and go into coalition with the party with most seats and most votes.

That decision, that led to Cameron and Clegg announcing the Coalition in the Rose Garden, ultimately proved wildly unpopular. It hangs over the party two years on. As the presumptive next leader, Vince Cable needs to address weaknesses like these.

To his credit, Cable has already taken steps to head off those concerns that more collaboration with the Tories awaits in the future. Cable described working with the Tories was like mating with a praying mantis - not something you're likely to survive twice.

It helps that the party has been clear that it won't be making any deals and in the election campaign, even Nick Clegg spoke of the need to work constructively with Labour in the aftermath to oppose the Tories - a clear sign that there is no going back.

The break from the past could bring with a fresh start on policy too. At the centre of the their 2017 campaign was the call for a second referendum. But it didn't really get traction. It was a policy that seemed to have missed a change in the public mood.

There is a growing sense that people have accepted that Brexit is going to happen and are focussing now on the future - a mood that makes the Lib Dems position seem nostalgic, or even conservative.

There is, perhaps, a need to draw a line under staying in - following what might be considered two defeats - and to realign thinking toward the future. Not to stop being pro-Europe or even pro-Remain, but to think about what these mean going forward rather than trying to undo the past. Three points to consider would be:

• to scrutinise and campaign for the least damaging Brexit,
• to support the right for individuals to retain their EU citizenship,
• and, to start talking about pathways back to European cooperation in the future.

The key is to start taking the initiative and look forwards, not backwards. To get back to basics, like questions of individual's rights. That idea doesn't just extend to policy on Europe.

Perception

At the heart of being forward-looking in developing policy and taking stances is public perception. For smaller parties it is a difficult, and sometimes perilous, tightrope to walk. But at it's heart, there are practical limitations these parties face and they must tailor their message to that reality.

When he resigned, Tim Farron drew a link between his decision and questions that arose in the election campaign suggesting a conflict between faith and politics. Farron portrayed the conflict as only the perception of an intolerant illiberal secularism.

Now, it certainly isn't incompatible for someone to be personally conservative and yet politically liberal, open and tolerant of others, and respecting their right to live their own lives.

But it is a hard stance to hold as the leader, as the figurehead, of a liberal movement. When asked to assuage doubts about his stance on LGBT and abortion rights, Farron failed to offer reassurance - focusing instead on himself.

Politics is a game played in soundbites and shorthands. The grand rhetoric and inspiring thought absolutely matters, so very much, but it isn't the gateway - the access point. Image and perceptions matter.

For the smaller third parties - for whom taking symbolic stands are one the few opportunities they get to show the public who they are - the leadership has to be a beacon of the values of that party, without equivocation.

The Coalition interfered with the Liberal Democrats' ability to make themselves distinct. The comedown from the personality politics that grew up around Nick Clegg has tarnished their image, along with the links to the Tories.

The party's long held commitments to plurality, to compromise, to democratic cooperation and serving the national interest above the party interests are all worthy. But little of it ever makes it to the public eye and is rarely interpreted as intended.

The party also seems to have struggled to establish what it is for, pitching a stance of 'equidistance' under Clegg that didn't really change under Farron. While there is nothing wrong with Centrism, it shouldn't be confused with just splitting the difference.

As a small party, the Lib Dems can't afford those confusions. It needs a clear message. For a good example, consider the party's 1997 manifesto. It called for active government that would strengthen liberty, promote prosperity and widen opportunity. There is what liberalism is supposed to stand for, summarised in three words: Liberty - Prosperity - Opportunity. Hopeful words that focus on the future, not just management of the mediocre present.

Foundation

The 2017 general election established a Liberal Democrat baseline and perhaps new foundations. Even with just a dozen MPs, the party still have the ability to put forward a capable frontbench team, with recognisable names associated with positive progressive campaigns.

From Vince Cable, with a long history as a treasury spokesperson and minister, and an economics expert; to Ed Davey, who was minister for energy and the environment; to Norman Lamb, who was a minister in the Department of Health, is an outspoken advocate of parity of esteem for mental health and now also chair of the Science and Technology select committee; there are strong credentials. In addition, both the returning Jo Swinson and the brand new Layla Moran are MPs who look like future party leaders.

There Lib Dems survived their mistakes and have decent foundations to build upon. But there are decisions to be made if the party wants to make it back from the brink - for the second time in it's history. But do so, the party needs to be much more self-aware and it needs to be clear.

There is still a place for liberalism under a broader progressive banner, but it has to commit. Even standing as centrist, with its cherished value of inclusivity, can be progressive. But the centre is not to be found halfway between Labour and the Tories.

Vince Cable, increasingly likely to be the next leader, has made positive steps in that direction. He has affirmed the "no deals" stance, with particular venom towards the Tories, supported the Compass campaign for a Progressive Alliance over the past few years and received cross-party backing in his own seat of Twickenham.

The last liberal recovery was founded in localism, campaigning and standing as a progressive party. The 2017 manifesto showed that the core of those ideas remains unchanged. What the party have lost their identity. It must be the new leader's priority to get it back.

Progress is Possible: The facts show that the Tories can be beaten - but it's going to take huge local participation

To defeat the Tories, progressives must rise above their partisan divisions to defend the bigger ideas than bring them together.

The statistics for this summer's UK general election are a sorry sight for progressives. Values shared across the whole of the Centre and Left are being threatened by Theresa May's government, and meanwhile there is infighting, disappointment and partisan divisions to contend with.

Some have taken these as the grounds to say that winning is impossible or to double down on the one party, majoritarian rhetoric. But if the Left and Centre spends all of its time fighting itself, the doom and gloom predictions will almost certainly come true. There is a better way to go.

And, on this, the facts speak for themselves.

Take the West Yorkshire constituency of Shipley, seat of Tory arch-meninist, Philip Davies. Shipley was Conservative, with large majorities of more than ten thousand from 1970 to 1997. Then in 1997, Labour gained nearly 7,000 more votes, while the Conservatives lost around 8,000.

Labour kept the seat until 2005, when after eight years in power at Westminster, the seat slipped back to the Conservative by just a few hundred votes. Since then, the support for parties that are not the Conservatives has largely collapsed, with Labour falling back and the Liberal Democrats nearly disappearing as their vote splintered across the spectrum.

Over a ten year period, Philip Davies has built a majority of 10,000. In 2015, the collective conservative vote, Tories and UKIP, was around 30,000 while progressive votes totalled around 20,000 - on a 72% turnout. But this has occurred over time: in 2010 it was 24,000 to 25,000; in 2005 it was 20,000 to 27,000; back in 1997 it was 20,000 to 31,000.

As the by-election in Richmond Park demonstrated, a majority for any party, save for some very few 'heartlands', is far from safe. Sitting MP Zac Goldsmith was turfed out of the seat by a 30% upswing in support for the Liberal Democrats that overturned a 23,000 majority. Goldsmith himself had previously overturned a Lib Dem majority of 4,000.

To press the point further, Labour's win in 1997 would in fact have been impossible if safe seats were unbreachable. Labour won 329 seats in England alone, almost twice as many seats there as the Conservatives and even unseated a host of safe-seated Tory ministers in the process. There are two important things to take away.

One: a huge number of voters in most constituencies do not 'identify' with their vote - they do not consider themselves Tories when they vote Tory, and see no issue in switching to another party if they see a better pitch or feel they were mis-sold a previous one.

And second: no majority is safe in the face of a damned good argument. Zac Goldsmith ran a horrifying negative campaign against Sadiq Khan for London Mayor, had failed to hold his own party to account on a third Heathrow runway and - however the Tories and Goldsmith tried to distance one another - represented an austere authoritarian government overseeing unpopular policies.

An election can be won seat by seat, fight by fight. The political tide turns nationally and locally, ebbing and flowing one way or another, due to a complex set of factors. If voters are willing and support each other, they can take on the system and usher in an alternative. Even a huge slump can be recovered from in dramatic fashion.

For an unusual example, consider the general election in Canada in 2015 - and example with relevance for its use of the Westminster, first-past-the-post, system. Years of austere, conservative, ever rightward drifting government under Stephen Harper was overturned in dramatic fashion.

The centrist Liberals had become the party of government in Canada, providing most of the Prime Ministers of the twentieth centuries with brief Conservative interludes. By 2011, the party's fortunes had been in decline for a decade. Yet it was still a surprise when under Michael Ignatieff, a respected journalist and professor, the party fell to just 34 seats - the fewest in its history.

That made their victory under Justin Trudeau, who was popular despite being derided for being young and unqualified, in 2015 all the more remarkable. In the biggest swing in Canadian federal history, the Liberals went from third with 34 seats, to first and holding a majority of fourteen.

Trudeau ran an optimistic campaign, making bold policy promises and even making a surprise break from austerity, unexpected from the Centrist party. The contrast was significant to Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who took a stance that might be familiar to Theresa May: pleas to trust, "Proven Leadership", for a "Strong Economy", a "Strong Canada" and a "Safer Canada" to "Protect our Economy".

A stern government, turning harsher with terrorism reaching Canadian shores, campaigned on conservatism and strength. Their Liberal opponents pitched optimism and a way to get things moving forward. In that contest, optimism won.

The question ahead for progressives in Britain is how to beat the Tories in each seat. The contest can't be won in the way that it was in Canada. Optimism is a must, yet broadly accepted and respected leadership at the national level of a kind needed to run a national movement of hope is - to be kind - at a premium just now for the Centre and Left.

It is never simple to say that some votes are conservative and others progressive. People vote for different parties for different reasons. But we can say this: the progressive parties - Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens - share some fundamental positions, against austerity, protecting the NHS and social care, to protect the rights of minorities, and people are willing to vote for parties standing for these values. Voters have even looked for Conservatives to stand by these values.

This is a positive struggle that can gain traction, but if voters want an alternative the campaign must be taken on locally - by local activists, yes - but mostly by voters themselves in their own constituencies. The facts say, however dire the present situation, that the Conservatives and Theresa May's austere authoritarianism can be beaten. But in this election it must be achieved by individual votes in individual seats.

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.

Words Matter: When far-right groups hide behind masks, it's more important than ever for progressives to be clear what we mean

The rise of neo-Nazi white nationalism in the United States behind its mask, the self-ascribed label 'Alt-Right', exposes a problem that needs to be addressed. When the words we use to describe and define things in politics are obscured or blurred it leaves us vulnerable.

Words matter. They are the medium for communication and even our own thoughts and ideas. When we lose clarity in the definitions of words, we lose the medium for expressing these ideas in the ways that can bring us together in shared understanding, or defining for ourselves what something is and how it might be championed, improved or opposed.

The words people use in politics, to name their parties or their belief systems, can inform or deceive. And it is the norm in politics that these words are heard mostly in an adversarial context, as opponents seek to label and discredit one another. But the words of politics describe discrete positions and it is important that people know what each of them represents.

There-in lies the danger of the rise of the self-proclaimed 'Alt-Right'. When white nationalism tries to hide behind the term 'Alt', it is both a deception and an attack upon the language of progress and reform. It allows them to obscure their true nature while attempting to co-opt the language, and therefore identity and perhaps support, of well-meaning reformers and anti-establishment movements.

This game is not newly invented by them. It has been the primary avenue of conservatism for centuries. As political movements reform themselves, the adherents who stick to the old unreformed tenets find themselves caught in the gravity of conservatism.

For instance, the term liberalism has undergone a long series of changes. As its adherents' understanding of how best to achieve individual liberty has evolved, so to has liberalism undergone changes. But the old ideas don't go away.

And conservatism never misses an opportunity. It consumes these ideas and assimilates them, finding ways to fit parts of these ideologies into its own thinking to convey its own purposes - to protect its system of tradition, hierarchy and moral order.

From the elitist constitutional order of the old bourgeois liberalism, to the free markets of classical liberalism, conservatism has found a home in the liberal parties that didn't reform themselves or conservative parties have taken up the ideas as they have been abandoned by the liberals who did reform.

While the determined consumption and repackaging of liberalism has been much commented on, the same process, happening to democratic movements, has been given much less attention. But it is just as real and just as disconcerting.

Amongst the revolutionaries of 1848, there were democrats as well as liberals. In that broad opposition movement, the failure of the liberal part of was clearly pointed out by Marx and Engels. The bourgeois order was the liberal folly that allowed their movement to be absorbed by the conservative establishment.

The democrats were not immune from folly. Their own folly was nationalism. Their leaders, like Giuseppe Mazzini, looked to nationalism as a medium to unite the people around their common heritage and arose them to protect their interests.

But efforts to achieve popular liberation and sovereignty ended up taking a back seat to petty rivalries over 'national' claims to lands and borders - driving rifts between the Germans and Czechs and Polish; saw the Hungarians, who were fighting to end domination by the Austrians, themselves fought by Romanians and Croatians.

The sectarian ideologies reared their menacing heads. Militarism embedded within the conservative establishment, particularly in Germany, wielded nationalism in the forging of nation-states with grand armies as the martial power in a great game - a competition between nations for self-interested domination.

For conservatism, the bourgeois order provided the administrative tools and nationalism provided the means to shape the popular identity. The follies of liberals and democrats, in quests for power and order, had in the end simply fed the conservative establishment with palatable ideas for assimilation.

This pattern on the part of conservatism has not ceased. Their offshoots in national populism and liberal conservatism, and those movements containing both - like the co-opted Republican Party in the United States - continue to play these language games with an eye for opportunity.

Progressives of all stripes, liberal or democrat, need to be wary of this. They need to take great care over their words and ideas, and never be willing to simply give up our words - and everything that comes with them - to conservatism.

American conservatism has co-opted the centrist concept of the republic. European conservatism has co-opted the liberal concept of individual liberty. The far-right everywhere co-opted the democratic-socialist concept of social justice. Now, white nationalist sectarianism wants to present itself as 'the alternative'.

But, as with parties like UKIP and Front National, these parties of the far-right pitching themselves as 'liberators' are really the ultra-establishment forces, disguising themselves in the garments of the anti-establishment movements of the turn of the millennium. They claim words like 'Alt' and pitch themselves as the conservative rebel to the liberal-socialist tyrant because it suits them in this moment.

Progressives cannot keep giving ground. They cannot lightly allow words to be taken as new disguises or fresh ammunition for conservative movements - movements that promise liberation but will deliver only the conservative triumph: tradition over reason, moral order over sound ethics, hierarchy over equality.

Progressives need to find an answer to precarious work, because conservatives back its rise and it in turn fuels the Far Right

The headline figures say unemployment is down, but they cover the fact that welfare is being replaced only with precarity. Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

In the breakdown of the Leave Campaign's victory in the Brexit referendum, and also that of Trump, the impact of globalisation has been afforded a central role. The shifting of work overseas, and only precarious opportunities at home, has fed fear and hostility.

Even a brief look at the political situation, as it stands in Europe and America, reveals that the main benefactors of the crisis have been anti-establishment populists and the Far Right nationalists and sectarians - from Grillo to Le Pen, from Spain to Eastern Europe.

With that in mind, the employment figures released by the government make interesting reading. The topline is, in a time of meagre of opportunities, likely to be praised: unemployment has fallen to a new low, as more people find a way into work.

But the headline covers up three important facts. First, that 15% of those in employment are self-employed (BBC, 2016). Second that, including the self-employed along with those on zero hours and in temporary jobs, some 20% depend upon precarious work (Booth, 2016). And third, social mobility has stalled in an increasingly tiered society, with the gap between the well-to-do and everyone else growing (Sellgren, 2016).

The impact of this shift has been to reduce the possibility of finding a secure and stable housing situation, career paths and job progression stall in the face of no opportunities, and in all, people can no longer expect to live a better life than their parent's generation.

Even with that damning assessment, the Tories have still found it possible to celebrate the shift towards ever more precarity (Stone, 2016). Damian Green, the Department of Work and Pensions secretary, called the shift away from stable hours, holiday pay, sick pay and pensions an exciting moment, praising the "gig economy" staffed by the "everyday entrepreneur".

The only possibility of finding excitement in these figures comes from an ideological viewpoint that reduces human life to little more than wage labour, and sees innovation only through the prism of strife, competition and exploitation - with social life, enjoyment, fulfilment or self-improvement as petty distractions.

But, as the rise of the Far Right is showing, people do not share that view. If work offers no rewards and doesn't lead anywhere, but to a never ending grind, then work is not a path to liberation but a prison. And that creates an opportunity for others to offer a way out - and to offer scapegoats.

People want more autonomy and elevating them, educating them and giving them more responsibility is idealism at its finest - but not at the cost of their basic life security. But nor should people have to cash in their autonomy, their liberty, in exchange for the promise of succour.

It is the job of progressives to offer a road on which stability and autonomy are wedded and sustainable. To build, not just an alternative view of the economy, but one that includes a path forward, with ongoing improvement of conditions and lessening of burdens built into it.

As the British Liberals of the 1920s put it:

"We believe with a passionate faith that the end of all political and economic action is not the perfecting or the perpetuation of this or that piece of mechanism or organisation, but that individual men and women may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

The aim for progressives must be to have an economy that serves people, not the other way around, and works towards their liberation.

What to expect from President Trump? To see how an opportunist backed by the far right will fare in government, look no further than Italy's Silvio Berlusconi

Silvio Berlusconi, through controversies and legal battles, held the position of Prime Minister in Italy for nine years out of seventeen on the political frontline. Photograph: Silvio Berlusconi by paz.ca (License) (Cropped)

If progressives are going to start building a meaningful opposition to the global rise of far right populism, seen most recently in the Trump Presidential Campaign, they first need to understand what they will be standing against. What will the representatives of the far right pursue when actually in office?

When considering what to expect, its important to look to history. For Trump in particular, there are obvious comparisons to Ronald Reagan (Rich, 2016) - though, it seems, except for those who really buy into the Myth of Reagan but don't like Trump, and so want to distance the two as much as possible.

But perhaps a better guide for expectations, both for Trump and beyond, might be the rise of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy in the early 1990s, out of the wreckage of the Italian political system that imploded with the exposure of  huge corruption under the Mani Pulite investigation.

Amidst massive political disillusionment and a global downturn, a seeming outsider, with business credentials, and in alliance with parties of the far right, put themselves forward as the champion of the populist opposition to the corrupt old establishment - despite plenty of their own legal battles, to which their support seems immune.

Sound familiar? Trump's rise mirrors Berlusconi's own route to power. The media chief, and chairman of football club AC Milan, began his long relationship with political power in Italy at the head of his party Forza Italia - named for a popular football chant.

If that does not say enough, as a measure of the man consider that Berlusconi once claimed, with extravagant outrage, that one of his longest running political opponents, Romano Prodi, called him a drunk during a 2006 election debate - and offered him a "no, you are" in return (Popham, 2006). What Prodi had actually said was:

"He uses statistics like a drunk uses lamp-posts, more for support than illumination."

For those who want decency and reason in the political arena, this level of obfuscating outrage is infuriating. When a political candidate is willing to twist anything, to play whatever role happens to be convenient to the relevant situation, coherency be damned, it makes it impossible to get to grips with what that candidate actually believes - and so to have a meaningful political exchange.

But whether that was what he actually believes is besides the point. What that exchange presented was an opportunity. And the seizing of such opportunities defined Berlusconi's career - as it does Trump's as well.

Silvio Berlusconi rose to power on the back of a career as a media personality, a celebrity, just as much as he did on his career in business. His media company took on the establishment and broke through the state owned monopoly on broadcasting - though in part thanks to his connections in that very same government establishment.

And when that - again, very same - government establishment collapsed amidst one of the biggest political corruption scandals ever seen, Berlusconi took to the political field - despite his own connections and the spreading of investigations into his own businesses (The Economist, 2001).

Berlusconi promised to keep Italy pro-Western and pro-Market, create a million new jobs and protect the country from the communists - the Italian Communist Party successor, the Democrats of the Left, were virtually the last party standing in the Italian political system after the corruption scandal.

The coalition he put together to achieve those promises - with the separatist Lega Nord in the North and the post-fascist Alleanza Nazionale in the South - backed by a massive publicity campaign on his own TV channels, received the most votes and seats in the 1994 Italian general election.

His first government collapsed after only nine months, torn apart by its own internal contradictions. Yet, though often with only a tenuous grip, Berlusconi returned to power time after time, with rebuilt coalitions that pushed the same mix of social conservatism and economic neoliberalism.

And he was never far from controversy. Berlusconi was accused of being sexism in Italy's most powerful apologist, as his personal life often spilling over into the political and even sparking protests (Marshall, 2016). His legal troubles also followed him constantly.

The same kinds of fate are now being predicted for Trump's Administration, as he tries to marry his misogynist and nativist support with the Republican mainstream - itself a contradictory collections of libertarians and nativist Christian nationalists.

Just as legal scandals chased Berlusconi throughout his career, they're likely also to follow Trump. With numerous cases still outstanding against him, some commentators are even predicting that Trump may ultimately end up being impeached by the Republican-controlled Congress (Oppenheim, 2016).

The election of Trump answered one question to which the answer was already known: that negative campaigning is used because it works - even, it seems, in its most extreme forms. It also drew parallels between Trump and Berlusconi, that suggest that far right populism is unlikely to hurt the Reagan-esque tax-cutting, laissez-faire, pro-business establishment.

But what about about in Europe, where far right parties have pushed their way into the mainstream with fewer compromises and mainstream alliances? As with Trump, promises of social conservatism, anti-immigration and harsh law and order policies have abounded. Yet on economic policy, the stances of far right movements have been inconsistent.

Trump's one elaborated economic policy was for a massive tax cut. That matches up with UKIP's policies, which have historically leaned toward less compromising version of Conservative manifestos, with tax cuts, especially for those at the top and large amounts of deregulation.

Yet while Trump has hinted at protectionism, it has been more strongly pushed in Europe. For instance, Front National have travelled over time from aggressively, anti-welfare, 'parasite' opposing, Reagan neoliberals, to ardent advocates of state control and protectionism (Shields, 2007).

Other far right parties in Europe, such as the Freedom Party of Austria and the Party for Freedom of the Netherlands, or elements of the Five Star Movement in Italy, have expressed a kind of national liberalism, to which the French Front National seems aligned.

The parties are standing, ostensibly, to 'protect' their 'national values', which have over time extended to include liberal tolerance, particularly of native homosexual and Jewish communities; and attempted to reconcile what amounts to 'national welfare', claiming to expel outsiders from the system, with the neoliberal capitalist system.

These positions express profound contradictions: between the rousing of intolerance and promises of social protection, and between deep connections to the low tax, low regulation and big business neoliberal order and promises of economic protection.

Berlusconi showed that these contradictions can be maintained, though not without difficulty and obvious fragility, over a long political career. So whichever way these parties break, caught between intolerant, nationalist and statist demands and their neoliberal connections, progressives need to have a strong argument that counters the flaws of both. And that argument needs to bring together radicals and moderates, democrats and liberals.

Justice, Liberty and Progress; equality, cooperation and sustainability; these values drive progressives. The far right stands opposed to them, picking and choosing between them as it suits their cause. Progressives need to unite around them - whether against neoliberalism or nationalism, as both are disastrous.

Petty squabbles are the opportunities that the Berlusconis and Trumps exploit. They disillusion the public and open the doors to opportunists and extremists. That pattern needs to end, in the name supporting those made most vulnerable by the rise of such forces: women, minorities, refugees, immigrants and the impoverished.

Secularism is supposed to be at the heart of free thought and expression, not an excuse to suppress them

Written over the door of the Faculte de Droit in Paris is the promise of liberty, equality and brotherhood from the secular state to its citizens, yet secularism still faces accusations of overbearing paternalism.

Secularism, at its most literal, means the separation of church and state. At the core of the principal is the idea that no religion - or any other formal, organised, set of beliefs - should play an integrated role in the governance or administration of civic institutions, so as to maintain their neutrality.

However, it is also intended to guarantee to citizens the freedom of conscience, and through that policy give support to freedom of thought. So as much as it means religion staying out of public administration, it also meant the state leaving personal beliefs, including religion, as a private matter.

How that principle is applied in practice, in modern times, has come under a spotlight in the past week thanks to the response of some to a rising fear in Europe of fundamentalist Islam. In France, local government in some areas have passed prohibitions against certain kinds of outward religious expression - the most notable result so far being the clamp down on 'burkinis' (Amrani, 2016).

One thing is absolutely clear. Issuing legal commands as to what women can and cannot wear does not convey "la légitime et saine laïcité", the legitimate and healthy secularity, or the guarantee of the freedom of conscience, promised by the French secularism that descends from the 1905 laws.

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that the world today is not the world into which those particular laws where issued. Listed amongst the laws of 1905, almost paradoxically next to the freedom of conscience, was the prohibition of public displays of religion.

The France that had the 1905 law applied to it was a country deeply entwined with the Catholic Church. The entangling influence of the church was deeply resented and the emergence of laicite came hand in hand with a history of anti-clericalism that pushed back and tried to wrestle society out of the grip of the clergy..

The Left bloc government that advocated secularism, formed by Radicals and Socialists, wanted in particular to end the influence of Catholicism over education - which had been traditionally provided almost exclusively by the clergy. Yet the broken clerical influence was simply replaced with that of the centralised state.

As much as laicite, and in particular secular education, was a republican and humanist project, it was also deeply nationalist. In early twentieth century France, secularism was at the centre of a broader policy of 'modernisation', that sought to establish and project the power of a centralised nation-state - seeking to make the civic state the centre of a society with a singular, integrated and unifying, language and culture.

In modern Europe, secularism has largely succeeded, yet it has done so alongside the advance of the centralised nation-states and nowhere in Europe has secularism and the nation-state been so heavily intertwined as in France - as to represent a major component of the 'national values' and national identity.

The rise of extremist and fundamentalist religion, and extremist and fundamentalist ideologies - that seek to play an active role in government to directly impose their values on citizens - do call for careful thought. The Nationalist Right's answers to these complex matters has been to call for a more strict imposition of 'national values' - and in France that has meant using secularism as the means to legitimise an overbearing policy.

This is a threat to the principles of secularism. The independence of the functions of government from any interest group is a worthy idea. The freedom of conscience is essential. As George Clemenceau - former Prime Minister of France, a radical and a contemporary to the 1905 laws - argued that you do not get liberty by fighting one tyranny with another tyranny.

Clemenceau wrote of his certainty that "apprenticeship in liberty can only be served through liberty" and that to "struggle against the church there is only one means - the liberty of the individual". Support for free thought, openness and tolerance are the progressive response to closed tyrannical intolerance. Stooping to the regulation of citizens' clothing just swaps one degrading paternalism for another.

The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum

Over the next month, The Alternative is going to delve into the key aspects of the EU referendum and take a look at what it holds in store for progressives. To that end, this article will serve as the hub, gathering each of the parts together for easy access.

Pt.1   4 basic things you should know about Britain's EU referendum

Pt.2   4 things you should know about TTIP, free trade and the European Union
Pt.3   4 things you should know about influence, peace and security in the EU
Pt.4   4 reasons Progressives should reject Nationalism and choose Remain

Introduction: The Referendum for Progressives

In short, this isn't one. What stands out most of all about the referendum is that there is no truly progressive option. The ballot will offer people a choice between a bureaucratic mainstream status quo and a Right-wing nationalist reaction that proposes returning to the past (or a heavily revised version of it, at least).

The question posed to progressives is how to respond to these imperfect choices. When deciding between them, there are some basic values that they need to consider: Internationalism - Cooperation - Equality - Justice - Liberty.

Internationalism is a broader vision of people, one that does not distinguish between the value and importance of people in one country from another and believes in the possibility of cooperation between them.

That spirit of cooperation is key to enabling those people to then work together for mutual benefit and, in so doing, pursue equality. As for justice and liberty, they are the structures and principles, the terms, on which those people organise.

The roots of progressive thinking are trying to bring together all of these ideas in one society, that embodies them all: the equality of the left over the hierarchy of the right, the justice of democrats and the liberty of liberals, bound together with a broad humanism and mutual endeavour.

Achieving this things means thinking about, and working towards, the future. It means making and encouraging progress, and encouraging others to think about the future as well - and that is a difficult task, because the future is undeniably terrifying.

The future is where we find change, uncertainty and a lack of guarantees - a spark for anxiety is there ever was one. All the while, the past is favoured as a place of guarantees, of certainty, of familiar structures and reassuring traditions.

"The past is comparatively safe, next to the present, because we know how at least one of them turns out."

The European Union represents an attempt to build towards the future and that makes it terrifying. But it has also been ensnared by the times, to become, in many ways, an organisation of the status quo. As a result that project is unfinished. There is progress still to be made.

The question that progressives must answer is which of two imperfect choice presents the best next step in the path to achieving its goals. This series will aim to offer the facts needed to decide between the options and take that next step towards the future.

Policing and Crime Bill, with oversight and transparency reforms, goes to Commons unlikely to face much opposition

Theresa May's Policing and Crime Bill has a stated aim of improving disciplinary and complaints systems, along with the Inspectorate, in order to improve public confidence in the Police.  Photograph: Police Motorbike from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

In Parliament today, Home Secretary Theresa May presents her Policing and Crime Bill to the Commons for its first formal vote (Parliament, 2016). With a Conservative majority, its passage at this stage should be just a formality - particularly when English Votes for English Laws is applied. That only makes it all the more important for those outside of Parliament to pay particularly close attention.

The government claim the bill will 'finish the job' of police reform (Home Office & May, 2016). Included in its aims are reforming the police disciplinary and complaints systems, strengthening 'the independence of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary', increasing protections for people with mental health problems, allowing chief officers to "confer a wider range of powers on police staff and volunteers", and introducing a requirement for 'suspected foreign nationals to produce a nationality document'.

While moves to increase oversight and accountability are always welcome, along with further considerations for mental health, elements of the bill have faced some criticism. For instance, the expansion of volunteers in police service with police powers has raised some concerns (BBC, 2016) - with suggestions that it may be an artificial way to inflate police numbers in the face of austerity and cuts. There is also some scepticism regarding the continually expanding role of the Police and Crime Commissioners (Russell Webster, 2016), though it has been argued that accountability brought by PCC's election are having a positive impact (Baird, 2016).

The Policing and Crime bill itself is being steered through Parliament by Theresa May. As Home Secretary, Theresa May has already overseen a number of disputes over law enforcement and policing policy.

May has been the force behind the slow and controversial progress of the Investigatory Powers Bill, the so-called snooper's charter (Watt, 2016). Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister, had forced early bills covering public surveillance, particularly on the internet, to be withdrawn. The most recent attempt has been criticised, not just for being an infringement of liberty, but for being largely unworkable (The Guardian; 2016).

By way of contrast, a positive move was made by May in response to Boris Johnson's wish to deploy water cannon in London. May promised never to deploy police with military style equipment, for fear of undermining the legitimacy of the police (Dodd, 2015) - which is supposed to be based on the principle of policing by consent.

Between refusing water cannons and promoting mass data gathering, and her lack of surety on elected Police and Crime Commissioners (BBC, 2016{2}), Theresa May has cut an inconsistent path as Home Secretary. That inconsistency, along with the Conservative government's poor attitude towards human rights, since cutting loose the Liberal Democrats in May 2015 (Bowcott, 2015), call for a particularly critical eye to be turned on any reform efforts they spearhead.

It is only the early stages for this bill. A bill whose aims will likely be disrupted by disputes over further 'efficiencies' to be found in police budgets (ITV, 2016) - and maybe still further cuts as those scarcely avoided by the Chancellor last time, through heavy dependence upon the prediction of an improved economy, may well come around again in next week's budget with the economy struggling and tough choices expected (Elliott, 2016).

Yet whenever one party seeks to make changes to the enforcement of law and order, it is important to stress the need for the public to remain vigilant. Reform is need. Oversight and transparency are needed. Clear statements of powers, who has them and when, are needed. But the process of reform should too be constrained by those principles.

Basic Income is the first step to a more fair, just and free society, where all can enjoy the benefits of technological progress without the fear of dispossession and poverty

Thousands of protesters march the streets surrounding the Conservative Party Conference in support of trade unionists, and against austerity, in Manchester, 4 October 2015.

The basic income took a huge step towards being a reality in the UK last Tuesday night when John McDonnell mentioned that the Labour Party where considering a basic income policy (Sheffield, 2016). During a speech, at the latest stop on his New Economics tour (Sheffield, 2016{2}), in which McDonnell spoke of Labour's commitment to a more decentralised and democratic economy, the Shadow Chancellor acknowledged the interest Labour had taken in the policy - heretofore, only advocated for by the Greens (Wintour, 2015).

The basic income will be one step towards making society more fair, the economy more just, and giving individuals more liberty. Right now, with the European business community readjusting to technology, as well as competition from businesses employing workers for virtually no pay in other parts of the world, a defined shift towards fairness, justice and liberty is needed.

Certain principles, like the value of work in exchange for the means to live, continue to be imposed despite the possibility of a secure job, that pays a fair wage for a fair day's work, threatening to disappear (Foster, 2016). Zero-hours contracts are taking security away from the most vulnerable, eating into their lives in ways that leave them filled with stress and anxiety (Fleming, 2016).

Right now the advances in technology are very much in the favour of business and those in positions of established wealth, enriching some few while most see their livelihoods taken away and their lives made more precarious. There seems to be a coalition, one part fearing for workers and the other an elite fearing a form of socialism that eat into their status, that takes the rather unflattering opinion that this third industrial revolution should be avoided for fear of "mass unemployment and psychological aimlessness" (Mason, 2016).

Discussing the earlier and more famous industrial revolution, which saw the rise of the machines in Europe, Oscar Wilde argued that it was not a matter of the emergence of the technology itself that was the problem, but rather the way it was being controlled (Wilde, 1891).

"Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community."

To avoid this kind of dispossession, may mean accepting that it is time to reconsider social values relating to work (Srnicek et al, 2016), and to contemplate the possibility of a post-work society - where all could benefit from the technological automation of our age (Mason, 2016). That shift would begin with reductions in the length of the working day, embracing job sharing and introducing the basic income. In all, loosening the connections between work and the right to life.

British Liberals in the 1920s argued (Yellow Book, 1928), under the strong influence of David Lloyd George and John Maynard Keynes, that the aim of "political and economic action", wasn't to perfect or perpetuate machines and social orders, but so that individuals "may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly". Their methods were popular share-ownership and progressive taxation - in essence, cooperation.

Rising public interest in the Basic Income presents a chance to pursue those aims in earnest. Along with more economic cooperation and a better work-life balance, it is possible to use these ideas to build a more humane economy. An economy that is fair and just, that protects and promotes liberty, within which progress will be wired in to the general benefit.

Still opposition even as Italy on verge of completing historic year for LGBT rights, but progressives must maintain their optimism

The Catholic Church stands in the way of Italy extending legal recognition to same-sex couples. Photograph: St Peter's Basilica from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Later this week, the Senate in Italy will be deciding how to respond to condemnation for the lack of legal recognition of same-sex couples (BBC, 2016). The government of Matteo Renzi, Prime Minister and leader of the Partito Democratico, has put legislation on same-sex unions before the Senate to introduce civil partnerships after criticism from the European Court of Human Rights.

Italy was ruled by the ECHR in the summer as being in breach of human rights by not allowing same-sex unions (Kirchgaessner, 2015). That ruling seems to have inspired fresh hope of progress, with campaigners out in numbers over the weekend to call for a change in the law (Kirchgaessner, 2016).

The road to change in Italy, though, is still filled with obstacles. There are deeply ingrained attitudes to overcome (Scammell, 2016) and the power of the Catholic Church is behind the conservative opposition (The Guardian, 2016).

However, the public campaigns for same-sex unions show that there is a possibility of change. The successes of other civil rights campaigns around the world also highlight what can be accomplished. Big steps forward where made last year, on a number of fronts - even when just considering the fight for LGBT rights.

In the US there were reassuring steps, with a Supreme Court ruling establishing that equal marriage was a constitutional right (Roberts & Siddiqui, 2015). Barack Obama celebrated the decision as making the 'union a little more perfect', marking a rare win for the Democrat President in an extremely partisan time in the White House (Jacobs, 2015).

Meanwhile Ireland became the first country in the world to secure the passage of equal marriage by a popular referendum, with an emphatic 62% voting in favour (The Irish Times, 2015). That vote had the additional significance of leaving Italy as the last Western country to not have some form of civic union for same-sex couples (Duncan, 2016).

Later this week in the UK, the Commons will be considering an amendment to the Civil Partnerships Bill that aims to extend civil unions - originally intended as a same-sex alternative to marriage - to opposite-sex couples (Bowcott, 2016).

Though it may seem like a sideshow, at a time when these matters are being debated, it would be a positive and signal step to make all forms of civil union equal, whether marriage or partnership, regardless of gender pairing. For those who are socially excluded, the aim is to be treated as equals.

A chance to take some steps towards that parity approaches in Italy. Yet the outcome of the Senate vote is far from certain. Italy has had a difficult history with liberalising reforms. Campaigns have long been left to parties on the fringe, such as the Radicals, who have campaigned for everything from the separation of church and state to the rights to divorces and abortions (Moliterno, 2000).

And over everything, the Catholic Church casts a long shadow (The Guardian, 2016). The Pope, weighing in on the upcoming vote, declared that god wanted only one type of family union, procreative and insoluble, and no other.

It can be demotivating as a progressive to have a year filled with conservatism, populist nationalism and neoliberal austerity, with discrimination still protected by powerful institutions. To discover in the news that, in the middle of a humanitarian crisis, those most in need of help face segregation - in the most recent case, refugees being forced to wear red wristbands as distinctive markers used to distinguish them (Taylor & Johnston, 2016).

But 2015 also served as a reminder of how much that is positive might be achieved, even under a conservative stranglehold. Progressives must draw upon these accomplishments for strength as they move forward, in order to, as Yanis Varoufakis argues (Varoufakis & Pisarello, 2016), maintain the optimism needed in the continued struggle against discrimination and the hegemony that protects it.