World on Fire: This week just shows how important empowered local government and international cooperation really are

Ada Colau, the Mayor of Barcelona, and Barcelona En Comu are the most recognisable face of the municipal movement. Photograph: #‎PrimaveraDemocratica‬ amb Pablo Iglesias i Ada Colau by Barcelona En Comú (License) (Cropped)

The last week brought another of those sad and scary moments we're becoming dangerously accustomed to. What 2016 taught us was that we can always find something bad happening somewhere if we have broad enough news coverage.

But in the past week the most powerful man in the world escalated tensions, with a much smaller country, to the brink of a nuclear war. He then failed to identify and condemn fascist terrorism occurring right under his nose, virtually in his own back yard.

These things cannot become a new normal.

We are living in a fragmented and further fragmenting world. The far right are not ascendant, but they are flourishing, and the most powerful man is acting like a lone wolf - in all of the worst possible meanings of that phrase.

These are exactly the reasons why we so need municipalism and internationalism. We need real and empowered local democracy, coupled with a sense of international cooperation, in order to change our perspective - and fight off the dying embers of the nationalist conflagration that so many times has nearly burned our world.

It can be understood why people feel so attached to nations and flags and the pride they inspire, but nationalism has taken us all to some very dark places. And in the present, that means far right terrorism - near indistinguishable, whether Islamist fundamentalism or white supremacist and Christian nationalist - and raised the spectre of a limited exchange nuclear war.

For more than a century and a half, nationalism has been a poison in our veins. Domestically, our lives and the wealth we create is directed away from our wellbeing and progression, into the service of destruction - even while some are left completely without.

Abroad, people - ordinary citizens - are reduced unfairly, unjustly and inaccurately to being colluders in the deadly games of tyrants and terrorists. And it is these people, usually the frontline of victims for these criminals, over whose head the Sword of Damocles dangles. They deserve compassion, but get the point of a spear.

The big challenges of our time - environmental, energy, economic, population - are the problems of the whole world. No zealous corner, putting itself first, can address these issues alone. Cooperation is the best strategy.

But cooperation between who? For more than a century, people have been rendered synonymous with their nations - for better and mostly worse. That has to stop. People need to be empowered in their communities and have a voice through them.

The last few years, the past few weeks in particular, make it hard to believe, but the great trend of history is that things get better. That is the lesson of the work of the late Hans Rosling. And even our empathy too is widening.

There was a slogan in the sixties: "Think globally, act locally". It's never been more relevant. We need to see that our problems don't respect artificial borders. We need to pitch in and make change happen on our own doorstep, in cooperation with our neighbours and neighbouring communities.

We can take back control, but it isn't achieved by falling back into nationalism. It doesn't involve drawing crude borders between territories, drawing crude distinctions between peoples - looking always for difference rather than commonality.

We need to give people real power over their lives. We need to give people consent over their lives and how their communities are shaped. We need to build bridges within communities and between them. And, from the bottom up, reshape our perspective.

General Election 2017 - Plaid Cymru and Wales: Poor, fractured and ignored, Wales needs a new and radical alternative

Plaid Cymru want to pick up the baton from Labour, but Wales needs a much more radical revival.

Wales is poor, fractured and ignored. To get to the bottom of the needs of the country, it's necessary to start by accepting that. The next step is to accept that very little has been done to address the first step.

The fault for that doesn't fall only on Labour. Since the party spent thirteen years in government at Westminster, and in office as the government of Wales for the last eighteen, it is unsurprising that Tories see Wales as Labour's weak(est) spot.

But the Conservatives have little to offer now and have done little for Wales in the past - other than shut down the last primary industry upon which the country had depended, when they closed the coal mines.

Through three eras of Westminster centralisation - one Labour, two Conservative - Wales has been left with an economy painfully dependent upon public sector employment and its remaining industries are in a perilous state.

Steel in South Wales is struggling to stay afloat against the sudden flood caused by China's mass dumping of its huge stocks of steel onto markets. The scrambling efforts of Conservative ministers and Labour MPs to find a way to secure jobs bought time for Welsh steel.

This desperate scramble shouldn't be necessary. But so little attention has been paid to Wales that it has fallen into dependence: on a narrow few industries, on public funding, on EU funding - it was in fact among the larger recipients of Europe's Regional Development Funds.

Yet even these few things are at risk. The established parties just keep papering over the cracks. The reality is that Wales needs a new party.

Plaid Cymru

Plaid Cymru would very much like voters to see them as just that. But the trouble is, that they're not.

At the core of their manifesto is a commitment to protecting funding and increasing investment, to be issued from Cardiff rather than Westminster, within the context of defending Welsh sovereignty. It's a vaguely nationalist, but otherwise ordinary, pitch for twentieth century social democracy.

Now. Properly implemented, there is plenty that social democrats could achieve for Wales. From fresh funding, to supporting new industries, these are essential projects that only the public body capable of providing.

Investment in infrastructure, in rail and road, in telecomms and broadband, and in new homes; supporting small businesses with public contracts, reformed business rates and a Welsh Development Bank; caring for people with more compassionate welfare and better funded healthcare.

These policies are all progressive priorities and all necessary to boosting Britain's economy out of its doldrums. But they're all just focused on making the best of the status quo - even with a little more devolution.

The problem for Plaid Cymru are that they're caught between fighting their long battle to pull Wales out of Labour's grip and fending off Tory efforts to to take advantage of Labour's, seemingly, ebbing strength.

The party are also affected by being close enough to power in Wales to play it safe. Its an outcome for the party's internal historical struggle, between nationalism and conservatism on the one hand, and a Left-wing community socialism upon the other.

The outcome of the struggle was a Centre/Centre-Left party of social democrats, comfortable with public intervention - much the same as Labour, just with its policies filtered through the lens of national identity.

The party matches the progressive parties at Westminster in their commitments. But where is the rebirth that Wales sorely needs?

Rebalancing Wales

Wales is a country whose political bonds are breaking It is split geographically and economically between South and North, between just two concentrations of people with a dearth of infrastructure and wealth lying between them.

In important ways, the situation of Wales reflect that of Western Europe, Europe and the West as a whole - rural versus urban, towns versus cities, richer versus poorer, migration & concentration, the centres becoming intolerable and the fringes being abandoned.

Politics in Wales hasn't helped. How deeply Labour has embedded itself in communities is a huge impediment to progress. At the local elections, there were many independents that made life difficult for Corbyn's Labour. But beneath that simpler narrative was a more complicated one, of Labour versus unofficial Labour.

That situation is a problem, because Wales right now needs less Westminster and more grassroots. It needs an Ada Colau more than it needs a Jeremy Corbyn.

Plaid Cymru should be better positioned that any other party in Wales to offer some truly radical alternatives. Among the party's founders was DJ Davies, also a founding member of Welsh Labour, an industrialist and economist who believed in the economics of co-operation and putting control in the hands of workers.

In their current manifesto, the part that comes closest to a project for rebirth is "Putting energy into our environment". Their plans, to support a national electric car infrastructure, green energy tidal lagoons and decentralised public energy, strike a theme of industry reborn under community ownership that thrusts towards the heart of what Wales needs. But it gets too little focus.

A New Mentality

Wales needs a new mentality, based on a radical devolution to the local level - to reengage people with the power and funds to rebuild their communities. But it can't be just urban municipalism.

It needs a movement that can give towns, both urban and rural, back into the hands of their communities and reinvigorate civic life - a locally focused, municipal-agrarian movement that can be brave and rethink how we approach rural life and make it sustainable in the future.

A movement that is prepared to imagine new ways to build the bonds between communities. That builds a sense of common identity by building the bonds between communities, that builds a sense of country by building a country.

Wales needs a brave new vision. A revival. Yet nobody is truly offering one. As it stands, fresh polls suggest Corbyn's Labour may make it through it's dark Welsh night. It doesn't deserve to, but New Labour's cynical adage remains true: there still isn't really an alternative.

Local Elections 2017: What did we learn?

County Hall in Derbyshire, now under the Conservative control thanks to a local election sweep that doesn't bode well for Labour prospects in June. Photograph: County Hall, Matlock, Derbyshire by bazzadarambler (License) (Cropped)

The big story from the 2017 local elections is that the Tories made big gains. Hard to get past that, even if some gains have been rather misreported to more effectively represent the narrative people want to tell (Murray, 2017).

For a sitting government to make such sweeping gains is very unusual. And yet, it wasn't quite the kind of triumphal sweep that polls would have led us to expect (Murphy, 2017) - especially in the Tory heartland shires.

It's even more underwhelming, perhaps, when UKIP's collapse is taken into consideration. Every single seat they held was lost and they were swallowed whole by the Tories. Yet, this was no landslide.

Yes, Labour certainly took hits, but there were perhaps fewer than feared and the party even held on in some key places, like urban South Wales, and won a couple of Mayoral contests in Liverpool and Manchester.

That's not to say this wasn't a bad night for Labour. At the least, it'll be seen as another reason for the disgruntled to break with the party leadership and attack Corbyn. But in the revealed weakness should be clarity.

Labour know where they're weak, they know where they'll be targeted, and they have a good idea who and how. The path to the 8th June should be clear, the roads in need of some barricades should be obvious.

And it should be obvious that in places across the East Midlands, in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire for instance, Labour need the support. In both of these counties, and their neighbouring cities, Labour have seats at risk and they lost a lot of county council seats in both.

That support can only come from a Progressive Alliance. With Conservatives rallying around one banner, and attracting former Labour supporters, Labour MPs will need the help.

The estimated national poll figures for the local elections where the Conservatives on 38%, Labour on 27% and the Lib Dems back up to 18% (Curtice, 2017) - very 1992, but with weaker main parties.

These numbers are short of a Conservative landslide but still bad for Labour, giving nobody what they want. Polls have suggested that the gap is perhaps closable before June, but completely overcoming the gap is unlikely.

These results make that clear. Which leads to the conclusion that the practical and achievable aim of progressives is to stop the Tories expanding their majority, perhaps even cutting it, through tactical voting.

To hurt the Tory majority, progressives need to keep their shoulders to certain barn doors, because the Conservatives do still have vulnerabilities that various candidates across the country can expose. The Lib Dems in particular have a chance to take back a number of seats.

The evidence of the local elections then is that, for the Left and Centre, this is a defensive election. In Brighton, and in parts of London, the message has caught on. But that message needs to spread.

Local Elections 2017: Council polls set to be a dry run for the GE2017 campaign

Before it got bumped down the bill by the new main event that is Theresa May's impromptu general election, this year's premier political test in Britain was going to be the local elections. While it might have lost its billing, it hasn't lost it's significance.

In fact, it now carries an expanded added role. Theresa May's U-turn on an early election has created an unusual situation: the 2017 UK general election will get a dry run. The pitches and arguments that the parties are formulating will first be tested on Thursday 4th May.

Unlike in most of Britain's elections, the parties are going to have a chance to put their strategy to the public, assess its impact and then refine it. So don't be surprised to see the parties shift gears heading into June if they feel their pitch struggled in May.

The local elections, covering nearly 5,000 council seats across England, Scotland and Wales, should also give us some idea whether - as we saw in 2016 - Labour can, for the most part, resist a Conservative advance. At the 2016 polls, Labour broke even on councils controlled and limited losses to just 18 councillors, taking 31% of the vote.

However, they also went on to lose a seat at a by-election in Cumbria in the early part of this year, in Copeland - a gift of a victory for a sitting government, the first since 1982, that would normally be faced with just limiting its losses.

With its usually lower turnouts and a slightly different approach, trying to extrapolate trends or sentiments from local elections is difficult and potentially flawed. But there are some races around the country that will be watched intently for any sign of movement.

The particular focus will be on any council under Labour control. They will be under intense scrutiny. The four Labour-controlled councils up for re-election in England in 2017 are Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Durham and Doncaster - and at least three of those have relevance in the June general election as prime Conservative targets.

In Derbyshire: Labour holds North East Derbyshire by just 1800 votes. In the nearby City of Derby, Labour holds Derby South with an 8000 majority - but by only 2500 over the Tories and UKIP combined. In Derby North seat they were narrowly beaten into second in the 2015 general election.

In Nottinghamshire: In the Ashfield constituency, Conservative and UKIP votes add up to over 20,000 with Labour sitting MP elected on less than 20,000, in a seat Labour kept only narrowly from the Lib Dems in 2010. It's a similar story in Bassetlaw, in Gedling and in Mansfield, and Broxtowe was lost narrowly to the Tories in 2010. In the City of Nottingham, the Nottingham South constituency, the total support for the Right is enough to cause concern.

In Doncaster: The Conservatives and UKIP combined to total 18,000 votes in Doncaster Central, a constituency where a Labour MP received just under 20,000 - and in 2010, 15,000 votes between the Tories, UKIP, the BNP and the English Democrats to 16,500 for Labour's MP elect. The neighbouring constituency of Don Valley faces much the same numbers.

In Doncaster it would take a mighty shift to tip the seats away from Labour MPs. But, as with all of the council elections mentioned above, that is exactly what the Tories are counting on. And major losses in council elections will not bode well for Labour's chances come June.

Labour will also have an eye on the elections for the new Metro Mayors, who being given funding powers - though with little democratic oversight, sitting as they will at the head of a council of council leaders. But it presents a chance to fight Conservatives for executive positions that come with funds to distribute locally.

The Liberal Democrats will also be looking to continue their fightback, recovering the ground they lost between 2010 and 2015. They made large gains in 2016 and recovered to 15% of the vote - out performing the polls - and will hope to repeat that performance to gain momentum heading into the June election.

The Lib Dems will also have an eye on the Metro Mayor elections, in particular in the West of England where Stephen Williams, their former Bristol West MP, is running against a Conservative. Winning an election for an executive position, on what used to be their home turf, would be a tremendous boost.

The Green Party will just be looking for a positive performance, after failing to make any headway in 2016 - coming out with 3 seats less.

The local elections in Wales will likely carry a particularly heavy level of media interest, thanks to the BBC focussing on Theresa May's repeated visits to the country and the talk of the opening of opportunities there for the Conservatives. As elsewhere, the question will whether Labour can hold its ground.

In Scotland, there is talk of the Conservatives rallying Unionist support to take seats from the Scottish National Party in June. For both the SNP, with their own aims, and the anti-Tory opposition in England and Wales, it will be of intense interest whether the Conservatives can make any inroads into the astonishingly broad front the SNP have seized in Scotland.

The overall popular vote will also likely be of interest. With only the polls as a guide, some tangible numbers could have a real impact. Now, these should be taken with caution as the majority of councils up for re-election are currently Conservative-controlled - meaning this won't be a simple straight fight. But the plus and minus of council seats, at least, should offer some illumination.

The final factor, but by no means the least, will be the turnout. With a second general election in two years, along with the referendum, falling a month after a large round of local elections, there is reasonable grounds for concern that turnouts will fall drastically.

The big question facing all parties will be: who won't show up? Overall turnout and where and which demographics could have a gigantic affect in June. A lot will depend upon whether disenfranchised voters feel able to turn to the Conservatives (Fearn, 2017) - or whether they simply wash their hands and walk away. If Theresa May is to increase her majority, she needs these people to turn out.

The only effective progressive strategy in June will be vote anti-Tory, whoever and wherever possible uniting behind the strongest candidate. So the local elections will be a chance to express their support for the different Left and Centre options with nuance, before things get an awful lot simpler in June.

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.