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

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

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

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

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

Opposition scepticism is entirely appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would politics in Britain look like with the break up of the old power blocks?

What might party splits do to alignment of political parties in England? There would be six parties with Parliamentary seats in England, but how long would that last before mergers began?

The threat of 'splitting the party' has rarely been thrown around in British politics more than it is these days. The rumours of a Labour split rumble on and now the threat of a split in the Conservatve party has returned - issued by the disgruntled Brexiter right wing.

Could we be on the cusp of some major realignment of politics? It's unlikely to be that easy.

The power of the status quo in British politics can not be overstated. While there have been major splits and political realignments before, they have still, ultimately, kept to a two-party form - with one broadly conservative and the other broadly progressive.

Historical Realignment

The biggest shift took a little over thirty years to achieve the new alignment. The beginning was the split of the Liberal Unionists from the Liberal Party in the 1890s, under the leadership of Joseph Chamberlain. The group banged a particularly patriotic and jingoistic drum, supporting Empire and colonialism and opposing Home Rule for Ireland.

Chamberlain's Unionists very quickly aligned with the Conservatives - forming a decade long government. But it was not enough to break the Liberals, who afterward led Britain up to the Great War. But as the Liberals did so, they helped laid the foundations for their own ousting from the two-party supremacy.

In the early days of the Labour movement, trade unionist candidates stood with Liberal backing. When the movement resolved to form a party, the Liberals supported it with an electoral pact that supported Labour into winning it's own seats and building a Parliamentary presence.

Following the Great War, the National Government that had led the country through the war - a coalition of Conservatives, Unionists and Liberals - finally broke up.

Having absorbed the Unionists prior to the war, the Conservatives were now the dominant force - especially as progressive voters being divided between two Liberals factions and the newer Labour Party.

There were a glut of elections in the subsequent interwar period. In them, the Conservatives remained the usually largest party. But the Labour party would win it's first governments as a minority during this time under Ramsay MacDonald as they became the second largest party ahead of the Liberals - even after the Liberals reunited.

However, the onset of the Great Depression split the Labour party as it split others and ushered in another period of Conservative dominance - which would complete a political realignment thirty years in the making.

Members of both the Liberals and Labour would support the Conservatives under a National Government banner that would last until the Second World War - splitting from their parties to become known as Liberal National and National Labour respectively - and led by the expelled Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald and his National Labour for four years.

The whittling away of the Liberals and the continued use of First-past-the-post (Fptp) voting ensured that, as the Consevratives absorbed their National allies, a new two-party system would emerge from the war years. A two-party, Conservative-Labour domination that has persisted since.

Contemporary Realignment

The splits threatened in contemporary politics, if they could actually break out of a mould that has lasted for more than seventy years, would split the Big Two parties into at least four parties.

These would be: a right-wing Brexiter party, the continuing and nominally centre-right Conservative Party, a centrist Pro-European party, and the continuing centre-left Labour Party - splits that would lean British politics rightwards.

Including the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, politics in Britain would have six parties, just in England, with seats in Parliament. The obvious reaction would be for these new groups to try and form alliances under the present Fptp voting system. But if those efforts were frustrated, a move to some form of Proportional Representation might finally be contemplated.

Big questions remain, however. How many MPs would be prepared to actually make the leap to a new party? Brexiter Tories claim to have 80 MPs willing to rebel. And it is easy to imagine, from MP resistance to Corbyn, that a fair number might join a breakaway from Labour - if it were popular.

How many of the Pro-European moderate Tories would be willing to leave to join a new centrist party formed by Labour breakaways? And would the Liberal Democrats merge with such a party to form one big 'Democratic' party?

This last option is the one that, if it worked, might most drastically change the political landscape. But it feels like the moment for such a move has past - a chance not taken by Tony Blair when he had the power and popularity before the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More likely is a standoff between four factions as they try not to trip over each other and figure out who their allies might be in an election. The winner, perhaps, may be the party that manages not to split apart. As ever, the safety of the status quo is a powerful draw - even when it is ineffectual and mired by factional infighting.

For progressives, the desire is for plurality. For several parties that work constructively together for broader goals, even when they don't agree on priorities. If a split on the centre-left helps stop the bickering and sniping, it will be welcomed. If not, it could be a long time before we see a truly progressive government.

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

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

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

Is that really where the future of British politics lies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour Leadership: Corbyn returns to the leadership but party still at an impasse as Labour Right remain defiant

Jeremy Corbyn speaking at a CWU event at Manchester Cathedral in October 2015.

On Saturday, Jeremy Corbyn started his second term as leader of the Labour Party. And yet, despite a second large popular vote victory - actually increasing his already considerable mandate - the Labour Right has already marked out their territory.

Even the night before the vote, Labour MPs where making demands. Amongst them, a demand for shadow cabinet roles that have joint policy setting power with the leader (Sparrow, 2016) and for arbitrary deadlines for leadership reviews that will effectively keep Corbyn on permanent probation (Asthana & Mason, 2016).

For Corbyn's part, he accepted his new mandate with a conciliatory speech. He said it was time to wipe the slate clean, to put aside things said in the heat of the contest and strongly denounced hostility and bullying. He called Labour the 'engine of progress' and called for unity around what the party's factions have in common.

Despite paying lip service, the Labour Right has, from the beginning, resisted Corbyn and sought every means of undermining him. And all the while it has demanded that Corbyn must compromise - which, from their attitude, can only be interpreted as saying Corbyn must do things their way.

To be fair, the leadership of Corbyn certainly has plenty of issues - but none of them really offer the Right of the Labour Party any reflected glory.

Corbyn has displayed poor media strategy - which isn't about playing the media's rigged game, but reaching out to the broader public with a coherent message and making a connection (Jones, 2015; Jones, 2016); and, as Billy Bragg expressed concern, there is a worry that he, and the Labour Party as a whole, are offering 20th century solutions to 21st century problems (Bragg, 2016) - expressed not least in Corbyn's embrace of his party's standard issue rejection of pluralism, saying no to the prospect of a broad progressive alliance.

However, while Corbyn may very well not be the party's saviour, Labour without him has nothing constructive to say. All there has been is whinging, that turns quickly into very public tantrums at the slightest provocation - and even without.

There isn't even any particular effort being made to engage with the positives of Corbyn's short tenure. Rallies where tens of thousands turn up to see Corbyn speak and a tremendous increase in membership and engagement - these things are readily dismissed, when they should be engaged with and used as a platform to reach out into communities.

Trying to reduce support for Corbyn to a 'personality cult', even making comparisons to the supporters of Donald Trump (Manson, 2016), is malicious, untrue and counter productive. It blatantly ignores the fact that many of Corbyn's more militant supporters are part of a long ignored faction and are rallying to support and defend their besieged leader, who's public role represents their fragile reemergence.

It is also to act, untruthfully, as if militant ideologists are a thing that has never otherwise existed, is an invention of Corbyn and the Labour Left, and don't form a loud minority of EVERY political movement. The only difference for New Labour or the Conservatives is that their ideologues wear suits and wield greater media savvy - not to mention both connections and influence.

The Labour Right has, from the beginning, fought Corbyn beyond all reason, sense and seemingly self awareness, undermining at every opportunity - crushing their own party's steadily recovering polling just to take a poorly organised shot at toppling him. All the while, they have failed to make any kind of constructive case for how the leadership should be done differently.

As a challenger, Owen Smith offered practically the same policies. He merely stood as not-Corbyn - an embarrassing revelation of the Labour Right's apparent reduction of all the party's problems to be the result of one old democratic socialist and nothing to do with New Labour alienating most of the country.

And now that their latest, large and embarrassing effort to oust him has failed, they're wedged deeply into a corner. How, after such a deep and prolonged an attack on Corbyn's competence, can they proclaim to the public that they stand behind him?

The next move on that front, from a purely practical viewpoint, is an opportunity for Corbyn to take the initiative. To make symbolic gestures of addressing concerns about his poor approach to the media, for example, so that recalcitrant MPs can say their fears have been allayed and so save face - that is, if he really wishes to lead Labour as the broad socialist-moderate alliance it has historically been.

The only other options appear to be continued destructive civil war, that will simply scorch the earth of the Labour brand completely and render it worthless to anyone, or for one or both factions to leave the party - likely the Right, with the party staying in the hands of the significant emergent Left-wing, socialist and radical democratic, faction of which Corbyn is but the face.

As for Labour's future electoral chances? To say that Corbyn and the Left-wing cannot win is to negate entirely the point of party politics. A party organises around a set of common values and seeks to convince the public of their importance.

The reach elected office, a party must find a way of reaching people who do not know, or currently share share, their values and secure their good will. To suggest it is impossible to convince is to say there is now point to holding a dissenting view, or moving in anyway not driven by the crowd.

If a party isn't to stand with a set of ideals, that inform an attitude to policy-making, then there seems little point to having a party. To say - as Labour MPs have - that the party's duty is just to represent the electorate, is not an argument for how to run a party. It is an argument against party politics.

To run an organised party on the basis of just reflecting your constituency's views, is to run a populist machine designed only for grabbing power - turning constituents into passive actors rather than representing them, and alienating them from power.

For the part of the Labour Right, this is just a deeply-ingrained pragmatic reaction to the iniquities of the present electoral system. At every turn there are conflicts of interest that reduce accountability. An MP cannot be held to their manifesto if they must also represent constituents that didn't vote for them - and if they do, thousands of voices are excluded.

The trouble is that playing the game well, within the iniquitous system, produces power. And that is a seductive lure. However, to express a possibly minority and dissenting view, is not supposed to be about 'winning' power. It is supposed to be about representation.

Politics is supposed to be party candidates, representing the full spectrum of beliefs, being sent by their voting supporters as the people's representatives to an assembly where together they will build a consensus. Where they will build an inclusive compromise that reflects the country as a whole. It is not supposed to be about one party supplanting the system itself, to seize power by convincing enough people it is alive to all of their prejudices.

Adversarial politics offers power at a price. That price is currently tearing the Labour Party in two. One solution is to embrace pluralism, with a number of separate parties with common ideals are willing to cooperate - not least to create a more representative and less alienating system.

However, the most likely (and classic) compromise between the party's factions will be a middle ground between the Left's ideals and the Right's demand for 'electability'. The faction that Corbyn figureheads can achieve that - and success heals rifts faster than anything else in politics.

And yet, this inward-gazing uncooperative party-first attitude, that burns within both Left and Right factions, is unhelpful. While to the two groups squabble over power within and for the party, a plural society goes unrepresented and alienated.

Pluralism is more than choices - it is how we re-engage and build a real civic consensus

Corbyn, seen here speaking at at CWU event in Manchester, rejected the idea of a multi-party progressive alliance at the final Labour Leadership hustings in Glasgow.

The stalemate in Spanish politics, unbroken now by two elections and very much looking like leading to a third election in the space of a year (Jones, 2016), is the most obvious symptom of a divided society. But Spain is hardly alone in that.

Recent elections in the UK have shown British politics heading the same direction. The two traditional big tents are losing their grip and people are looking for other options. As a result, the broad social cross-sections needed to hold majority power - even under a majoritarian two-party system like first-past-the-post - are becoming harder to build and control.

The questions is, what can be done to avoid such an impasse?

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the surest path to stability is pluralism. But getting there requires rethinking what is meant by pluralism, away from the simplistic image of a fractured multi-party politics.

The tendency in the UK has been to portray plural systems, with their coalitions between multiple parties, as a system of never ending deal making - in contrast with the direct and little-trammelled power afforded to majority governments by the two-party system.

But that deeply simplistic picture ignores both the necessity for representation and the true building of consensus. Under the two-party system, politics is squeezed and distilled into narrow establishment and opposition positions - politics simplified into two parties locked into adversarial stances that drive a wedge through society.

That reduces politics to a polarised dynamic, with no space for nuance. Worse still, policy has become a professional art, the preserve of a narrow group of think tanks and party policy officers, that usually offers watered down versions of public campaigns - ostensibly to make them broadly palatable.

But trying to stretch a big tent over a broad membership, and expecting them to fall in line behind a professionally crafted policy platform, just alienates people from the responsibility to try to find consensus and imagine grounds for agreement.

It is politics made more efficient, but robbed of its essential character: as a public forum for critical debate on how to shape our common space, where representation and inclusion are the priority not minority voices competing to 'win' the right to direct everyone else from their own narrow perspective.

It is one of the more disappointing elements about the Labour Party that it has consistently failed to grasp this idea - even under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn talks of re-engaging social movements, but fails to engage with pluralism, with multiplicity, rejecting particularly the prospect of a Progressive Alliance.

Even under democratic socialist leadership, the party is still presenting itself as the self-styled only option, where the ideas of the Left - even when including trade unions and social movements of various and diverse kinds - must still ultimately be filtered through one single political party, pitching for broad public consumption, to achieve political expression.

What a contrast that is to how Barcelona's radical democrats view their task. Barcelona En Comu, not so much a party as a civic alliance, also talk of rebuilding the civic representation aspect of politics, but they are demonstrating it in practice.

Their municipal government is built around an alliance of various movements and parties. They understand their task in the civic space, in the movements and in the squares, is to involve both their opponents and fellow travellers of different parties alongside their own supporters, if they are really going to build a system of political pluralism - representative and inclusive

If Catalunya, the wider Spain and Britain keep down the road of adversarial politics the only result there can ever be is a society where the majority feel disconnected and uninvolved with their own physical and social spaces.

Politics isn't about winning. Its about representation. A plural politics takes as its starting point ensuring that people are able to see their views represented - whether directly through assemblies or a little more indirectly through multiple parties.

The next step is to rethink how these groups then interact. Rather than adversaries, these groups then hold a responsibility to craft, through debate, discussion and, yes, compromise, their various policy themes into a coherent shape that reflects the particular, distinct and plural society from which they have sprung.

Only then can people begin to reconnect, both with politics and with their civic spaces. Consensus is key. Representation is key. Pluralism is not the beginning of division and instability, but the only path to a real and lasting stability.

Response by Blair to the Chilcot report illustrates why we need a progressive alliance and the pluralism it is supports

Tony Blair in his final year as PM and leader of Labour, even as the US planned a troop surge in Iraq, four years after the initial invasion. Photograph: Blair in 2007 by Matthew Yglesias (License) (Cropped)

Last night's progressive alliance event, hosted by the Compass think tank, began with a call for progressives to take ownership of the concepts of love and hope. From all sides there was a sentiment that building a progressive future depends on reaching across boundaries and cooperating.

This could not be in starker contrast from Tony Blair's response to the release of the Chilcot Inquiry's report. Following John Chilcot's statement, introducing the report, former Prime Minister Tony Blair spent two hours giving a response and answering questions.

After apologising and accepting full responsibility, Blair sought to justify his actions. At the centre of Blair's explanation is the portrait he paints of a singular leader whose job it is to make the decisions. That is an attitude that underlines the Blair legacy.

Particularly in the Labour Party, that attitude has opened a drastic separation between the establishment and the people who support a candidate like Jeremy Corbyn. People, active political actors, feeling separated from the decision making reserved to an elite heavily embedded within the establishment and the media.

In his report Chilcot criticised the centralisation of decision making that alienated even the cabinet from the necessary information in a political system that is not, but has become increasingly, presidential. A singular leader was able to take a momentous decision, on his own authority, overruling rules and proper process on the way.

Beneath the idea of a progressive alliance is the principle of pluralism - that decisions should be made with broad consent. It is a poignant criticism of the direction of Blair and New Labour's thinking.

From John Harris - cautioning the audience that it is a priority to speak to those in the most desperate situations and address the inequalities resting upon them and feeding a hopeless view of the future - to Amina Gichinga - calling out politicians for not facing the people, not just for accountability but to build a vision of the future that includes them - the Compass event emphasised the way in which centralisation and majoritarian thinking had alienated people and left them feeling helpless.

Rebuilding trust in politics cannot be done from the top down, without reinforcing an idea of politics being something that is done by elites while the rest wait with ears pressed to the door. The progressive alliance event was adamant on that point - connecting working across party lines with the need for electoral reform and proportional representation.

What Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewis and Vince Cable accepted in their contributions is that the divisions, caused by the ambitions of singular parties to chase majorities, were damaging to the overall aims shared by progressives of all stripes.

As centralising power on the mythical decision-making leader alienates people, so might pluralism empower and energise them. If there are lessons to be learned from the Blair leadership, the Iraq War and Chilcot, it is that decisions must not be made in isolation within the corridors of power. Progressives have to expect a better, broader and more inclusive process and start living up to it.

PMQs isn't fit for purpose. But it is the symptom not the disease

Week after week, the noise at Prime Minister's Questions has gotten louder. The half hour sessions have been drowned in noise growing more inconsiderate, more deliberately vindictive, with each passing week. Having to listen to the Conservative benches braying, on live television, to drown out the questions of the opposition, can be an exercise in masochism.

It seems pretty obvious at first look that PMQs is broken. And yet, it fits so perfectly within the Westminster system. That in itself is a sign of a much deeper problem in the British political system.

The essential trouble with PMQs is that it fits in a little too perfectly with the adversarial political culture in the UK. The two sides, the government and opposition, line up opposite to one another to, supposedly, hold the government to account.

The trouble is that this polemic is bias refined, a subjective contest where the government holds one view and thinks it is right and the opposition holds another and thinks it is right. What follows is a sparring match between the unstoppable and the immovable.

That contest is perfectly fitted to the UK's us-versus-them, first-past-the-post and winner-takes-all politics. Two implacable foes, coming from fixed positions having arguments that by their nature cannot be resolved. The government will do what it will and the rest is theatre.

There is certainly am uncontestable need for the public to see, in the flesh, what it is that each side stands for, argued for, hopefully, eloquently - maybe even persuasively. Yet PMQs is one the very few public moments in which there is an opportunity to enforce upon the government - handed extraordinary power in the UK - some kind of accountability.

However, when you cross the two purposes, the party publicity exercise and holding the government to account, only one of them is ever going to win. Accountability is sunk beneath bravado, noise and petty point-scoring.

In Scotland there has been attempt to début a revised First Minister's questions, changing up the system to provide more time for a calmer session with more interrogation. But even that is limited in what it can achieve.

It cannot escape a political culture of fixed adversarial positions and that is expressed, at its worst, in an exercise that is not supposed to be 'political' being consumed by politics.

Ideally, the process of holding the government to account would be something akin to a committee hearing. The Prime Minister would be brought before them and have to give acceptable answers to fundamental questions: What is your government doing? From where does it derive the mandate for that action?

The government's reluctance to put PM David Cameron into the election debates suggests an immediate weakness to this particular alternative: Would the party political machine ever submit to the Prime Minister and the government being put so clearly on trial? Probably not.

Right now the European Union's democracy is under scrutiny. But Westminster's shortcoming shouldn't be swept under the rug. Winner-takes-all makes a mockery of political representation and the adversary system simply reinforces the alienation of citizens from their government - keeping the real business far from the vigilant eyes of those who would want answers to the difficult questions that could hold it to account.

Spain shows us that to break old status quo and make proportional representation work, we need to outgrow adversarial politics

The Palacio de las Cortes in Madrid, home to the currently implacably divided Congress of Deputies. Photograph: Congress from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

In twenty three days, Spain will go to the polls for its second election in just six months. Its first saw the seats in congress divided between Left and Right in such a way as to make forming a government unlikely (Tremlett, 2016).

Therein lies the challenge of proportional representation. While each political party may be able to make its ideas and its membership more homogeneous, there ultimately remains the need to be able to work amicably with those holding other such 'purified' stances.

Over the last five to ten years, Spain's has seen it political mainstream collapse. New parties of Citizen movements have sprung up, and through the proportional electoral system have found themselves to be collectively a third force, along with the regionalist parties, that must enthrone a new government.

Yet they have found an old social democratic Left, that might make the more tolerable ally, weakened and shrunken and the old conservatives the intolerable but only realistic option. The numbers did not add up and a new election awaits.

In the UK, voices on the Left and Right have considered how the break up of the present political alignment, itself an incoherent and inconsistent series of alliances, might be redrawn with more coherency.

Tim Montgomerie has envisioned Westminster's political parties rearranged into parties for Solidarity (essentially Democrats), Liberals, Nationals (Conservative Christian Democrats) and a party of the Far Right (Montgomerie, 2016). And Owen Jones has argued that Labour's internal strife may not be curable, with a split into more coherent groups inevitable and ultimately desirable (Jones, 2016).

Spain reveals that this is only the first step. In their incomplete breakdown of two party politics, the adversarial division remain. The old grievances are clung to as a marker of identity. The next step has to be maturity.

If the future of British politics splits the establishment in four parties then at least two will have to work together to form a government - and it may not always be the ideal two. That will require the parties to compromise and cooperate, and to find a way to do so without feeling their identity is threatened.

The attitude of the Labour supporters or Trade Unionists who hissed BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg does not suggest a group of people ready to swap the UK's archaic adversarial politics for a system based on tolerances and compromise (Cowburn, 2016). Neither does the unbearable and vicious braying of the Tory parliamentarians every Wednesday at PMQs.

For the Left, finding a way beyond this confrontational, intolerant state is essential. Achieving progressive aims is only becoming less and less likely to be achievable through the medium of one, monolithic, party.

An alliance of progressives, of different strands, each on their own coherent - trade unionism, eco-socialism, democratic socialism, liberalism, social democracy and other various shades of centrism - requires those on the Left to find common aims, and to work amicably together with other progressives, while tolerating fundamental differences in ultimate priorities.

The introduction of proportional representation and seeing the old establishment parties split can only do so much to improve politics. Without the spirit of cooperation, without outgrowing adversarial divisions, we risk falling back into the same divisive patterns.

Shift in Canadian federal election from three party race to two party polemic shows importance of electoral reform in ensuring a truly representative politics

Polling suggests Justin Trudeau has brought the Liberals back into contention from their worst ever result in 2011. Photograph: Toronto Centre Campaign Office Opening with Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau by Joseph Morris (License) (Cropped)

As Canadians go to the polls, the tight three-way race, in which the Canadian federal election campaign has been tied, finally seems to have broken in favour of the Liberals and Justin Trudeau (Woolf, 2015). With momentum pushing towards a minority or possibly even a majority government, there are signs that the well known affects of the first past the post electoral system are, at the last, making themselves felt.

Over the final weeks, polling has seen the Liberal Party vote rise by a very significant ten points since the summer to 37% - with some polls even indicating support as high 40% and with momentum still moving their way - while left of centre rivals the New Democrats (NDP) has fallen back (Grenier, 2015).

With a guarded acknowledgement of the huge impact that 'Shy Tories' can have (Grenier, 2015{2}), the polling, the momentum and the impact of tactical voting all appear to favour a Liberal victory and a progressive leaning government (Grenier, 2015{3}) - whether a minority or coalition (Gollom, 2015).

And yet, it isn't hard to be sceptical about the polling shift towards a polemic division between two parties just as an election under a polemicising electoral system approaches. The majority of the campaign has shown that Canada is a country with diverse political ideas, split at least three ways between Liberals, Conservatives and Democrats - with other groups like Greens or Regionalists and Nationalists holding influence amongst certain demographics.

Quebec has a long history of producing its own distinct electoral results, with an influential Nationalist movement. Yet Quebec has seen its Nationalist government displaced by the Liberals just last year, despite polling suggesting that a majority Parti Quebecois government was possible.

At a different end of the scale, traditionally conservative Alberta saw a huge upset of its own this year. Alberta's so-called 'Progressive' Conservative Party majority government was swept away by the slow rise of the 'alternative' conservative Wildrose Party to become the official opposition and the surprise landslide majority victory for the New Democrats.

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, has been keen to point out the strength of her party amongst certain demographics. May stressed that the Greens are bringing many disaffected voters back to politics, and creating an entry point for younger voters, that is increasing voters turnouts rather than taking votes away from other parties.

What all of these factors tell us, including all of the peculiarities and upsets, is that a more representative electoral system is needed. The tight, divided race that marked the early part of the federal election campaign shows that political beliefs are clearly spread across many positions.Yet the electoral system forces voters to prioritise, even to pick least worst options, rather than make the politicians themselves listen, compromise and act like elected representatives.

While polls have shown for months that there is a clear progressive majority, split fairly evenly between Liberals and New Democrats, in practice that may transform into a government and parliament dominated by Liberals with the New Democrat voice much reduced.

The pressures that lead to these distortions reduce the representation of a diverse citizenry - leading only to disillusion amongst voters who feel their choices are narrowed - and, when they produce majorities, shut down parliamentary debate. Voters should not be forced to realign away from their beliefs and prioritise, just to pick partisan sides in a politics reduced to an artificial game that is context-restricted and held hostage by polemic factional disputes.

A progressive society is one that embraces diversity, embraces debate, and rejects polemic division. Progressives need to champion an alternative system that rejects the artificial settling of splits between parties and supports true representation.

There are two pitches on the table for the future of the political left in the UK - a radical proposal from Caroline Lucas and a pragmatic one from Vince Cable

The September conference marked Tim Farron's first as leader of the Liberal Democrats. Photograph: Tim Farron at the Lib Dem conference rally on 19 September 2015 by Dave Radcliffe (License) (Cropped)

Tim Farron's first speech, as leader, at a Liberal Democrat party conference came at a crucial time for the UK's political Left (Kuenssberg, 2015). Farron used his speech to try and unite liberals and social democrats and relaunch the Lib Dems as an opposition party at a time when the opponents of David Cameron and George Osborne are scattered and divided.

Less than six months after a bad election night for Britain's progressives, the two main parties of the Left have just come out of the turmoil of leadership elections. The internal wrangling, squabbles surrounding their respective contests, and the distraction they caused - particularly Labour's (Bush, 2015) - have allowed the thin Conservative majority to roll on unchallenged.

The question that lingers behind the efforts of figures within individual parties, like Farron, is how progressives of all parties, with their new leaderships in place, should come together to present an opposition to the Conservatives.

With regards to that question, there have been two pitches, each representing a different approach to tackling Conservative dominance: one from Caroline Lucas and the other from Vince Cable.

Shortly after the election, Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP, made the first pitch. She suggested that a progressive alliance be formed in time for the next election in order to avoid splitting the anti-Tory vote (Cowburn & Boffey, 2015). Lucas argued that parties on the Left - again, Labour in particular - needed to embrace multi-party politics and co-operation to counter the advantage that 'split' votes offers to the Conservatives under the present first-past-the-post electoral system (Lucas, 2015).

The second pitch was made by Vince Cable, former deputy leader of the liberal democrats and business secretary. Cable took advantage of the dissensions and threats of splits and defections amongst Labour MPs to resurrect the idea of a realignment of the left (Mason & Perraudin, 2015) - an idea favoured by Roy Jenkins and Tony Blair (d'Ancona, 2015). Cable argues that there is a strong support for a progressive, centrist, party and that moderates from Labour and the Liberal Democrats could unite to fill that space. 

The election of Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron, as leaders of Labour and Liberal Democrats respectively, clearly shows where the hearts of the party grassroots are - deep within the radical left. That certainly suggests that there is an openness to the pitch made by Caroline Lucas for a radical alliance, where co-operation replaces the previous status quo, in pursuit of common progressive aims.

However, the parliamentary Labour Party and the so-called 'liberal-left' media have been cold to those instincts (Blair, 2015; Cook, 2015). Since his election, Jeremy Corbyn has been faced with rumours of splits, breakaways and defections by the self-described 'moderate' elements of his party (Peston, 2015).

Tim Farron has so far seen little of this kind of response, despite coming from the more radical edge of the Liberal Democrats (White, 2015). Yet his speech yesterday still tacked to the centre, using language that would appeal to centrist and Right-leaning liberals on hard work and opportunities and making references - that will be familiar to followers of the Labour Party (Penny, 2015) - to the necessity of attaining power before a difference can be made (Farron, 2015).

Within both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, there are signs that the old patterns are hard to break. When one party makes a radical move, the other makes a centrist move - each trying to outmanoeuvre the other to be the one, dominant opposition to the Conservatives.

That certainly seems to make Cable's version of the Left coming together more likely. Historically, as Tony Blair has been at pains to tell the world (BBC, 2014), that has been the only choice that has ever been successful.

Yet that does not dampen the desirability of a radical alternative - nor lessen its necessity. Achieving long lasting and much needed change will require more than just an opposition. It needs a compelling alternative. Cable's proposal provides the first, but not the second. In Lucas' pitch, there is the possibility of both.

The austerity narrative, upon which Conservative domination rides, is part of a larger set of systems and presumptions that all need to be challenged - down to their roots. Only a radical alternative can do that - one that is willing to question accepted realities like the two-party monopoly over the electoral system.

So far, radical opposition, across Europe, has been stifled by its isolation (Fazi, 2015). In the UK, however, there are growing opportunities for progressives to work together - and they must if they are to challenge the establishment and the Conservatives who control it.

But before progressives can start down that road they must ask themselves a question, to which the answer matters: will they work together in the pragmatic centre, hoping to inherit control over the establishment, to soften its edges; or will they pursue a more radical course, seeking to challenge the establishment with an alternative vision?

Clemenceau showed that you can achieve radical change in politics away from the establishment's institutional power

Portrait of Georges Clemenceau by Édouard Manet. Photograph: By Renaud Camus (license) (cropped)

The UK Labour Party's old guard establishment of former leaders and ministers has shown a crushing fear of the task of opposing the Tories when out office - out in the civic space where debate, protest and journalism set the political agenda. Yet history shows that it not only can be done, but that it is necessary to making radical change possible.

Clemenceau and the Dreyfus Affair

Georges Clemenceau, a leading figure amongst the French Radicals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, consistently found himself caught between more extreme forces. The man who would go on to be 'The Tiger' of France as Prime Minister during the Great War, was caught between a reactionary government and the revolutionary commune in 1871 and then later made a scapegoat, in 1893, for the Panama corruption scandal.

Ousted at the elections that followed the scandal and frozen out, Clemenceau poured his energies into journalism. After a time championing the radical causes close to his heart, he became wrapped up in a slow burning campaign, one that took several years to catch light, in support of Albert Dreyfus' innocence.

The Dreyfus Affair, involved the scandalous selling of military secrets being pinned on Dreyfus, a Jewish captain, at a time of rising anti-Semitism. Several years after a miscarriage of justice saw Dreyfus imprisoned, Clemenceau was presented with evidence by Arthur Ranc, a Dreyfusard journalist, which was seconded by the Senator Auguste Scheurer-Kestner.

Clemenceau used his position as editor of L'Aurore to demand a retrial. When that trial too proved a farce, he was approached by the famous author Emile Zola. Clemenceau published an incendiary letter by Zola - headed as 'J'accuse...!' by Clemenceau himself - as the front page of L'Aurore. It named names and called out corruption amongst the political class in a letter addressed directly to the President.

In one dramatic stroke - which saw the newspaper's readership increase from 30,000 to 300,000 - the outcast Radical had thrown himself in amongst, not only, the supporters of Dreyfus, but also amongst the opponents of anti-Semitic nationalism.

From 1897 to 1899, Clemenceau campaigned alongside others, including Bernard Lazare who had been working to prove Dreyfus innocent since the matter began in 1894, in what has been described as "one of the greatest achievements of French journalism" (Daniel Halevy, in Hampden Jackson, 1946):

"...a close-knit discussion carried on over two years, sustained each morning by an article sparkling with wit, vigour and rationality..."

That journalist-led civic discussion eventually achieved a Presidential pardon for Dreyfus (although Clemenceau thought that still to be an injustice); a sea change in parliament with government and ministers toppling and the Radicals becoming the biggest party, bringing substantial reforms like the separation of church and state, the secularisation of education and the abolition of censorship; and the return of Clemenceau himself to parliament as a Senator.

Labour's fear of impotence

In the present, Labour has been warning loudly of the danger of the impotence from which the party will suffer without the institutional mechanisms of the establishment at their beck and call. From Tony Blair to Gordon Brown (Blair, 2015; Mason & Halliday, 2015), the party members have been urged not to vote the Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn, according to some of the party's own MPs, is a purveyor of "crazy left-wing policies" who will leave the party out on the British political fringe and will face internal rebellions from the moment he is elected (Wilkinson, 2015). Yet that attitude from the Labour Parliamentary Party can hardly be considered a safer course. It mimics the very same, deeply unpopular, attitude towards its own membership, as the Eurozone held towards Greece. Embracing the status quo as a party of establishment bureaucracy also did little for PASOK, the main social democrat party in Greece, which collapsed at the election in January (Chakrabortty, 2015).

It also ignores Labour's essential problem - it has never changed 'the political fundamentals in its favour' (Kirby, 2015). Labour has always preferred, instead, to use them in its own service. In doing so, the Labour has forgotten about social power in order to play the best they can according to the rules of the political game (Tietze, 2015) - and so cling to an institutional power that comes with serious restraints, from various sources of pressure, and offers ever diminishing returns.

"Although the history of the Left has produced an extraordinary theoretical legacy, which continues to be the nucleus of almost all radical thinking, it has nonetheless left a trail of extraordinary failures in practice.

I understand the dialectical relation between theory and practice, of course, but we have to admit that in real historical terms this dialectic is terribly uneven, to the degree in fact that it may render questionable a great many of these theoretical achievements, which, if we are going to be rigorously leftist about it, cannot really stand entirely on their own." (Gourgouris, 2015)

When pressed, Labour's establishment figures may point to the danger of leaving the Tories with majority power. Yet their power has depended upon an effective control of the civic debate, framing and directing the discussion in a civic space that Labour has seemingly abandoned (d'Ancona, 2015).

Recovering radicalism

This boils down to an essential point: the importance of the social debate makes the direct pursuit of institutional power almost an irrelevance (Gourgouris, 2013).

In order to govern radically, a group first has to engage the public in the civic space, where is fostered the power to govern and change society regardless of hierarchies and institutions (Gourgouris, 2013). Clemenceau and the Dreyfusards were an early modern example of the power there is in the civic space. For radicals, this means encouraging localised self-organisation, opening up a space for teaching and learning, and fighting against alienation.

Labour has already made one big step in that direction when it chose to, effectively, crowdsource a leadership candidate (Perkins, 2015). But this example of radical democracy in action is only a beginning. In order to be a vital part of the Left, Labour has to accept that it is only a part.

Radicalism requires space for protest and critical dissent, for differences of opinion, for discussion, debate and disagreement (Gourgouris, 2015). The radical Left needs the internal antagonism of multi-party politics, not the domination of a singular power. It needs to be an activist outside of parliament and a disruptive troublemaker within it - not unlike the belligerent Clemenceau a century ago.

It looks unlikely that Labour will be able to muster enough enthusiasm amongst progressives to get over the majority electoral line while it continues to preach the values of the establishment. However, if any of the leadership candidates, of which Corbyn looks most likely, can embrace this kind of radical shift in the party - away from centralism, statism and party leader domination - there is hope of a new, more pluralistic, Left mounting a serious challenge in 2020.

Labour's woes continue as the party splits over welfare cuts - where is their unifying idea?

The Labour Party is in the midst of an identity crisis. Two election defeats seem to have completely sapped the party of self-belief and bold ideas and now the party is divided over the merits of the Tory Chancellor's cuts (Perraudin, 2015).

Labour are struggling to come up with a convincing alternative narrative to the one George Osborne is using to bulldoze his way through the public sector. That struggle is pulling the party apart into distinct factions.

Yet a big internal squabble might actually be, in the end, rejuvenating.

The factions in that fight a pretty familiar. There is the New Labour mainstream - a majority of which seem to be more Brownite than Blairite, following the school of Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband. These are the moderates and modernisers, represented by Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper in the leadership race.

To the Right of the mainstream modernisers there is a faction that has gone under several names, Blue Labour and One Nation Labour in particular. This is the wing of the party, represented by Liz Kendall in the leadership race, that wants Labour to embrace working class conservatism, along with the Far-Right themes of anti-immigration and clampdowns on welfare.

It is also clear that there is a small but significant number of Labour MPs, at the moment with Jeremy Corbyn as their ringleader, who are significantly to the Left of the Labour mainstream. They have stood here against welfare cuts here and Corbyn's leadership campaign has firmly embraced the broader anti-austerity movement.

How this division is healed will depend upon a lot of factors, internal and external to the party. But it is a state of affairs that must ultimately be settled. Labour's determination to be a big tent has largely suppressed or alienated voters on the Left, driving many of them away - particularly in Scotland.

If the moderate or Right-wing faction wins out, how much longer will its Left-wing remain bottled? If the Left-wing wins out, will the mainstream fall in line?

In the face of these issues, there are predictions that Labour faces an extended stay in the wilderness (Moss, 2015). One of the few ways back would encompass a major change of direction: embracing the proposed progressive pact in England and embracing electoral reform that can ensure representative government, showing that Labour is finally working to work co-operatively with others on the Left.

Yet for many progressives, who would have been taking hope from Caroline Lucas' progressive alliance proposal (Lucas, 2015), there will have been an ironically collective sigh of despair when Labour's tendency to give in to populism struck again - this time in the form of Harriet Harman (Wintour, 2015):

"We cannot simply say to the public: you were wrong..."

Why not? What exactly is the point of an opposition party, many on the Left will be asking, is if it isn't going to oppose?

If the party are just going to argue for the same policies as the Tories, differing only on who is better equipped to administer them, then are Labour and the Conservatives anything more than two squabbling factions of essentially the same party?

And if the party is just going to be a reflection of popular opinion, then does it even stand for anything? Where is the belief, the ideology, the theory?

That only produces an image of a Labour Party more interested in power than standing for something. It wants to build trust through sycophancy, not through ideas, theory, facts and reason.

While in the US, Bernie Sanders is proposing a push of support for trade unions, worker-owned co-operatives and the living wage (O'Hara, 2015), Labour are getting themselves in a political twist over whether or not to support Conservative cuts to welfare set to have a disastrous effect on the poorest (White, 2015).

Labour's next leader has to find a way to navigate these splits, these contradictions and the party's overall idealistic emptiness (Hawkins, 2015). There are internal rifts to heal and the Centre-Left of the political spectrum filled with alternatives to navigate. The leadership race itself, with its warts and all exposure of the party's factions is a helpful start in the process of reconciliation.

For the external matters, co-operation is surely Labour and the Left's best hope of opposing the Conservatives on big progressive issues like human rights and electoral reform. For the party's internal struggle, the answer can only be found by digging deep. By looking for the roots of what unites Labour supporters of all stripes and all those allied to the socialist and democratic movement.

To, humbly, get the ball rolling, here one word that offers a place to start: Justice.

Liberals have liberty. Greens have sustainability. With these words, and the ideas they represent, they can construct coherent tests for any policy. Labour seem to lost their connection to a simple and fundamental idea that would underwrite social democratic and democratic socialist analysis, and so their ability to construct a meaningful and consistent narrative.

The new leader of the Labour Party, to be announced in September, has to reclaim a unifying idea - like Justice - if they are to lead the party back out of the fractious wilderness.

Tory government back down on Foxhunting exposes the lie of the stable majority

For now at least, the Foxhunting ban remains. Photograph: Fox Grooming via photopin (license) (cropped)

In response to the SNP making clear that it would opposed a relaxing of the laws on foxhunting, the Conservative government has withdrawn the vote it set on the issue (Mason, 2015). A vote had originally been scheduled for Wednesday (BBC, 2015), with the government accused of attempting to bring back foxhunting by the back door (Mason & Brooks, 2015).

The Conservative response in the media will likely be to cry foul on the SNP involving themselves in 'English affairs' (Mason & Brooks, 2015{2}; Jenkins, 2015). But the reality is that internal division is what has stopped this vote from going ahead - divisions that expose the lie of the stable majority.

With a majority in the Commons, the Conservatives should have been able to pass their 'relaxation' of the law. However they faced opposition from both backbenchers, and even ministers, within their own ranks (Helm, 2015).

Foxhunting is just the latest issue to expose the lie of majority rule, with a fragile Conservative government facing constant risks of internal rebellion. What is particularly notable, is that it is the more moderate Conservatives who are causing them so much trouble.

Under the Coalition, many of the more extreme Tory policies never even saw the light of day. The issues on which moderates are rebelling - including a threatened withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights Convention (Watt, 2015) and misrepresenting Britain's relationship with Europe (May, 2015) - were all options opposed and suppressed by the Liberal Democrats.

In fact, most of the struggles Cameron's Ministry have faced over their first two months in office have, seemingly against expectation (Cowley, 2015), come opposition from their moderate wing. The moderates seem to be working overtime to make up for the absence of a liberal influence in restraining the reactionary Far-Right.

Is it possible that they now feel that they took the Liberal Democrats for granted? Are they maybe beginning to regret the electoral strategy of directly assaulting their former coalition partners?

The compromises of the Coalition served the Conservatives well in allowing them to portray themselves as reasonable and responsible. Foxhunting is one of the issues that could undo all of that very quickly and return the toxicity to the Conservative 'brand' (Platt, 2015; Gosden et al, 2015).

Between the toxic nature of extremism and the internal factional divisions, here, exposed, are the flaws of majority government. Handed a virtual five year dictatorship - as long as they can keep their numbers together - there is nothing but self-restraint to prevent parties veering into their own extreme corners, and alienating the usually large proportion of the population who did not vote them into to power.

That power is on display in the matter of foxhunting, which the Tories apparently plan on returning to again in the autumn, once they have introduced their plans for Evel - English votes for English laws (Mason, 2015). The majority party hasn't gotten its way, so it is changing the rules.

Even if you accept the inequality of majority rule on the basis of 36% of the vote - and less than 25% of all eligible voters - internal divisions afflicting the Conservatives show that the system reflects no unanimity..

With electoral reform there might at least be a more honest exploration of beliefs through smaller parties, than found in squabbling big tents. There would also be hope for governments that would be based on a compromise that is representative of the views of broad parts of society - not simply imposing the will of a loud minority on everyone else.

Election 2015: Party manifesto commitments and the values behind the policies

The traditional view of electoral politics in the UK is of two parties, one of the Centre-Left and one of the Centre-Right, who struggle with one another for control over the establishment. The one that succeeds is expected to implement their manifesto, a vision of the policies for the coming years - diametrically opposed to those of the opposition.

Yet the reality is that there has been - for some time, and accentuated in this election campaign - a lot of pretty obvious similarities between, and almost imitation of each other by, the supposedly fundamentally oppositional traditional Left and Right parties, Labour and Conservative (Robinson, 2015; Peston, 2015).

In many ways, though, that is kind of the point of majoritarian electoral competition. If the parties are competing for votes, rather than purely representing them, then by necessity they must appeal to the broadest possible audience. That broad vision, for which both parties try to sell their manifesto as the best representative, is called the political consensus. In the UK, that consensus has leaned slightly to the Right-of-Centre over the last five years - in response to thirteen years of Centre-Left government (NatCen, 2015).

So when both of 2015's main parties offer to be tough on immigration, harsh on welfare, and efficient with the public finances - particularly in needing to find £30bn to balance the budget (Peston, 2014), and when they talk about working people and families, they are trying to appeal to what they believe to be the issues that reflect the hopes, fears, concerns and values of the broadest possible audience.

With the expansion of Britain's political system over the last five years, from a two-party system to a multi-party system, a new element has been added to what a political manifesto has to achieve. As the number of parties represented increases, the chances of a major party claiming the number of seats needed for a majority decreases. By making one-party majorities difficult to achieve, alliances become essential. The manifesto becomes a means of communicating with other parties as well as with voters, as the starting point for future negotiations (Rawnsley, 2015).

To fully comprehend the manifesto released by any of the parties in 2015, the reader now has to consider all of these factors.

The problem is that, for many, it is hard to distinguish between the message being sent out to voters by each of the different parties. The protected and increased funding for the NHS, the clampdowns on immigration and on working-age welfare, an increase in house building, and a commitment to balancing public expenses and revenue: the four largest parties - in terms of support in the popular polls across the UK - all fall clearly within these parameters.

But it would not be right to say, however, that there are no differences.

Conservatives and UKIP

Conservative and UKIP plans have both been criticised for offering all sorts of tax cuts, alongside additional spending, even as they commit to going further and deeper with austerity cuts than has already been seen.

The Conservatives have been singled out, in particular, for repeatedly failing to address what will be targeted for spending cuts (BBC, 2015). David Cameron himself has even gone so far as to say that voters should simply trust the Conservative record (Gage, 2015). Aside from cuts, the Conservative manifesto places a hard focus on convincing people that the party cares about working people - from extending Right-to-buy to housing association tenants, and offering some discounts; to taking minimum wage workers out of tax, raising the minimum wage and creating more apprenticeships. But all of these are offset by other policies. There is a commitment to cutting taxes on businesses, increasing the legal threshold required for strikes and taking welfare away from young people.

UKIP seems set upon tax cuts as well - acting as little more than the extreme-wing of the Conservative Party. Their plans include what Nigel Farage termed an £18bn tax give-away. Their manifesto also contains a greatest hits compilation of the other parties' most popular policies, their own obsessions like anti-immigration, and plans to cut funding to the EU, to international aid, to Scotland and Wales, even to axe infrastructural projects like HS2 - seeking to save some £29bn in the process. But all the talk of saving money from withdrawing and scrapping all seems very short term and short sighted (Elliot, 2015).

£29bn in cuts to address the deficit and fund the NHS, plus another £18bn to be found in tax cuts, constitutes a lot of money to be found without taking into account the fact that these cuts could result in damage to Britain's economic and financial interests. The money spent on the EU and International Aid in particular go to facilitating better conditions, here and abroad, for ourselves as well as others. Much of the EU spending notably returns to the UK, in the form of grants to support local councils and scientific research.

With Conservative plans to take less revenue - a reduction on inheritance tax, more spending on opening free schools, more funding for the NHS, a doubling of the free childcare allowance, taking minimum wage workers out of tax, building 200,000 homes, extending right-to-buy for tenants of social housing, keeping museums and galleries free to enter, freezing the BBC license fee, and, on top of all of it, finding around £30bn in order to eliminate the deficit - it is a glaring omission that we do not clearly know where the money will come from. While some Conservatives have offered the vague answer that a recovering economy would increase tax revenue and so offset any tax give-aways (Ridley, 2015), it would seem that a voter would be gambling on quite a lot with a vote for a Conservative government.

Labour

The traditional alternative to the Conservatives would seem to be offering a different kind of gamble. While Labour have consistently rejected the suggestion that they will cover spending commitments with borrowing, their slower and steadier approach to lowering the deficit and debt would certainly leave them room for a little greater flexibility (Peston, 2015{2}). The party appear to be aiming to use their focus on raising living standards, by doing things like raising the minimum wage to £8 an hour by the end of the next parliament and promote the living wage, to ultimately increase tax revenues - in a manner parallel to Conservative plans dependent upon economic growth - and offset any spending commitments.

This kind of attention to the fiscal details is all part of Labour's attempt to rebuild its credibility (Elliott, 2015{2}). After the economic crisis began on the party's watch, there seems to be an understanding that Labour needs to re-establish its credentials. Yet that determination to be seen as credible has meant the party has signed up for an economic orthodoxy run very much according to a conservative narrative (Eaton, 2015), and faces accusations from other parties, such as the SNP, of offering little more than austerity-lite (Wintour & Mason, 2015).

That means trying to find different ways of doing what Labour previously relied upon the state to do. Promises to reinstate the 50p tax rate and to end Non-Dom tax status signal a move away from New Labour, but the commitment to austerity refrains the party from moving to the traditional ground of taxing, borrowing and spending (Peston, 2015{3}). Instead, by increasing the minimum wage, proposing ways of tackling rising rent and energy costs, and capping private profits from NHS contracts - rather than simply replacing market solutions with public control - Labour seems to be suggesting that it has learnt its lesson when it comes to trying to micromanage everything from central government.

Liberal Democrats

For those that agree with the mainstream consensus, the safe option would seem to be the Liberal Democrats. The party has reduced its need for particularly deep cuts, as they try to balance the books, by promising to raise taxes on the wealthier, to restrict some of their benefits, and to introduce new levies like the Mansion Tax on their homes. Meanwhile they still leave themselves free to expand spending later in the Parliament, once the deficit is eliminated and the economy is growing - particularly on the NHS to which the Lib Dems were the first to commit to funding by a full £8bn more per year by the end of the next Parliament. Yet beneath the surface of the Lib Dem manifesto policies themselves, there is the appearance of an interesting division.

In some ways it would seem to be a revealing tale of two liberalisms. The manifesto was prepared by a group headed up by David Laws and constructed with the help of the party's usual process of democratic policy creation. The overall content of the manifesto itself represents the Centre-Left social liberalism of the party membership at large - protections of rights and liberties, combined with action to ensure an 'opportunity for everyone' - and contains many policies green in colour and libertarian in flavour (Wintour, 2015). Priority is given to investments in industrial regeneration - particularly digital and green energy based - and to the introduction of their 'Five Green Laws', along with indulging the party's love for rights and liberties - this time with protections for digital rights and for the rights of journalists (Elliot et al, 2015).

However the priorities from that manifesto, and the tightly controlled message constructed around it (The Guardian, 2015), are right out of Laws' Orange Book Market Liberalism, seen by many as the Lib Dems' Right-wing. The presentation of the Lib Dem manifesto - which sets it aside from the two traditional political powerhouses by having their coalition negotiation priorities on the front cover - focus heavily upon the narrative used to justify the coalition and represent the party's main policy successes therein. The fact that the majority of the front cover commitments have been copied by the Conservatives - and the absence of a mention of the UK's membership of the Europe Union - is notable.

Yet there is still plenty of common ground to which Ed Miliband can pitch - his main compromise will be meet the Lib Dem priorities already co-opted by the parties of the Right. The rest of the Lib Dem manifesto looks like it would integrate with that of Labour quite neatly. From a commitment to staying in Europe, to the introduction of a Mansion Tax and increasing taxes on the wealthier, there is much that a Lib-Lab accord could agree on without a fight. Labour action on letting agent fees and the Lib Dem policy of help-to-rent tenancy loans represent what might well be easily integrated, pretty comfortably, with a Labour system.

While the the priorities and message make it easy to see another term with the Tories, the manifesto at large appeals to a coalition with Labour. Sitting between the two, Clegg's team are working hard - favouring a controlled strategic message over openness and idealism (Green, 2015) - to present the Lib Dems as the more attractive prospective governing partner to all sides, when compared to the SNP or UKIP (Robinson, 2015{2}).

Greens

Yet not everyone is convinced by the conventional wisdom, however balanced and reasonable it may be presented. The Green Party represents the progressive alliance group of parties - including Plaid Cymru in Wales and the SNP in Scotland - in its opposition to the dominant pro-austerity, deficit-reduction narrative.

The Green Party's pitch to voters represents the Left-wing ground that some feel Labour has abandoned (Behr, 2015). Renationalisation of the railways, completely excising privatisation from the NHS, the introduction of a £10 living wage, a 60p top rate of tax, an expansion of the public sector, the abolition of tuition fees and the abandonment of the economics of austerity, growth and balanced budgets - these all represent an occupation of political ground Labour clearly feels it cannot win from.

The problem facing the Greens is that their pitch also means far more spending and far more borrowing to pay for a complete change of direction in terms of the size of the state. As the election gets closer and gaps get tighter, they will probably be squeezed out in favour of a safer option. That will mean a best case scenario of picking up only a very few seats, with which they can do little but pressure a minority government. That means deciding how to balance their idealism against the reality of what they can actually achieve (The Guardian; 2015{2}) - the very thing upon which the Lib Dems ran aground in 2010.

'Sooner or later, idealism and realism have to come to some sort of accommodation.'

For the Greens, according the MP and former leader Caroline Lucas, that means crafting a set of priorities that can at as an anchor to restrain Labour's move to the Right (Mason, 2015). Yet it is the commitment to some deeply idealistic policies found in the Green manifesto that will be the main attraction for many - chief examples amongst them being the Citizen's Income with its promise of an end to poverty and the abolition of tuition fees. But those are not the priorities of all supporters and members, many of whom put their vision of environmental sustainability first. Managing those tensions will be key to this manifesto, and how it is applied in the next parliament, not pulling the party apart.

The Underlying Values

Those ideals, lying beneath the often fairly similar priorities and policies, are an important part of manifesto. They can be woven in a co-ordinated into the fabric of the policies contained within it, or for parties like UKIP, remain hidden beneath a deflective surface of popular policies taken from other parties.

For example, behind the Conservative expansion of Right-to-buy - on its surface increasing the supply of houses to help ordinary people onto the property ladder - has been criticised as a Thatcherite sell-off of public property that does little to address the actual problem. It has been accused of instead furthering the lack of access to affordable shelter for the less well off, by depleting reserves of social housing (Jones, 2015). That policy chimes consistent with the Conservative emphasis upon reducing the size of the state, putting the burden of welfare upon the shoulders of the individuals themselves within the private market.

Both of the two main parties share similar approaches to both immigration and welfare - likely reacting to cover political ground opened up by the campaigns against immigrants, and those receiving working age benefits, led by UKIP and the Right-wing press (Greenslade, 2015). But their reasons for doing so are different.

Labour, caught between the arguments of Blue Labour - that the party needs to recapture working class voters by appealing to their conservatism - and their own attempts to divert attention away from immigration and on to low pay and falling living standards, seem reluctantly to have taken a cynical position as a qualified concession. The party have spoken of some controls on immigration as a campaign priority, but have kept their focus on low pay and living standards.

On welfare the matter seems even less clear. While the Tories talk of rewarding hard work with a plan seemingly based on relative comparison - cutting taxes for low paid workers and punishing those in need of welfare with more and heavier restrictions (Peston, 2015{4}) - Labour have moved to the Right to cover the Tories almost blow for blow in restricting benefits. Young people face particularly severe cuts in support. That move, along with the shift on immigration, is causing some confusion as to what the party is actually standing for (Perkins et al, 2015).

Multi-party politics

Amongst the positives of a shift to multi-party politics is that it allows for the possibility of parties as representatives - if the biggest parties could let go of their lust for power. Parties representing different ideals would represent their supporters in finding alliances and common grounds for co-operation that do not depend everyone being forced under one big tent.

The parties could focus upon representing a consistent set of values or priorities, like those found in the Lib Dem or Green manifesto, values like a free society or a sustainable society, and less on trying to appeal to all audiences. A centrist balance between idealistic visions is then achieved by a coalition after an election, where as broad a group of parties as possible agree to work on achieving their common or compatible ideas.

Right now, though, we are still bogged down in the practicality of majoritarian politics. The Tories and Labour find little room for an idealistic vision, and policies that reflect those values are watered down before they even reach the pages of the manifesto. Their concern is to gather as many voters as possible in order to claim control over the establishment and its power - the same old story.

While the Lib Dems remain the most well adapted to the realities of multi-party politics, with a manifesto that finds room for their ideals but sets them beneath the priorities for post-election negotiations - a mixture of ideals and practicalities - it is likely that only the Greens who have presented a vision of a society, in their manifesto, that truly represents an uncompromising pursuit of their values.

At this election, the absence of major concessions to practicality will likely count against them. But in the future we might possibly, hopefully, see it a little more often - if the traditional parties cannot reimpose their system on 7th May.