When the Centre is discredited only the Right benefits - the Left has no shortcuts, it has to build and engage to move forward

The advance of the far right Front National in France has given rise to fears for the future of European Unity. Photograph: France and EU-flag, somewhere in Dunkerque by Sebastian Fuss (License) (Cropped & Flipped)

Earlier this week, Marine Le Pen's Front National (FN) took a, sadly not entirely unexpected, lead in the first round of the French regional elections (Chrisafis, 2015). While by no means emphatic, with 28% of the vote, to 27% for the Centre-Right Republicans and 23% for the Centre-Left Socialists, the Far-Right party nonetheless holds a lead that is no joke - thanks to the majority bonus awarded to the leading party in each region.

It will be a cold comfort to progressives that Front National's success has been largely laid at the feet of the parties of the Centre (Nougayrede, 2015). The rise of FN has been described seen as the product of the failures of the parties of the political centre. Those parties are struggling, discredited by their failure to address France's long term problem of unemployment and the impact, and narrow rewards, of globalisation.

The transformist Centre parties, with their "conservative and social democratic modes of liberalism", have come to be seen as a 'complacent', 'insulated' and elite 'caste', and having laid the foundations for themselves to be supplanted by the Far-Right's more emotive and simplistic alternatives (Behr, 2015).

"No two countries have exactly analogous politics, but common threads run across Europe. The unifying dynamic appears to be the interaction of financial insecurity and the cultural detachment of governing elites from the governed... politicians of the technocratic centre are perceived as a caste apart, professionally complacent, insulated by hoarded privilege from the anxiety provoked in electorates by economic turbulence and abrupt demographic change..."

The fact that the Far-Right sit now on the doorstep of the establishment, so close to power in one of Europe's largest and most influential countries, has sparked fears of what the Centre's failure will entail for the broader European project (Betancour, 2015). The European system, a symbol of the time and effort required to build progressive institutions that break down borders and bring people together, was decades in the making - but appears now to be only years in the unravelling.

What is notable is that, as the Centre has collapsed, only the Right has really benefited. Meanwhile the Left has made few, if any, gains. In fact, in France, FN have largely made their initial inroads into the traditional heartlands of the Centre-Left Socialists (Nardelli, 2015). So the big questions for progressives are: Why? And, what can be done?

In France, the first steps taken in response by the scrambling Centre were to close ranks (Willsher, 2015). France returns to the polls for the second round today and in districts where Socialists trail in third place, the party has withdrawn candidates - falling back on tactical voting to ensure the victory of the least worst alternative (Chrisafis, 2015{2}). It also made the remarkable, though unrequited, suggestion of forming a Republican Front - uniting Centre-Left and Centre-Right - to hold back the rise of Front National.

From the perspective of those on the Left, it might be a lot easier to pour scorn on such a project than to become embroiled with discredited establishment's attempts to save their own necks. Yet becoming involved is precisely what some have proposed.

In an article based on a lecture he gave in 2013, before his adventure into political economics as Finance Minister of Greece, Yanis Varoufakis argued that only the Right ever benefits from breakdown and disorder (Varoufakis, 2015).

"If my prognosis is correct, and we are not facing just another cyclical slump soon to be overcome, the question that arises for radicals is this: should we welcome this crisis of European capitalism as an opportunity to replace it with a better system? Or should we be so worried about it as to embark upon a campaign for stabilising European capitalism? To me, the answer is clear. Europe’s crisis is far less likely to give birth to a better alternative to capitalism than it is to unleash dangerously regressive forces that have the capacity to cause a humanitarian bloodbath, while extinguishing the hope for any progressive moves for generations to come."

What Varoufakis touches upon is that progressive politics depends upon building things - like a free and open civic space, or the infrastructure for broadly available healthcare and welfare. These things that cannot be easily made or remade, but are all too easy to tear down. In contrast, social or institutional breakdown benefits the Right because it drives itself with simpler, emotive, even instinctual, constructs. Traditionalism, moralism, nationalism: these have the advantage of being old and familiar, and already deeply rooted in the identity of the audience.

For Varoufakis, when the Centre fails, the Left needs to acknowledge its weakness and take up the task of responsible government - including propping up elements of the old establishment, in order to save past progress and to have something left to reform.

"Yet my aim here is to offer a window into my view of a repugnant European capitalism whose implosion, despite its many ills, should be avoided at all costs. It is a confession intended to convince radicals that we have a contradictory mission: to arrest the freefall of European capitalism in order to buy the time we need to formulate its alternative."

Alexis Tsipras, Radical Left Prime Minister of Greece, has described any politician setting foot upon that road as needing to be pragmatic about what can be accomplished in government (from Horvat, 2013).

"I believe that today 'radical' is to try to be able to take responsibility for the people, to not be afraid of that, and at the same time to maintain in the democratic road, in the democratic way. To take the power for the people and to give it back to the people."

Yet Tsipras' approach, this pragmatic radicalism, has its critics. On the one hand, it plays an exhausting game with democratic institutions that can be easily become fatigued (Patrikarakos, 2015). On the other, buying into the game in order to achieve practical things comes with a risk of succumbing to its pressures and ultimately conforming (Anthony, 2015). Another concern with Tsipras' pragmatic approach, is that the line of thinking can very easily lead to the temptations of Blairism.

Just this week, Tony Blair himself took to the pages of The Spectator to offer a defence of the 'Blairist' approach (Perraudin, 2015). He was quick to point out the 'flaw' in his critics' thinking.

"In particular, significant elements of the Party saw the process of governing with all its compromises, pragmatism and embrace of changing times as implicit betrayal of our principles."

Blair's defence of his direction focusses tightly, as his defenders and successors often do, on being willing to make 'hard choices' in order to be in power - placing value on "aspiring to govern" over being a "fringe protest" (Blair, 2015).

Yet that attitude also features a dangerous obsession with basing practical politics in "reality". On the face of it, this is a call for rational politics, taking the world as what it is rather than the utopia you might wish it to be - to base policy, and the political moves used to achieve them, on the 'reality' of the world as you find it. The trouble is that, beneath the surface of this approach, what it really means is engaging in a deceitful game of playing on, and to, often incomplete or outright wrong public perceptions (Jones, 2015).

For those who feel New Labour wandered too far to the political Right, a big part of the problem was that they had become anchored to 'reality', largely purveyed by a conservative media, and played to popular prejudice in search of an easy route to power. In the process simply turning the Centre and Left into a vehicle for the popular conservatisms of the moment.

The danger of that course is, however, that if you keep playing to conservative perceptions you are only going to reinforce them. The result will be more citizens who interpret the world through conservative perceptions, and so make their decisions accordingly - ultimately making it more difficult to propose progressive policies in the future.

European politics, and in particular politics in France, have seen an expansion of this problem. Technocrats have spent decades quietly implementing the rules and regulations to bring about European unity - at least in the technical sense. Yet they have spent too little time on the engagement, debate and education in the civic space that promotes and spreads the values behind them, and creates the 'values consciousness' amongst the public that parallels institutions and builds a bridge between them.

In the UK, the Liberal Democrats stand as a cautionary tale. The Lib Dems spent decades rebuilding, offering a progressive alternative but where brought low in just five years when they failed to meet the expectations of their supporters - decades in the recruiting - trying to meet the popular expectations of a 'party of government'.

In order to build a lasting progressive politics, there needs to be a long term, concerted social project - for hearts and, particularly, minds - that develops and promotes a form of compassionate, rational, government (Clark, 2015). Progressive parties have to be engaged with the political tasks of spreading ideas and changing minds required for the construction of a progressive social consciousness.

To that end, simply sneaking into power by pretending to be conservative isn't enough, and it never will be. That doesn't mean that the Left shouldn't seek to be practical, like Varoufakis suggests, and, as in France today, be willing to be practical in its compromises with the Centre and the establishment to prevent much worse outcomes.

But the Left has to be about more than just words. It needs to act as well, to actively live its values and promote their means and purposes. Progressives cannot be afraid to govern, but they cannot sacrifice the necessary work for easy access to power. There is no trade off to be made. Trying to do the former without the latter will only lead to failure, compounding more failures to come.

Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour leadership election in a revolution of party members overthrowing the party establishment

Jeremy Corbyn MP speaks at anti-drones rally in 2013. Photograph: By stopwar.org.uk (license)(cropped)

Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour Party with 59.5% of the vote in the first round of voting. In a contest where over four hundred thousand people voted, no other candidate achieved over 20% of the vote and Corbyn won in every party category, including 49% of established party members and 57% of trade union members.

In the build-up, Tom Watson was also announced as the winner of the deputy leadership contest. The MP, who led the campaign to hold the media to account after accusations arose of  illegalities, promised in his acceptance speech to back the new leader and help them to unite the party.

Whether or not the new leadership can unite the party is the big question that will come out of this contest. The remarkable rise of Jeremy Corbyn exposed a rift between the Labour Parliamentary Party and the party's wider membership and supporters.

The contest had been initially dominated by the more right-leaning Blairites and and centrist Brownites, in the form of younger generation candidates like Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt and Liz Kendall and older generation members like Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper.

Yet there was a sense that the party's Left needed to be represented in order to have a substantial debate. That was only accomplished with the assistance of MPs 'lending' Corbyn their nominations. And yet those 'lent' nominations opened a floodgate. The popular appeal of Corbyn seemingly gave the Labour Left the confidence to come out in numbers and chance a return to the mainstream.

The future of the Labour Party from here may well have a lot to do with how it organises going forward.

In the run up to today's announcement, with the defeat of the followers of Brown and Blair seemingly imminent, there began to be suggestions that the two groups should unite themselves into a strong 'moderate' faction. United and organised, they would represent a formidable pressure group, pushing Corbyn to adopt pragmatic policies - and there are already signs of ranks closing with members of the shadow cabinet resigning.

The Left-wing faction, over which Jeremy Corbyn has effectively become leader in the last few months, has shown that it is strong in the party, but it remains firmly a parliamentary outsider. Its numbers are spread out across the country, in trade unions and constituency parties.

Against the strength of the self-appointed 'moderates', who will still have great strength in parliamentary numbers, the Left will need new methods to support its approach. Following its supporters, that will likely mean shifting the power of policy-making away from MPs and out to activists in the community.

One very notable and troubling issue is the absence of a successful female nominee for either leadership position, with Yvette Cooper coming third in the leadership contest and Stella Creasy coming second in the deputy leadership race. That will need to be addressed. One option would be to appoint a female chancellor. But that will be something to delve into deeper as Corbyn announces his shadow cabinet in the coming days.

Today though, the story is that the mainstream pragmatists have lost control of the party to Corbyn and his more idealistic, popular, Left-wing supporters amongst the party membership. In his acceptance speech as the new Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn spoke of wanting to build a better society. For all progressives, it can only be positive and exciting to hear a leader, elected on a huge mandate, championing a challenge to inequality and poverty.

Humanitarian government is under attack and progressive opposition can no longer afford to be weak, scattered and resigned

The humanitarian crisis signified by the proliferation of food banks is a controversial legacy of the coalition government. Photograph: Woodcock St food bins in 2013 by Birmingham News Room (License) (Cropped)

The financial crisis and the austerity that followed exposed a vein of deep conservatism in Europe. Prodded in this raw spot, Europe has become defensive, closed and mean (The Guardian, 2015). That has been most apparent in the attack that has been launched, across the continent, on humanitarian government.

Everywhere, there is an eagerness for the throwing up of fences to separate us (Colonnelli, 2015), as nationalism has reared its head. As it has risen, it has brought with it a creeping fear and a deep mistrust of otherness. Those tensions have become so obvious, and so threatening, that the question of whether the Jewish people of Europe are still safe on the continent has even been asked (Omer-Jackaman, 2015).

All the while, internally, the community safety nets are being torn down in the name of austerity. The harsh and narrow terms set for what little support remains has left it in the hands of individual insurance, food banks and personal philanthropy to 'handle' those who fall behind or fall outside of the system (Snow, 2015).

By advocating the protection of the poor from their poverty, openness towards - and acceptance of - outsiders, and the protection minorities from the tyranny of the majority, humanitarianism is flying in the face of these, the dominant political values of the time. As a result, the idea of a humanitarian government is being besieged upon all sides and is slowly being deconstructed.

One place where it would be tempting to lay all of the blame for this, would be upon the ascendency of conservatism.

Conservatives, taking the opportunity presented by government institutions weakened by taking on the debt of private firms to allay the financial crisis, have shown an aggressive determination to strip back the state in the name of 'fiscally responsible' austerity and balanced budgets.

Yet, a large part of the blame must go to a damp progressive opposition that has failed to stand up for humanitarianism. This has been particularly stark in the UK, where the Labour Party so spectacularly failed to oppose the Conservative's coercive restructure of welfare (BBC, 2015).

The largest factor in this weak response seems to be a loss of confidence in positive government action. The financial crisis damaged the reputation of government - even despite government having been the mechanism with which the original crisis, that the private sector catastrophically caused, was tackled.

Without confidence and trust in government, and its ability to tax and spend to act positively, the Left - liberal and socialist - has lost its traditional tool. That has left progressives stranded, caught between accepting the popular conservative austerity narrative and trying to resurrect the old statist one. The lack of fresh ideas has been astounding.

That lack of conviction, and ingenuity, is proving disastrous for the progressive vision of civil society, where something not far short of a class war is playing out.

Even as conservatives have taken away 'dependence' creating government organisations, withdrawing the state's helping hand, around the world NGOs - Non-governmental organisations - are facing regulations and crackdowns that hinder their work supporting human rights and humanitarian aims (Sherwood, 2015). Control over civil society is being consolidated by those in power and it is being reshaped around their own competitive agenda.

This is leading to a kind of class consolidation, reinforcing the social hierarchy with meritocratic competition. Individuals are being pitted against each other in order to generate innovation and end the 'dependence' of the individual upon society. However, the deconstruction of humanitarian government is burdening, predominantly the poor, individuals with the prospect of a life of servitude.

For the Left, communitarians and individualists alike, these factors aught to be acting as a rallying flag. This is a common humanitarian cause which strikes to the heart of what progressives cherish most: justice and liberty.

The old welfare state served as holding pattern, a bastion against conservatism. As the stronghold began to show cracks, in the UK the Liberal Democrats arguably held back the worst of the flood in government (The Guardian, 2015{2}). However, that party has been cast out to the fringes and the walls of the fortress have crumbled.

So new barricades are needed.

As the argument of Oscar Wilde goes: charity is an insufficient and insulting partial restitution to the people of what was taken from them; and the ethical aim is to reconstruct society so poverty is impossible. That is the kind of radical thinking that is demanded from progressives if they are going to defend humanitarian government.

From political reform, to economic reforms like the Citizen's Income, co-operatives and mutuals, to policies aimed at ensuring sustainability and addressing the cost of living like green energy and housebuilding plans, the necessary ideas exist. The task ahead of progressives is to construct a reformist program for government with these ideas, rooted in strong evidence, and to assemble around it a formidable alliance to stand, both in civil society and at elections, for the common good.

Corbyn has brought idealism to the campaign, but needs to show how public ownership can further the pursuit of a just, inclusive and power-devolving society

Jeremy Corbyn MP speaks at anti-drones rally in 2013. Photograph: By stopwar.org.uk (license)(cropped)

Jeremy Corbyn's entry has electrified the Labour leadership contest (Eno, 2015). With people beginning to ask 'what happens if Jeremy Corbyn wins?', it might be a good time to look at what it is for which Corbyn is actually campaigning (Bush, 2015).

Jeremy Corbyn was originally ushered into the Labour leadership campaign as the alternative candidate (BBC, 2015). His job was to open up the debate Leftwards, to ensure that all voices were heard and that the 'electable' candidates had to work hard for the position.

Yet the campaign has been turned on its head by his entry. Endorsements from the trade unions and a popular anti-austerity following have put Corbyn in a strong position. It is now a very ready possibility that he could, in fact, win the leadership election.

That possibility has turned the race for the leadership into a showdown between Old Labour and New Labour, each with their own rival visions of the Left. Old Labour on the one side offering idealistic solutions, so acting as the national destination for those disenchanted with New Labour, on the other side, offering their pragmatic, 'modernising', solutions. (Jones, 2015)

The trouble is that neither side is being particularly radical. Corbyn's stances belong largely to the old Left, though hardly the hard Left (Krugman, 2015), and focus on a more structured and permanent society than the one that is unfolding at present (Harris, 2015) - that is: trade unions, nationalisation and a centralised state engaged in public spending and public ownership.

On the other side, fairly or unfairly, New Labour has been seen as a surrender to Centre-Right political thought. They are seen as a negative force that is too quick to shut down idealism (Watt, 2015; Watt, 2015{2}). They are, perhaps, too cosy with big business and too afraid of public opinion (Martin, 2015), to say anything distinct, other than to maintain a determination to make everything pass through a heavily centralised state.

But society is fragmenting. Democratic politics can seemingly no longer rely on mass support, marching under one big tent banner, that supports a singular centralised state, where power is wielded by the lofty party elite.

Historically, liberals and democrats stood, as progressives, opposed to the forces of conservatism that defended the traditional, elitist, order. Liberals stood in the name of the individual, democrats in the name of the people, or of the community.

As conservatism has, ironically perhaps, evolved in order to survive, it has taken on the cast offs from democrats and liberals as they have moved leftwards. From liberals it has embraced classical liberal laissez-faire economics. From democrats it has taken advantage of populism and nationalism.

All of these elements were once used as a means to rally people against the old elite. Themes that would as unifying rallying points, that could be used to transcend the particular concerns of particular individuals or communities.

But society has moved on once more. Rather than one community united by a singular narrative of economic class, there are dozens, hundreds, of communities with their own narratives - feminist, environmental, civil rights, trade unionist - who do not believe that their cause should be secondary.

Likewise individualism has moved forward. Individuals now support many causes, shifting between them or associated freely with several at once. There is a demand, not just for choice, but also for autonomy and the devolution and decentralisation of power.

These new, fragmented forms of democratic and liberal politics require new forms of solidarity - new ideas that the old approach of the mass party using the power of state to fend of the power of corporations and aristocrats is not set up to provide.

The big question facing Labour is how it can give a community response to a country that has seen community, in all of the traditional senses, collapse? Democracy and socialism speaks of people as fundamentally based on and in communities, based on the importance of ideas like your home town, your social class and your trade. But all of these are breaking down. Permanence is disappearing and with it the conventional anchors for these traditional communities.

How does a Labour party respond to social change that has so undone its means of rallying, organising and leading?

The starting point has be in addressing the fact that Labour's view, of the people as workers, with the state as their protector, redistributor and benefactor, seems to have broken down. That system needs to rebuilt on new themes.

That themes need to encompass Labour commitment to a democratic identity, a community focus and the pursuit of justice on these terms. But it also needs build in both the pursuit of progress and the allowance for alliances and fragmentation. Labour can be a coordinator, not just a director.

The radical new horizons on the Left for democratic socialists mean an inclusive attitudes towards the new and emerging political movements which have begun to get their days in the sun, at least in glimpses. From trade unions, to environmentalists, feminists and the civil rights advocates movement, there are numerous sectional interest groups, all pursuing their own agendas.

Yet unlike conservative sectionalism, it can't be about one group asserting its dominance over the others. Labour has to learn that progress will be, ultimately, about individuals and communities cooperating - breaking down the old powers and supporting the dispersal of it widely across society.

Jeremy Corbyn's campaign is already generating success (Milne, 2015), with Andy Burnham now openly advocating a gradual renationalisation of the railways (Perraudin, 2015). But it won't be enough to call upon the old centralising powers of party and state if they continue to alienate, suppress or exclude diverse movements.

More nuanced answers are needed to the complex issues of a contemporary society that is fragmented, becoming ever more temporary and fleeting. Calling upon the state, public ownership and trade unions to have a renewed role is not a bad thing. But people do need to know how those institutions can face the challenge of an ever more fragmented and decentralised society.

It is imperative that Corbyn's campaign addresses the matter of how he intends to turn these old Left mechanisms from yesterday into the inclusive, power-devolving, radical Left solutions of tomorrow.