Italian Left: Upheavals reveal progressive cross-section - struggle between pro-European current and rejection of neoliberalism. Can they be reconciled?

Matteo Renzi speaks in a university in October 2015. Photograph: Matteo Renzi a San Giobbe by the Università Ca' Foscari Venezia (License) (Cropped)

The Italian left is going through another of its upheavals, a common feature of politics in Italy over the last quarter century. There have been regular clashes and breakups over details and personalities. But this time, there may be a deeper root that can tell us something about the wider experience of progressive politics.

The Democrats as a Broad Front

Since the collapse of the centrist, statist, pentarchy - the five party system - in the 1990s, following the Mani Pulite investigation into political corruption that blew up into an engulfing scandal, the Italian left and centre has struggled to organise stable parties and coalitions.

At the centre of most efforts build a stable organisation of left and centre parties and supporters was Romano Prodi. He was a central figure in the movements La Margherita (The Daisy), L'Ulivo (The Olive Tree), and L'Unione. Prodi also played a central role in getting the broad and varied parties to agree to form the Partito Democratico.

The Democratic Party, the culmination of longstanding efforts to get the left to work together, eventually united most of those who might label themselves democrats - from democratic socialists to christian democrats, along with republicans, socialists, greens and progressive liberals.

But it seems to it wasn't to last. The present discord began with the leadership of Pier Luigi Bersani. From the old left of the movement, Bersani is a former member of the preceding Communist Party and the Democrats of the Left. When Bersani won the party leadership in 2009, it created a rift with centrist, liberal and christian democratic members of the party. They felt it confirmed the Democrats' drift leftwards and some decided to split away, to form new centrist parties.

Bersani, however, still won the primary for the Democrats' electoral coalition, 'Italia. Bene Comune' - which united both the mainstream Democrats and the green-socialist Sinistra Ecologia Liberta, 'Left Ecology Freedom'. Despite promising early polling numbers, the electoral list slipped back over the course of the campaign.

In the 2013 election, thanks to the electoral system, Bersani's Democrats took a narrow majority in the Chamber of Deputies, but the fell short in the Senate. The centre-right of Silvio Berlusconi regained ground and the anti-establishment, libertarian-right, Movimento 5 Stelle (Five Star Movement) showed surprising strength. In fact, the Democrats only achieved second-most votes among individual parties, behind Grillo's M5S

A tense period followed in which Bersani tried to find common ground with this new presence in the Italian Parliament - refusing to engage with Berlusconi and the right. However, Bersani's efforts failed. When a President failed to be elected, thanks in part to his own movement failing to agree on a candidate - with even Romano Prodi unable to gain general support - Bersani resigned his leadership.

Rise, Fall and Rise of the Renziani

Since 2013, the Democrats have been through several leaders and Prime Ministers. The resignation of Bersani had cleared the way for the centrist candidate of choice, Mayor of Florence Matteo Renzi - who had been compared to Tony Blair. Renzi's leadership, and Premiership, lasted three years.

During that time it was the turn of the left of the party to drift away, as Renzi held to the course of an unrepentant social democrat of the new style, embracing neoliberalism and adapting to it. That meant implementing measures to meet European Union and Eurozone conditions, in particular 'labour reforms' - the relaxing of employment laws to make hiring and firing easier, that have been deeply unpopular on the left, across Europe.

However, Renzi brought about his own, as it would turn out temporary, downfall with the constitutional referendum held last winter. Seeking to change the electoral system to reflect that of Germany, Renzi staked his leadership on the referendum. This was a gamble that Matteo Renzi lost.

With defeat, Renzi resigned the Premiership. He also resigned the party leadership, but announced his intention to run again. This announcement drove many on the left - socialists, democratic socialists, and even social democrats of strong feeling and other progressives who wish to reject the neoliberal system - to break away from the Democrats. That included party grandees like Bersani and Massimo D'Alema.

Renzi took back the party leadership with a resounding victory. But that has just created a new problem. While Renzi now had control of the Democrats - with a clear Renziani politics that is pro-European, liberal and centrist - he has few external allies.

The leftist groups that broke away formed a series of parties - Movimento Democratico e Progressista (MDP, social democratic), Possibile (progressive), and Campo Progressista (CP, democratic socialist) - that have refused to form an electoral alliance with the Renziani Democrats for the election next year. Instead, along with Sinistra Italiana (SI, democratic socialist), these new parties are organising a new alliance called Liberi e Uguali (LeU/LE), or 'Free and Equal', with the intention to stand against the Democrats as a left alternative option next year.

With left cooperation rejected, Renzi is pursuing the path of Emmanuel Macron, driving the Democrats in the direction of pro-European liberals and will have to pitch for new allies among centre parties - like Piu Europa (+Europa, PE), 'More Europe', that includes Emma Bonino's Italian Radicals.

Cross-section of the Left

This fragmentation, this new unwillingness, exposes a cross-section of the Left that is becoming apparent - and not just in Italy. On the one hand, there is a growing call to ditch neoliberalism. On the other, a strong pro-European sentiment - particularly among young people.

The search for unity and success for the left in Italy led to the assembly of a party out of a great many movements, with a great many ideological commitments. A way was found to find peace between social democrats, social liberals, democratic socialists, greens and even christian democrats.

That has now come apart over a split in priorities between rejecting neoliberalism and supporting the European Union.

Progressives need to wake up to the reality that these are not mutually opposed. They can be reconciled. But to do so means finding a way to reform Europe - to rebuild and renew the Social Europe, in line with democratic principles.

We need to reform Europe, to pursue a continent with a strong social chapter at it's heart. But the first step is learning to cooperate anew. Progressives of different strands in Italy found ways to work together. They, and progressives everywhere, need to do the same now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French Legislative Elections: Macron's ascent asks a tough question of social democrats and social liberals

Macron's ascendancy consumed the parties of social democrats and social liberals, reducing them to a sliver of seats. Will they be represented in his En Marche majority? If Macron doesn't give enough thought to them, the Left opposition will look to build progressive alliances under his left-wing.

Emmanuel Macron has completed what he set out to do. He has won the Presidency and an Assembly majority riding the crest of his new movement 'La Republic En Marche'. However, the poor turnout suggests all is not yet what it appears.

Macron and En Marche won a landslide, yes. But the wave of disaffection was greater still. In the two rounds of voting, just 49% and 43% of the people voted. Macron has a majority in the Assembly, but not yet in the country. Far from it.

That disparity will only make it harder and more desperate, not easier, to win people over. The pressure is now tangible. Macron has to deliver - and not just his own programme. He has to deliver it in a way that meets with public expectation.

People are already disaffected, with turnouts low, and the call for people to rally about the Centrist candidate has not exactly been answered - regardless how it has been portrayed by those excited by a pro-European Centre revival.

Macron's Centrist success also came largely at the expense of the Centre-Left, practically wiping it out save for those who aligned with En Marche.

Leading figures in the social democratic 'Parti Socialiste' lost their seats as the the party was nearly wiped out, reduced from 280 to just 29 seats. The Left-wing Presidential candidate Benoit Hamon and Assembly leader Jean-Christophe Cambadelis were defeated - though former Premier Manuel Valls survived, standing as an independent.

Social democracy also managed to take social liberalism down with it. The 'Parti Radical de Gauche', their social liberal allies, lost all but three of their seats, though their leader Sylvia Pinel survived. It is worthy of note that three more radicals survived under the En Marche banner.

That poses an interesting question. How much of these ideologies was carried over to La Republic En Marche? Progressives will be watching closely for the answer.

In the mean time, there are questions of how to go about forming a progressive opposition. The main opposition will be the Centre-Right 'La Republicains'. They also suffered a defeat, though less damaging, and along with their allies dropped to 131 seats.

In opposition on the Left, Social democrats and social liberals are now present only in small numbers - in terms of their traditional, recognisable forms. Their supporters may be forced to look to En Marche and their MoDem allies in government for representation.

There is now, though, the possibility of a clear democratic socialist caucus in opposition. If the Socialists stick to the agenda that Benoit Hamon presented for the Presidential election, there is a possibility of forming a largely coherent DemocSoc group.

While the Socialists hold more seats, the leading voice of that group would be Jean-Luc Melenchon - who performed well at the Presidential election from the Left as the outsider candidate.

His movement 'France Insoumise' gained seats, and with what remains of the PS, along with the support of the PCF (Communists), there is a core of fifty seats with which to build an opposition group. That is enough, perhaps, to put pressure on Macron - and maybe enough to act as the beginning of a new Left alignment.

Macron's new movement - his new party of government, created just for that purpose out of the ashes of social democracy and social liberalism - has work to do.

That work has been described as Nordic in style, mixing controls on spending and cuts to regulation, with public investment and a strong social safety net - shifting the public role from keeping people in work to supporting them when they're not.

But to do that, he must first pull down the intensive labour institutions and the DemocSoc Left will not take that lightly. Expect protests on the streets and, if they can organise, a Left bloc voting against him. They will also resist plans aiming to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations.

Caught in the midst of these struggles will be the social democrats and social liberals - both those within Macron's caucus and those in small numbers outside. They will have a difficult choice over their relationship to the Presidential majority.

Macron will likely have some of his greatest difficulties dealing with the threat of social democrats and social liberals pulling to the Left, if he tacks too far to the Republican Right, and threatening to vote with an organised DemocSoc bloc - perhaps giving both groups more influence than their initial numbers might suggest.

However, right now, Macron has the numbers. If he and his Premier move with energy, the most controversial elements of his approach might be completed early enough that En Marche can ride the wave. But the longer he waits, the harder change will get.

One last note. As a reminder that the far-right is far from beaten, Marine Le Pen was among a handful of Front National deputies elected to the National Assembly.

As Macron and his Centre-Right Premier Edouard Philippe lead the Assembly, they should keep Le Pen's deputies in sight. They represent the cost, for France, of failure to deliver on public perception. En Marche must deliver to France a tangible fresh start.

France 2017: Elections will be a stern test for the French political mainstream

The relationship between France and Europe will need to change regardless of who comes out on top in the 2017 presidential and legislative elections. Photograph: France and EU-flag, somewhere in Dunkerque by Sebastian Fuss (License) (Cropped & Flipped)

This year's French elections, both presidential in April and the legislative in June, represent the next important watershed in the struggle against the Far-Right. For progressives, they represent the next big hope for pushback against the extreme political trend represented by Brexit and Trump.

In the Netherlands, the failure of Wilders' Far-Right PPV to become the biggest party was celebrated by the mainstream - even by VVD's, despite their own loss of seats which makes their position as the largest and governing party more tenuous. Progressives have to start thinking bigger.

That won't be easy in France, where the political climate is fractious - which has been a consistent factor in the Far-Right's success wherever around the world it has reared its head. The governing Parti Socialiste and its President Francois Hollande and suffered a severe decline in its popularity and the fall in its credibility seems to have weakened the entire political mainstream.

As the Far-Right - the Front National under Marine Le Pen - threaten to gobble up a fifth or more of the votes, the parties from the Right through the Centre and Left are tangled in a close multi-party fight for the rest of the votes. The Far-Right is thriving on a mainstream in turmoil.

If the social conservatism, nationalism and hostile extremism of the Far-Right is going to be defeated, progressives in France need to find a way to work together despite their fractious splits. That will likely mean crudely rallying behind a single candidate in the presidential election. But for the legislative elections, it can mean a more practical alliance between separate parties or a simple willingness to engage and work together to freeze out extremists.

Electoral System

The presidential election, the first to happen on 23rd April, is a two-round contest. The election is completed in the first round if any candidate gets an outright majority. If not, the top two candidates face one another in a second round run-off.

The legislative election is contested in 577 single member constituencies, also over two rounds of voting - said to treated as the first vote cast with the heart and then the second with the head. The first round takes place on 11th June and the run-off is on 18th June (Henley, 2017).

Socialists and the Left - Hamon and Melenchon

Photograph: Benoit Hamon painted portrait by Thierry Ehrmann (License) (Cropped)

Under the Hollande Presidency, the Socialist government has faced painfully low approval ratings (Fouquet, 2016). Prime Minister Manuel Valls tried to bring about unpopular labour reforms and it has cost himself and his President dearly in political capital (BBC, 2016).

The result of the party leadership's unpopularity is that the chances of the party retaining power, either the presidency or in parliament, are low. Last year's regional election saw them drop to just 23% and 3rd in the first round - though they recovered a little to 28% and 2nd on second preferences.

In the face of a polling decline that was discrediting the mainstream of the party, the party's primary to nominate a presidential candidate saw an upset. Benoit Hamon, a centre-left critic of Hollande and a supporter of the basic income, became their official candidate for the 2017 election (Chrisafis, 2017).

But things are rarely simple for the Centre-Left these days. The Socialist situation is made much more difficult by the surge of support for an alternative candidacy. Emmanuel Macron, a former Socialist economy minister has launched an outside run - that is avowedly pro-European, liberal and centrist - for the presidency.

Macron's campaign, hoping to be a unifying candidate for the mainstream against Le Pen, even has the support of Socialist Premier Valls (BBC, 2017) - breaking a commitment Valls made to honour the outcome of the party primary, in order to back a candidate closer to his own position.

The socialist difficulties don't end there. They also face more opposition from further to the Left, in the form of Jean-Luc Melenchon's party Unsubmissive France. Melenchon received a positive public reception for a 'convincing' performance in the debate at the start of April (Willsher, 2017), thrusting him in amongst the leaders in the polls.

The nature of problems facing the progressive centre and left in France is demonstrated well by the Parti Radical du Gauche (PRG). The backing of the Radical Party of the Left is one of the few notes of consistency for the Socialists.

They have been a long time ally of the Socialists and, even entered their own candidate, party leader Sylvia Pinel, into the Socialist Party Presidential Primary. The Socialists had some relief when Sylvia Pinel announced last month that her party would honour the commitment to back the primary winning candidate (Le Monde, 2017).

And despite despite talk of discussions between the PRG and Emmanuel Macron, she acknowledged the need to unite and fight against the threat posed by the Front National. However, the Radicals are far from united behind the official stance, and some of its parliamentarians have announced their support for the outside candidacy Macron.

As for policy, there seems to be little on display in the campaign on any side - all of the focus is the notion of who best represents France. For Benoit Hamon's part, he has presented a more fleshed out set of policies than others.

Hamon has been vocal on wanting to further democratise Europe and to subject more of its policy convergence to be subject to the scrutiny and control of a democratic assembly (Flausch, 2017) - striking a compromises between a pro-EU position and the rising demand for change in the way the EU works.

At home he has made a pitch to recover working class support with policies like a robot tax, to tax automation that takes away jobs and cutting the working week to 32 hours (Serhan, 2017). He is also an advocate of the universal basic income.

However, without even the full support his party, it's unlikely that Hamon will even be amongst the chief contenders in the first round of the presidential election. The damage to the image of the Socialists seems just too much to overcome.

The Centre - Macron and Bayrou

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

In light of the negative perception that is hampering the Socialists and their nomination of a candidate some way to the left of the party mainstream, the party's former economy minister Emmanuel Macron launched a hastily arranged campaign for the presidency called 'En Marche!' (Lorimer, 2017).

From being dismissed as a bubble bound to burst, Emmanuel Macron has become the favourite, leading in all of the polls for both the first and second round votes. He has held rallies that, even in Britain (DW, 2017), received the attendance of crowds in their thousands (Gendron, 2017) - numbers comparable to those who flocked to see Bernie Sanders in the US election.

Liberals and pro-Europeans from across Europe have flocked to his side and offered endorsements - including Nick Clegg and EU liberal leader Guy Verhofstadt, with others taking a close interest.

But beyond his promise to run a hard campaign against the Far-Right and to stand up for the European mainstream, his policy positions seem somewhat thin - one French commenter described his campaign as like a movie, a canvas for a beautiful image without much depth (Gendron, 2017).

That may change when En Marche! has its list of candidates up and running for the legislative election, as appears to be the plan - and it would be hard to see them running without some sort of platform.

But that isn't so critical for a Presidential race where the aim is broad unity. It is notable that he has invoked a legacy of France governed from the centre in which he includes Jacques Chirac - in 2002, Chirac was elected overwhelmingly as the mainstream candidate versus Jean-Marie Le Pen, father of Marine, and his more openly extreme version of Front National.

Like with the Socialists, Macron is not the sole candidate of the Centre. But his chances are more clear cut. In theory, the 'official' centrists candidate would come from Francois Bayrou's Democratic Movement (Mouvement Democrate, MoDem).

In fact Bayrou only ruled out running again himself when he was sure Nicolas Sarkozy would not be running. As it stood, the centre was represented only by Jean Lassalle, a former MoDem Member of the National Assembly, on a 'Résistons!' ticket.

However Bayrou, having ruled out his own candidacy, proposed support for Macron (Willsher, 2017{2}) - an unsurprising move considering Macron's centrist campaign and rapid rise in popularity. The deal for Bayrou's support came a demand for a law to clean up French politics.

The tougher question is, how will Macron's En Marche! and Bayrou's MoDem mesh when it comes time for the legislative election? With plans in any definite form, it is hard to say what logo to expect candidates from the centre to be standing under come June.

The Right and the Far Right - Fillon and Le Pen

Photograph: EPP Summit Brussels December 2016 by the European People's Party (License) (Cropped)

The Republicans (Les Républicains, LR) started this campaign looking to have the presidency all sewn up. Former presidents and prime ministers were queueing up for a shot at being the party candidate (Vinocur, 2016) - including Nicolas Sarkozy, attempting a political comeback.

Yet their hopes have sunk low since then. Nearly every candidate was plagued with some sort of controversy or historical accusations of corruption in office. From Sarkozy to Alain Juppe, to Jean-Francois Cope, the leading candidates had track records they needed to overcome.

While it seemed for a brief moment that they had settled on a nominee free from such troubles in Francois Fillon, a social traditionalist and Thatcherite free marketeer, he also quickly found himself embroiled in controversy.

Fillon has been accused of creating, in essence phony, jobs for family members and using public funds to pay them. At a time when there is dissatisfaction with the political class in every country, it is the kind of story that won't go away.

If he had steered clear of trouble, he would still have found himself undercut - in efforts to be the mainstream candidate to face the Front National - by Macron, thanks to his platform that leans deeply into the territory of the Right.

On top of wanting tough measures against trade unions and ending the 35 hour working week, with restrictions on immigration, he wants cuts to public spending and an end to the wealth tax (McKenzie & Dewan, 2016). Hardly a broad platform.

The Right's ever further drift rightwards was to try and cover off the threat of the Far Right. After their performance in the regional elections last year, Marine Le Pen's Front National was seen as being in the strongest position amongst Europe's Far Right parties to rock the establishment.

Brexit only reinforced that idea. The fearful mainstream and grinning extremists alike presaged the EU's death in her victory. The trouble is, the 'surge' for Marine Le Pen and her party was never really what it seemed.

While passing 20% in the polls was a troubling landmark, her party has not been able to advance. The key is that it hasn't been able to convince a wider audience, despite efforts to make the Front National the respectable face of Far Right nativist nationalism.

In a departure from the more outspoken racism of her father, she co-opted mainstream values of French republicanism and sought to equate them with nationalism - as that which is native and needs protection. It hasn't worked. The most ambitious projections see her reaching the second round presidential run-off, only to lose profoundly.

Under the respectable surface are disturbing movements. There are dark and extremist rumblings. The face might be respectable but it is façade covering and benefiting from the rise of a cancerous extremism (The Guardian, 2017).

Implications

One thing is clear: the fallout from the French election will come with demands for things to change in Europe. Amongst the agreements that have kept the PS and PRG together is a commitment to overhaul the economic governance of the Eurozone and a call to harmonise Corporation Tax across the continent (Le Monde, 2017).

These would be gigantic, and necessary, steps and be a positive direction for the European Union, particularly in the fight against corporate tax evasion. From Far Left to Far Right, there will be pressure for some kind of action.

The presidential race is only the first and symbolic step. The second step will be taken in the legislative election, where some sort of consensus will need to be found among the progressive parties if they are to set the agenda.

Neither the Right, nor the Far Right, yet hold the balance. So what stands in the way of a progressive next step for France is whether or not the parties of the Left and Centre can find common ground.

In 2002, voters rallied around conservative Jacques Chirac in the presidential against Le Pen's father. It seems likely that the same will to unite behind anyone to 'beat the fascists' will stymie Marine in 2017.

But the various parties - the different streams of the Parti Socialiste, the Parti Radical de Gauche, Macron's En Marche!, Bayrou's centrist MoDems, Melenchon's Left groups and others - will need to pull together to ensure a positive progressive government emerges from the legislative election.

Relief as Far Right falls short in Dutch election, but there's no future in that feeling: Progressives need reasons for optimism

Elections to the Dutch House of Representatives, seated at the Binnenhof, saw the Far-Right fall short of power. Photograph: Binnenhof from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

The "Wrong Kind of Populism" had been defeated claimed Mark Rutte, leader of the governing liberal conservative VVD (BBC, 2017). Rutte celebrated the defeat of Geert Wilders and his Far-Right PVV, despite his own party's loss of 8 seats, and called the Netherlands the breakwater of the populist tide.

Despite Rutte's good cheer, the results will bring progressives relief but little optimism. Yes, the Far-Right was prevented from claiming a victory, but the debate has already been affected by them. Policy has lurched ever more into their prime, exclusionary, territory (Henley, 2017).

It was also a defeat of the Far-Right that will only be finalised when a broad spectrum of parties are rallied together into an effective coalition - that will have to include perhaps everyone from staunch conservatives to the Left-Greens.

That pattern that has been followed everywhere that a far-right challenge has emerged. The results have not been good. Look, for example, at the Brexit referendum and the US Presidential Election.

The Remain campaign needed support from a broad spectrum if it was to fend off the Leave challenge, but it did little to inspire the radical Left to get on board - in fact there were Left Exit groups. In the US, Hillary Clinton fell short in the face of the same challenge. In both cases, working class men walked away from the Left and the Centre in disillusionment.

As the nationalist tide rises, it pressures the Left to rally behind the uniting of all the mainstream forces. And, further, to accept some bad policies to head off worse. The result has been confusion and despondency about alliances and policies that leave a bad taste in progressive mouths.

It was the kind problem that came between the Remain Camp, and Hillary Clinton, and the Left. How could the Left, radicals, progressives, stand behind parties and institutions that backed the neoliberalism that had helped create the inequality and austerity that had fostered the Far-Right?

Such alliances are not a realistic basis for building a progressive future. The Left, and even the Centre, have conceded too much to Conservatives in the scramble to fend off the extreme Right - accepting too much of the Right-Wing narrative, letting politics be defined by it.

The existential threat that the far-right poses must, however, be faced and opposed by radicals and moderates alike. And if the need for opposition inspires a new period of cooperation and collaboration in Western politics, then all the better. In bitterly partisan times, it would be refreshing to step outside the bounds of narrow party interest.

But these broad coalitions must be formed on the basis of inclusion and not concession. They must form an open dialogue and take representation seriously: too many people have been left feeling excluded and ignored.

It is doesn't feel good to cheer when the Far-Right doesn't win. It feels more like the relieved sigh of the battle-hardened, weary and despondent, at keeping Rome standing just one more day. We need something more. Hope and idealism. We need inclusive alliances that aspire to something better.

To be 'progressive' is to be hopeful, but progress won't happen by itself: first, the Left has to reach out and connect

Politics returns to Westminster from recess today to a social atmosphere, in Britain and elsewhere, that has become toxic with the noxious fumes spewed by bitterly divided sectarian factions.

Westminster returns from its latest recess today, to a political mood that has rarely been more toxic. Last night's American Presidential debate captured well the noxious fumes, unconstrained by borders or languages, that have poisoned the political atmosphere (Krugman, 2016).

Ignorance and anger abound, and, what's worse, they're being exploited. In the UK, the Conservative Party Conference set official policy at a new low over the weekend when it proposed forcing companies to make open lists of foreign born workers (BBC, 2016; Syal, 2016).

Instead of abolishing ignorance with education and facts - instead of diffusing anger and bringing calm - instead of reasonableness - anger is being inflamed and ignorance reinforced. Politics has lost a sense of reasonableness.

Harsh rhetoric has driven out decency and moderation. Compromise and consensus seem further away than ever. From France to the United States, the political arena has been reduced to a vague political class circling the wagons to see off opponents stoking ignorance and anger to advance their agendas.

All the while, important matters are rendered impossible to address by the partisan impasse created by opposing outrages flung across wide gulfs of understanding between deeply entrenched factions. Whether Europe or America, people need access to affordable healthcare, affordable housing and affordable energy - and all of it stable and sustainable.

For progressives - whether radical or moderate - decency, reasonableness and respect for a plurality of voices aught to be at the heart of any method that pursues those objectives. So for those who cherish these things, the rise of narrow aggressive sectarianism has made politics in 2016 difficult to navigate and hard to bear.

But the only way is forward, and the only way forward is to reach out. At the Compass Progressive Alliance event, journalist John Harris spoke with passion about the people in the abandoned North who voted for Brexit. He said that:

"These are places characterised by fear. Yes, a fear of immigration and the idea that it might make opportunities even more scarce and wages even lower and put more pressure on already way overstretched services. But underlying this all is a very, very cold, frightening really, fear of the future. A fear, when you talk to people, even of tomorrow and next week.

Please, let's not think about the vast majority of the people I've talked about, who voted Leave, as stupid or deluded or bigoted and hateful... If you haven't got a progressive politics which speaks to places which embody the inequality we all fight against, its not worthy of the name."

Before progressives can reach out, they need to understand what it is that they themselves want, and why - and they need to understand what that will mean for the lives and livelihoods of the least well off. And if these two understandings cannot be completely reconciled, work has to begin on a meaningful compromise, on an inclusive next step.

To be progressive is to be hopeful - to believe in human progress, to believe that all people are capable of self-improvement. But it won't occur on its own. It requires defeating neglect with care & listening, ignorance with education & encouragement, despair with hope & opportunity. The norm is adversarial politics that divides to rule. The progressive alternative has to reach for something better.

Corbyn wins by default in first Labour leadership debate, Smith needs to be clearer: what makes him a better leader?

Jeremy Corbyn faced his challenger Owen Smith for the first time at the Cardiff Hustings on Thursday night. Photograph: Corbyn speaking in Manchester in October 2015.

Last night, Cardiff hosted the first hustings of the Labour leadership contest. Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith took to the stage to answer the write in questions and debate one another on their positions. The debate itself didn't offer much separation between the two candidates, a task made particularly difficult when they continuously agreed with each other all night.

The first question of the night was perhaps the most poignant. Are you the candidate Theresa May least wants to face at an election?

Owen Smith opened the night, saying he believed that Labour needed to offer a more vigorous opposition. But he wasn't particularly clear how he'd offer that. Corbyn defended his work so far, saying he had changed PMQs, to end the 'public school theatre' and bring PM under more public scrutiny - using methods like questions from the public.

However, Smith pointed to the low polling numbers that Labour have posted in the past month to say the party has fallen behind under Corbyn's leadership. Corbyn responded by stressing all the progress the party has made, winning at the local elections, and turns the point on its head to says that the fall in the polls was caused by MPs resignations that have disunified the party and damaged its image.

Smith seemed to take that as a personal slight saying hadn't been part of any coup and instead went to Corbyn looking for a way forward, but was disillusioned by his answers. Smith emphasises that he is running to prevent the party from splitting, that he wants unity, but Corbyn simply asks when then did he quit the Shadow Cabinet?

The audience had been fairly controlled up until this point, reserving just small applause for the answers they agreed with. However, it didn't take long for tensions to rise. When the subject party disunity arose, it was Owen Smith who bore the brunt of heckling, although he handled it well.

Corbyn responded to Smith's interpretation of events, saying that Smith cannot deny that his #ShadowCabinet reached out well beyond his own ideological positions - clear a call from Corbyn beyond the audience out to MPs to recognise that it is they that needs to meet him halfway.

The current leader made repeated reference, to highlight the fact, to how he has worked with others across the party, in particular Owen Smith himself, to fight the Tories. He also took a slight stab at Smith, saying he was glad to see the party in harmony on policy, as Owen Smith's policy announcements were all previously announced Corbyn & McDonnell policies.

Smith took the opportunity to suggest that Corbyn was very much in the back seat on those issues, like welfare, on which he was the true leader. He used lots of "I" and "me", saying "It was me" that took on the Tories on Welfare. Corbyn's response to that was short and crisp: "It was your job".

Next up where back-to-back questions on economics for the candidates. First: What is your Industrial Strategy for making UK competitive?

Corbyn pitched his National Infrastructure Bank and how it might stimulate and rebuild the British economy - investing in education, to develop skills, and investing in well paying jobs. He stressed that it would be British workers skills & innovation that would make the UK a global competitor.

Smith called for reindustrialisation. He pointed to Germany as an example that the Thatcherite, and he admits Labour, policy of deindustrialising the UK was wrong. He argued that the UK could return to being an industrial and manufacturing centre that can provide good jobs and can still compete globally.

The second part of the economic double-header was to ask the candidates what they will do to show voters the party was fiscally credible.

Corbyn says the simple key to credibility was to spend sensibly, starting with smart public investment. As an example he points to the madness of pouring money into the hands of private landlords through housing benefit rather than addressing the core problem by building more social housing.

Smith said, categorically that Tory austerity has failed, having promised not to leave debts to our grandchildren and instead doubling the national debt. He stresses that the anti-austerity position, with public investment, is real path to credibility.

He infers, but doesn't actually say, a line he has been trying out recently - ditching the language of protest, of being against, as in anti-austerity, in favour of a positive position, as in pro-prosperity.

Both candidates comment on their similar pitch and emphasise their agreement. But Owen Smith returns to main question, which he hammers ever more as the evening goes on: who is the candidate most likely to convince the voters of these ideas in the key constituencies like Nuneaton?

The only matter on which the two took truly separate positions on the night was on trident. Corbyn received a big ovation for his opposition to Trident renewal. Corbyn stance was clear, that barbaric nuclear weapons offer no solution to the security concerns of the modern day and diminish our international standing.

Smith made the case to the room for multilateral disarmament. Smith argued that none of the 'great powers', amongst whom he sits the UK, is listening to, and following the example of, those who disarm unilaterally.

Smith said that he felt unilateralism was idealistic but naive. That unilateral disarmament put aside responsibility to lead the campaign for global disarmament - for which it was necessary to go the table with something in hand. For his part, Smith was clear that this was simply a difference of opinion, with room for different views.

The candidates fell back into agreement on immigration, both agreeing that it was positive and arguing that the pressures that people feel it is applying were the result of poor support for local government. For both the answer was proper local funding and local investment.

Smith and Corbyn also agreed that putting limits or caps on immigration are not the solution. Smith added that Tories proved that putting finite numbers on immigration doesn't work, while Corbyn argued that the humanitarian way to manage European migration was to work on getting conditions more equal across Europe.

The next question, on anti-Semitism in the party, raised tensions in the room significantly. Corbyn calmly laid out the measured steps he had taken as the leader to combat it, his position even coming with a note of caution to his opponent to respect due process, as Smith said he would take a zero tolerance stance.

Smith then got a poor reaction when he repeated his previously made claim that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is a thing that has only happened and risen in the last year. Corbyn was markedly calm, stating in a measured way that many cases were much older and pre-dated his leadership.

While Smith tried to back down slightly, saying he didn't personally blame Corbyn, the audience didn't respond well. However, Smith then tried to turn the point, attempting to equate the hostile atmosphere in the room, with the hostility within the party, with the issue of anti-Semitism and a fall in the civility of party's internal dialogue.

If there was any point on which Smith clearly lost last night, then this was it. He looked every bit the candidate of MPs, rather than members, looking graceless as he tried to pin anti-Semitism to his opponent and petulant as he tried to pin it to those heckling him.

That brought the hustings to its final two questions. The penultimate was: How will you ensure that the third woman Prime Minister is from Labour rather than the Conservatives?

The host very particularly challenged both candidates. Corbyn was to be responsible for handling party misogyny, a responsibility he accepted. But Smith was more damagingly called specifically to address accusation of his own personal misogyny.

Smith said his positions would show his support for women. He also stressed that any plans to make a difference for women ultimately needed Labour in power, in government. Corbyn was clearer, saying glass ceilings needed to be tackled even at the roots in education, with encouragement for women to go into the sciences, technology and business, and then supported on their way up through legislation that ends social and workplace discrimination.

Finally, the candidates were asked what they would do for Wales? Both Corbyn and Smith answer that more funding is justified, but Smith adds - as was quickly becoming his tag line -  that the best thing for Wales is having Labour in power.

By the end Smith had repeatedly and overwhelmingly stressed the line, pretty much the key element of the Labour Right philosophy, that Labour has to be in government, has to have power, as soon as possible. When asked about making a difference for women, he said the answer was Labour in power. Asked what can be done for Wales, the answer was Labour in power.

That theme carried into the closing statements. Smith said the UK was in crisis and the answer was a Labour government - and he would take party back to power. Corbyn argued that Labour not only can win, but are - pointing to the mayoral victories at the local elections in may. He said the way to win was to mobilise & enthuse people by presenting a real alternative.

In this first debate, neither candidate did anything decisive to put themselves clear. But the reality of the leadership race weighs more heavily on Owen Smith, who needs to prove himself to be clearly the better leader than Corbyn. Otherwise, what would be the point of changing leader?

Last night, Owen Smith focussed heavily on the need to get Labour into Power. But he didn't say enough about how to get there and or it is that makes him the candidate who'll get the party there.

In an honestly close debate, Corbyn nonetheless wins by default for that one simple reason: Owen Smith didn't do the one thing he had to, which was show or tell why he is a better leader than Corbyn.

Never mind policy, never mind showing Corbyn's supporters that he can represent them as well as MPs. If Owen Smith wants to be the next Labour leader, he has to decisively show the skills and planning that clearly marks out his distinct path, from where Labour are now, to Labour in government.

Around the World: The Trump Insurgency

Donald Trump chose the Republican Elephant as the mount for his insurgent populist campaign that has ridden the divisive politics of the far-right deep into the American political system.

With the two main parties having settled - which might be an almost too painfully apt expression - on their respective candidates, it is now established who will stand, and for what they will stand, in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Hillary Clinton will face Donald Trump - but only on the surface will it be a contest between Democrat and Republican. Beneath the party façade the Presidential race reflects a struggle that is a clear pattern emerging across the Western world, seen clearly in most of the recent elections in Europe, between the mistrusted mainstream and a Far Right insurgency.

Whether it was the Brexit referendum or the French regional elections, in this time of crisis progressives have found themselves having to wrestle with a difficult proposition: whether to oppose an imperfect mainstream at the risk of inviting in the Far Right, or to stand with the hated establishment, itself struggling for legitimacy against authoritarianism and sectarianism.

In the US, Bernie Sanders and his supporters tried to capture control of the mainstream Democrats so that the Left might lead from the front. Having failed, they're now left struggling with what to do in the face of Trump's mirrored insurgency succeeding in its capture of the rival Republicans. Despite Sanders' endorsement of Hillary, many of his supporters remain unconvinced.

Trump's insurgency has increased the sense of urgency, if not yet panic, across the Centre and Left. With no hint of irony, despite the hyperbole, even moderate commentators are expressing genuine fears for the future of American democracy (Finchelstein, 2016; Noah, 2016; Collier, 2016) - perhaps a part of which is an attempt to motivate the Left to fall in behind Hillary by stressing the seriousness of the fight ahead.

Political sensibility suggests that moderacy will ultimately win out - that Trump will eventually, whatever his rhetoric, have to bow to political realism. But that sensibility is cold comfort.

The most dangerous thing Trump has done is to force the coalescence of a constituency, previously scattered and with no common identity, that is persuaded by and supportive of authoritarian values (Taub, 2016). Trump himself, whatever his reactionary verbiage, is less of a concern than what this organised political movement, given common identity, might yet be used to accomplish.

The Republicans, the Grand Old Party (GOP), had already been through the long slow process, from Lincoln's time onwards, of coming under conservative control. But since the 1960s, conservatives have decisively consolidated their control over the party - including inviting the influx of Southern Democrats spurned by the embrace of the civil rights movement by the Democrats.

The consolidation definitively moved the GOP away from the Republicanism of Lincoln toward something more resembling the Republicanism of Jefferson - a parochial populist anti-establishment, or rather anti-elite, politics, with a strict and restrictive adherence to the constitution. Recent decades saw that combined with a sectarian Nativism and a politicised Evangelism.

What Trump has now rallied about the Republican Party is support for a popular authoritarianism able to cut across the distinctions, separating members of the coalition headed 'Republican', with a methodology: signified by a language that is brash, abrasive and often violent.

It is not surprising in the face of Trump's rhetoric that people have drawn connections between him and fascism. The theme of violence against others, against opponents, violence and conflict as decisive social positives, was a crucial tenet of fascism and has been inherited by its more 'democratic' successor populism (Finchelstein, 2016).

The Left and Centre getting behind the mainstream to oppose the rise of these violent ideologies is only the first step. Defeating it at one election is not the end of the matter. It does not address the reasons why people would seek out an abrasive, anti-establishment, anti-elite, strongman leader in the first place. The concerns of those voters must be understood, contextualised and addressed with positive solutions.

The angry, authoritarian-supporting, voters who would back a man like Donald Trump are not the enemies of progressives. For the most part they're victims of economic conditions, looking with misguided hope to strength and might for deliverance. The job of progressives is to extend a hand, show a better way to build a society and to expose the Far-Right programme for the fraud it is.

Labour Leadership Contest: Corbyn's year in charge has already changed Labour's policy debate, but will it be enough to heal the rift?

Corbyn speaking, just a month after his election, to a crowd of ten thousand people - inside and outside - at Manchester Cathedral, for a Communication Workers Union event.

The Labour leadership contest got under way in earnest on Thursday as Jeremy Corbyn launched his campaign. Evoking the memory of Beveridge, in his speech he promised to lead Labour towards ending the 'five greats evils' of our times (BBC, 2016): inequality, neglect, prejudice, insecurity and discrimination.

Having seen off Angela Eagle in the nominations race, Owen Smith has also stepped up his campaign (Asthana & Elgot, 2016). Unlike Corbyn, who has a - not really of his own making - hostile relationship with the media, Owen Smith is actively courting the media, making TV appearance after TV appearance to increase his exposure amongst audiences who probably don't know who he is.

Smith's key line through these appearances has been to try and present himself as able to be the intermediary between the radical membership and the more pragmatic party. He has promised to be as radical as Corbyn, but more competent at making the practical pitch to the wider country (BBC, 2016{2}).

Owen Smith, in the event of his campaign being victorious, has even pitched a job for Corbyn, offering him the position of Party President - though the proposition was rejected by Corbyn as being the equivalent to a 'Director of Football' (BBC, 2016{3}).

The launch of Corbyn's leadership defence had the appearance of an act of defiance (Sparrow, 2016). Affording no time to his detractors and opponents, he focussed instead on making a Beveridge-esque promise to combat the five great evils and called for Labour MPs to take the hand of friendship, get behind the party and work together.

In fact, the Labour leadership campaign may yet be beneficial for Corbyn. It might well give Corbyn the platform to calmly propose and discuss policy that his leadership so far failed to - conducted as it has been under a concessionless, constant barrage, of media negativity (Cammaert, 2016).

However, his support will be under strain, potentially squeezed by a candidate like Smith - if he can put his message across - with the polls showing trade union members have become less enthusiastic about Corbyn's leadership (MacAskill, 2016).

Smith has already made some promises. The set piece of which was a promise to boost public investment, with a £200bn New Deal for Britain (Edwards, 2016). The proposal has already enthused some Labour MPs, such as Louise Haigh who said she was excited to see anti-austerity turned into practical proposals.

There was a bit of oneupmanship to the campaign though, when a day later Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell announced a £500bn investment plan (Pope, 2016). McDonnell's plan included a National Investment Bank, to have regional sub-sects, for instance a Bank of the North, to manage investment to local needs.

Whatever the variations, both candidates are though confirming support for ending austerity with a big increase in public investment - a move that sits well with what the experts are arguing that the British economy sorely needs to move forward (Blanchflower, 2016; Elliott, 2016).

That alignment between Labour's Left and Right, with economists, is a good sign for the Left, signalling that thinking has shifted away from austerity - making conditions perhaps somewhat easier for those on the Left friendly to public spending.

It might also be a sign that Corbyn supporters, and those on the Left wing of the party that have long felt ignored, even an Owen Smith win in the leadership contest will be far from a defeat to the hated Blairites. Corbyn and his supporters have changed the party and Smith's approach has proved that - they can't ignore the Left anymore.

Contained within the pitch Owen Smith is making is an acknowledgement of the impact that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters, who put him into the leadership, have had on the party. Their values cannot be ignored.

And yet, tensions remain high. Claims of abuse have come from both sides, of which there is plenty, but those valid claims are undermined at times by claims of abuse by thin-skinned public figures who, earnestly or cynically, mistake criticism for something less legitimate (BBC, 2016{4}).

The question that provokes is whether the breach had already been widened too much. Though concessions are being made in terms of tone and policy, if Corbyn doesn't retain the leadership - and even if he does - the hostility of the party's establishment to the Left still really doesn't make it look, however, like the long term future of the Corbynistas, and their well wishers, is in the Labour Party.

Proportional representation cannot come soon enough.

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.

A new realignment of the Left is underway and Proportional Representation and the Basic Income are at the core

In Castlefields arena, Natalie Bennett addresses protesters from many different movements, who came together in opposition to the Conservative government in Manchester last Autumn.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Liberal and Liberal Democrat leaders Roy Jenkins, Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy followed a course that sought to 'realign the Left' in Britain. Powered by the dominance of Thatcherite conservatism, it sought to change the approach of the left and ultimately lead to co-operation between progressive parties, in opposition to the Conservatives.

First through Liberal-Labour pacts, of which there is an even longer history, next through the breakaway SDP/Liberal Alliance, and then in the form of New Labour-Liberal Democrat talks and cooperation. And Kennedy's 'Real Alternative' campaign banner, even in opposition to a Labour government, reflected the general cohesion of aims on the Left, if not of methods.

That particular movement on the part of the Lib Dems ended with Nick Clegg's leadership. Clegg took the Liberal Democrats back to a policy of equidistance between the two big parties, Labour and the Conservatives.

However, the fall of the coalition and succession of a Conservative to a majority government seems to have triggered a new phase of realignment. The resignations of Clegg and Miliband led to the election of new party leaders, seen to be of very different stripes from their predecessors.

Tim Farron, the new Lib Dem leader, is a campaigning Northern MP and former Party President who stood aloof from, and in polite opposition to, the coalition. So far his efforts have been concentrated on focussing the Lib Dem fightback on the party's roots - in campaigning locally for community issues and nationally on matters of conscience.

Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader seemed to send shockwaves through British politics. Portrayed by the media as a move back to some Michael Foot and Tony Benn, 80s-esque, hard Left position, Corbyn has faced disquiet and malcontent within the Parliamentary party since taking over with a landslide of party members' votes.

After the last five years, the seemingly inevitable alignment of the Liberal Democrats and Labour was shattered. It would be understandable to think finding new common ground would be difficult or impossible between the party Clegg had taken to the Centre, even Centre-Right, and the party Corbyn has been accused of taking to the hard Left.

Yet a new realignment of the Left is under way and the policies that will define the shift are already emerging in the policy debates of both parties.

Both the Liberal Democrats and Labour now seem to be on the same page, finally, when it comes to proportional representation. Both Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, from Labour's Left, and Chuka Umunna, from Labour's Right, have expressed support for PR. And both parties are engaged in consultations over their future approach to policy, including the welfare system - debates in which the idea of a universal basic income is playing a prominent role.

Ahead of the EU referendum, Farron has even called for a progressive political alliance on Europe - making internationalism again a core value across progressive parties. That matches, in a limited way, the arguments that Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, has been making since the last election that progressive parties need to start working together.

As for the Green Party, in true Green fashion Natalie Bennett is following Caroline Lucas' lead in standing down as party leader once her term is up later this year. So who will lead the Greens through this new realignment, and how they will handle it on into the 2020 general election, is unknown.

But the challenge ahead of the three leaders of Britain's main progressive parties is clear: to stop the Conservatives winning their way to back-to-back governments. Aligning in support of some core common policies is a start.

The next step is to commit to the kind of cooperation on various campaigns and causes that can foster the good will between parties. That mutual respect will be needed to build a real electoral alliance, that stands together behind a limited set of core ideals in opposition to conservatism.

The British Left seems finally to have settled on how its relationship with Europe should be defined - positive, engaged, reforming

With his announcement this morning, Jeremy Corbyn pretty much completed the alignment of Britain's progressive-wing behind the campaign to remain in the European Union (Stewart, 2016). The support of the Labour leader now sees Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the trade unions GMB (600k members), Unison (1.3m members) and Unite (1.4m members), all backing an In vote (Mason, 2016; Silveira, 2016; Unite, 2016).

But what it also represents is the British Left finally settling on a way to talk about its relationship with Europe. This was best seen in Corbyn's support for the EU coming with criticisms attached.

Corbyn argued that the EU had protected workers' rights, pushed for better environmental standards and introduced safeguards for consumers (BBC, 2016). Yet he also pointed to shortcomings, like the lack of sufficient of democratic accountability and an establishment commitment to deregulation and privatisation.

That view solidly aligns Labour with the stance adopted by Caroline Lucas, followed by the rest of the Greens, in backing Another Europe (Lucas, 2016) - a movement of activists and campaigners calling for "a Europe of democracy, human rights, and social justice" and moves towards a more hopeful, "social, citizen-led Europe".

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP, has argued that Europe is right now in the hands of conservatism because conservatives won successive elections across Europe and formed national governments (Lucas, 2016{2}). As a result they hold many seats on the European Council, which allows them to shape Europe with the policies of conservatism.

Simply losing elections is not good grounds for secession, Lucas argues. Instead we should stay, working with progressives in all of Europe's countries, to build a progressive consensus for reform that protects Europe's social chapter, its workers protections, its environmental protections - made possible by its shape as a continental, cross-border, that brings Europe together to deal with transnational issues.

So far the EU referendum campaign has, with both sides making almost identical claims, revealed that life in or out of the EU is unlikely to be much different on the surface, with even immigration is unlikely to be altered by an exit (Stewart, 2016{2}).

The exception is that leaving is acknowledged to come with the risk of an initial shock to the economy, which everyone seems to accept will happen and will be a bad thing, but no one is sure just how bad (Stewart & Watt, 2016) - with no guarantee that any subsequent growth benefit will be shared, while growth in the EU has been said to come with boosted living standards (Full Fact, 2016).

In a narrow debate, filled with nationalism and misinformation (Allegretti, 2016), the progressive view is a refreshing alternative. Acknowledging past and achievements, and talking about how to build a positive future - one that is open, and commits to cooperation, with people working together to achieve more for the common good.

It is about time that the British Left figured out and stated its position on Europe. The wavering, particularly of Labour's, commitment to the international ideal of Europe has helped to severely undermine public confidence in a bigger, more open world. Corbyn's speech has hopefully put that to rest.