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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Elections: An alternative look Labour's election result, where it leaves them and where progressives go from here

The progressive pitch of the three parties, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green, who may have in places tripped each other more than the Conservatives in the 2015 UK general election.

"It's a disaster", run the stories. The worst performance in half a century (Rawnsley, 2016). A disaster that, conveniently, demands that Labour change direction away from Corbynism and back toward Blairism.

The trouble with that assessment is that the context is all wrong, and so the conclusion that follows is flawed. The reality is that there are few recent historical comparisons that can be made for the present situation.

Up against an almost unbelievable barrage of negative press and critics of every stripe briefing against him, from almost every direction, the results from the local and assembly elections were, all things considered, pretty impressive for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour.

Labour are leading the executive in Wales, London and Bristol - all of which, if publicised well, could be beacons for re-legitimising the idea of Labour in government. The party also topped the national polls on 31%, ahead of the Conservatives on 30% and the Liberal Democrats, recovering to 15%.

Labour in Scotland

The only major 'blemish' in Corbyn's first major election test were the party's struggles in Scotland. But presenting the results in Scotland as part of a 'Corbyn disaster' narrative is misleading.

In Scotland - where Labour have been outflanked on the Left by the SNP, whose blend of Social Democracy and separatism has rendered Labour nearly unnecessary - Corbyn's Left-wing stance is winning, just not really to the benefit of the Labour Party itself.

They have also been outflanked on the Right by the Conservatives, who have unsurprisingly become the banner-bearers for Unionism (it did used to be literally in their name, after all). In fact, Ruth Davidson's Conservatives, who suffer for connections to the Westminster party, are now the Scottish Unionist Party in all but name.

Essentially, the debate in Scotland has moved beyond the traditional UK divisions. For a useful historical comparison you have to reach a long way back, to the separation of British and Irish politics.

The emergence of the Irish Parliamentary Party, out of what had previously been a Liberal Party stronghold, substantially weakened the party in Britain. As it grew, it limited the abililty of the Liberals to win majorities. That led to a period during which Liberals and their Irish allies, and the Conservatives and their Unionist allies, spent two decades trading turns in propped up minority governments.

While in 1906 the Liberals won a landslide majority of nearly 400 seats on nearly 50% of the vote, the emergence of the Labour Party in England squeezed them. The scales tipped decisively when the Liberals became divided, infighting, and protracted war led to a period of National governments that simply coalesced into a new Conservative majority, with Ramsay MacDonald's Labour as a weak and still growing opposition.

Labour has lost its substantial position in Scotland to the SNP, as the Liberals lost theirs in Ireland. But the lesson seems to be that infighting and splits will do far more damage than adapting to the new reality over the border.

Labour in England

The real crux of the Labour-Conservative battle is in England, where Corbyn's party topped the polls. Response to this thin victory, 31% to 30%, hasn't been especially positive. But when it comes to a general election, how do the numbers compare?

In the 2015 UK general election, in England alone, the Conservatives won 41% of the vote to Labour's 32%, for 319 and 206 seats, respectively. In 2010, Conservatives won 40% to Labour's 28%, for 298 and 191 seats. Further back, in 2005 when Labour won an outright UK majority of 403 seats, the Conservatives won 36%, matched by Labour at 36%, for 206 and 278 seats, again respectively.

Corbyn's support in England falls somewhere between the two, between triumph and disaster (Williams, 2016), between a Labour majority and a hung parliament scramble. In 2015, Liberal Democrat support collapsed and both of the two main parties benefited, though the Conservatives more so. However much Labour might have eaten into Conservative support, the Conservatives simply consumed the Lib Dems to keep themselves afloat.

For the Conservatives, everything depends upon their strength in England, particularly in the South. So when a, supposedly, weakly-led Labour wins victories in London, Bristol, and holds Southern councils like Southampton and Hastings, Conservatives should be worried, because when push comes to shove, they have no where else to turn.

It could certainly be said that Tony Blair pressed the Conservatives hardest on this weakness. Blair managed to match the Conservatives for votes in England, while Brown and Miliband did not. And Blair beat them in a general election, while Brown and Miliband did not. However, Blair also had the advantage of facing a weak and disorganised Conservative Party, that Brown and Miliband never did.

In its brightest days, and also the Conservatives darkest, Blair's Labour won 44% of the vote in England to the Conservatives 34%, taking 329 seats to 165 - against weak and disorganised opponents, struggling everywhere except their South and East heartland, and versus weak third party opposition.

Labour's 400+ seat majority under Blair included some 80 seats in Scotland and Wales. A boundary review in Scotland reduced the number of seats, mostly Labour, in Scotland by thirteen. Heading into 2005, the heights of 419 and 413 seats were reduced to 403. 56 seats in Scotland was now approximately 46. And in Wales, where Labour won 34 seats in 1997, support has reduced over time to 30, to 26, to 25.

For all praise for his achievement of eating into Conservative support in England, by even 2005, if Blair's Labour had not been able to rely on Scotland, its majority would have evaporated. The party, even under Blair, would have been reduced to 315 seats - even including 30 seats in Wales - and the party would have had to turn to around 50 Lib Dems in order to govern.

For two elections, 1997 and 2001, Labour were able to win majorities in England, but they almost immediately fell back into large minorities of support as their primary opponents recovered and stronger third parties began to challenge. Labour's brief four years of winning majorities in England came against weak opponents in London, the West and East Midlands, in the North, Yorkshire and Humberside, and by encroaching on the Conservative heartlands where they could.

And in that fact, the Conservatives can usually take comfort in Labour's own weakness in England by comparison. Numbers past past and present make clear that there is a well of potential Conservative support in England, in most parts of the country, that can put the party over the top - even in supposed Labour territory.

Almost decisive since 1997 has been the Conservatives incursion into Labour territory. Between 1997 and 2010 there have been 15 seats in the North West, 10 in Yorkshire, 20 in London, 15 seats and 20 seats in the East and West Midlands respectively which saw a complete reversal of positions - 80 of the 329 won in England in 1997.

Before talking of taking seats from the Conservatives in the South East, in a New Labour master stroke, figuring out how Labour might win its own backyard seems like more of a priority. Ed Miliband won maybe 10 of these seats in 2015, only to lose several others from the same regions back to the Conservatives - with numbers propped up by the Lib Dem collapse.

Reality Check

Harold Wilson, at his peak, only won 285 seats in England to 216 for the Conservatives. Without Scotland, even the headline victory of Wilson's Labour would have been reduced to a majority of just 2 seats. Against the historical background, Blair's approximate, and astonishing, 140 gains in England in 1997 - lifting Labour from around 190 to 330 - looks more the result of extraordinary circumstances than the profits of a particular campaign.

Labour's support has, since it broke out from being the trade unionist representative ally of the Liberals, always been a coalition of fellow travellers - from moderate reformers who might have been liberals in other times, through trade unionists and the industrial working classes the party claimed to represent. In 1997, Blair tried to expand that alliance into the affluent South and East with a pitch to swing voters that did not produce lasting gains and alienated the party's core in the process (Mason, 2015; Mason 2016).

At the moment, Corbyn is maybe only on par with Brown or Miliband in terms of support across England and seems intent on making gains back mainly in areas Labour has lost ground. Without some new political earthquake discrediting the Conservative Party and creating an opportunity to delve into the South East and pitch social justice - smotheringly Conservative in its representation as the South East is, with the second place party now usually UKIP, who are even more conservative -  the best case scenario for the Labour Party in England would seem to be 250 to 280 seats, supported by maybe 25 in Wales.

With a Britain-wide best case for Labour, for now, of 275 to 305 seats - short of finding a way of forcing Britain's provinces to readopt the old two-party politics - the Left, and Labour in particular, has to start taking the prospect of electoral alliances seriously. Even a convenient Blairite rebrand isn't likely to break through the Southern attachment to conservatism without losing ground of its own elsewhere.

There are, however, more than 30 seats - largely in the South - where the Liberal Democrats remain the main opposition to the Conservatives. And the Green Party took 4 second places and around 20 third places in 2015. And in these and many other places, the parties will have tripped each other up to the benefit of the Conservatives.

Where Labour has less chance of winning, they should be actively interested in ensuring that the Conservatives have a difficult time of it too. This means accepting that Green environmentalism and Lib Dem civil liberties pitches will cut deeper amongst some current Conservative voters than what Labour might pitch - all the while building the possibility of forming a working, progressive government later.

Despite the barrage of negative press, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has shown it can win and has secured control of executive positions that will legitimise it as a party of government. But when 2020 rolls around, for reasons far beyond Corbyn's fault or control, that may not be enough. If an alliance with the SNP remains taboo in England, a progressive majority might still be possible without them. But it will probably require progressives of different stripes working together to get there.

Stella Creasy is in a position to be a mediator and, through the co-operative movement, bridge the widening gaps between Labour Party factions

Stella Creasy, the Labour Co-operative MP, has put herself at the front of progressive campaigns - from support for local credit unions to campaigns opposing violence against women. Photograph: Stella Creasy at the launch of LAWRS' anti-violence campaign by Macarena Gajardo (Licence) (Cropped)

Jeremy Corbyn's victory heralds as much change for the Labour Party as it does for British politics. His election through a process of mass, popular internal democracy broke a century of control over the party by a largely middle class establishment of economists and lawyers - as former Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell put it (from Bogdanor, 1983):

'We, as middle-class socialists, have got to have a profound humility. Though it's a funny way of putting it, we've got to know that we lead them because they can't do it without us, with our abilities, and yet we must feel humble to working people.'

Yet Corbyn's rise has not healed the deep stratification within the party, but rather exposed the rifts. The fact that the Islington MP should need to build a coalition of groups within his own party (Kuenssberg, 2015), which is riven with rumours of splits (Peston, 2015), may be an indication that it's about time that the Labour Party began to act like the broad coalition that it very clearly is.

One MP, and parliamentary group, that would benefit from a clearer organisation of Labour MPs, more than most, is Stella Creasy and the Co-operative Party.

Corbyn, and the Trade Unionist 'Left', don't have a great deal in common, beyond their common allegiance to Labour's party and movement, with the Brownite 'Moderates' and the Blairite 'Modernisers'. They have shown themselves, however, to be capable of finding common causes and working together.

The Co-operative Party is one group that could hold them together. Long sitting in parliament with candidates put up jointly with Labour, they have supported members that have played roles across the Labour movement. From former ministers like Alun Michael and Ed Balls to shadow cabinet figures like Chris Leslie and Lucy Powell, many leading Labour figures have been elected as Labour Co-op.

If Labour's internal factions would start to organise themselves - rather than splitting off to form new parties or join others - there could be some consolation for deputy leader candidate Stella Creasy. Despite losing to Tom Watson (Mason, 2015), she would be in one of the, potentially, more powerful positions within the party.

Now one of the most visible women in the parliamentary party, Creasy has the makings of a future Labour leader (Blackburn et al, 2015). But first, as a visible figure in the Co-operative Party, she could lead a fully coherent, organised, internal faction - one that would be able to reach out to all sides and bring them together.

Arguably, the Co-operative Party has never been in a stronger position within the Labour Party.

With the new leadership committed to public ownership and the Labour mainstream having just begun to fully embrace neoliberalism, along with its vast reductions in public spending and role of the state, just as it was swept away by the Corbyn-tide, ideas are needed in which each side can see its values.

Co-operation has the capacity to fill that space. The Corbyn faction has expressed openness to the public ownership they have championed coming in the form of worker and customer co-operatives, rather than control by the state (Voinea, 2015) and New Labour at times embraced mutualism during their time in power (Wintour, 2010).

In those discussion, co-operative voices would have a strong role to play and Creasy and the Labour Co-op MPs could help to bridge the factional divide. As for a leading, mediating, figure, Creasy herself has been a vocal champion of feminism and women's rights (Bryant, 2014; Creasy 2012) and championed credit unions in opposition to pay day lenders - both progressive causes around which even the most disparate wings of the party could unite.

The idea of economic co-operation itself might also have an even bigger impact than just holding together the Labour coalition. It could also be one of the pillars upon which an electoral alliance of Left-wing parties could be built. While it is unlikely that the Liberal Democrats could get behind a program that would see Corbyn pushing state socialism, there has long been a liberal commitment to co-operatives. Small crossovers of this kind can be the foundations for much larger agreements.

Labour is in need of a means to hold its broad coalition together. It is also very much in need of visible female leaders (Moore, 2015). Stella Creasy is in a position to play mediator, along with other Labour Co-op MPs. Played right, its is a role that could see her leading a much wider movement in the future.

As Labour divisions fuel fears of a 1980s SDP-style split, it's worth noting that Tony Blair could have prevented this crisis

Tony Blair at Oslo in 2011, in his role as Middle East Envoy. Photograph: Jonas Gahr Støre og Tony Blair via photopin (license) (cropped)

As, probably, a rather dramatic over reaction, it has been suggested that the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the new Labour leader could lead to a split in the party. His election to power representing the party's Left-wing, it is said, could lead to another breakaway akin to that of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in the 1980s.

That split was led by Centre-Right, liberal and pro-European members of Labour, known as the Gang of Four - namely David Owen, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers. That group left to form a new centre party, the SDP, in response to the rise of a Left-wing faction under Tony Benn and Michael Foot, when they found themselves unwilling to follow an overbearing Right-wing faction under Denis Healey.

The formation of the breakaway party almost saw Labour drop to third in the popular vote when the SDP, in their alliance (which later became a merger) with the Liberals, took 25% of the vote in 1983. But there was a time when such a split may not have been so bad of a thing for the Labour Party, for socialists, for trade unionists or for British politics.

In the 1990s, Tony Blair came to power in the Labour party and began his 'modernising' project. So strong was his position, he was able to rewrite fundamental elements of the party constitution to allow himself greater freedom of means in achieving the party's democratic socialist ends - his so-called Clause IV Moment.

At its peak, Blair's 'Third Way' New Labour held 418 seats in the House of Commons, had the support of the Liberal Democrats and benefited from the defection of a good number of moderate Conservatives. Only a few steps shy of completing this project, Blair stopped short. Blair could have created a new, broad, Centre party - a UK Democratic Party - that might have absorbed Tory and Labour moderates alike into a new, more progressive, establishment party. Instead, he left Labour in no man's land.

Labour have become a party of professional, pro-establishment, besuited politicians, who won't give up their connections trade unions and Left-wing politics even as they preaches Right-wing economics to an electorate turned cold. The hypocrisy inherent in falling short of a full transformation, by trying to have it both ways, has seen the party's idealistic Left-wing base fragment, scattering into a hundred different parties. The party is bleeding away its identity.

It does now seem as if progressives - of all stripes - may have been substantially better off had Blair, in fact, succeeded in his attempt to modernise the Labour Party into a moderate, centrist, democratic party. Not because Blair's professional Centrism offers a particular boon to progressive politics, but rather because the waters of the Labour Party's identity would not have become so muddy.

The socialists and trade unionists of Labour's left might have become a consolidated rump, a solid, united, party that could have kept together the various disparate socialist parties. It might have been a strong and idealistic voice, alongside Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, to the Left of Blair's Centrist democrats - a loud progressive anchor, like Sinistra Ecologia Liberta in Italy, to the Left of their own Democrats, or as the SNP have sought to cast themselves.

Maybe Blair's democratic party would have had the courage to introduce proportional representation - ultimately reducing the Conservative to a Far-Right rump, powerless in the face of the support for the Centre and Left. Maybe there would not have been two elections with Labour scrambling ever Rightwards in their desperation to avoid losing power.

Blair's failure to follow through, along with his more controversial decisions, helped to lay the foundations of the Left's fragmentation. Left-leaning voters, who want to vote 'true to themselves' (Freedland, 2015), have found themselves disillusioned or cast adrift as first Labour and then the Lib Dems sought the Centre-ground in the hope of getting into power.

Yet the progressive parties can still recover. Labour remains the largest Left-leaning party and would need to be at the heart of any recovery. Labour's various factions, if they could work together under a new leader, would be the central pillar of Caroline Lucas' proposed progressive alliance for 2020 - which will likely be the best hope for the Left's election chances.

A pact would need to put electoral reform at the heart of its campaign and aim to confine the iniquities of the UK's political system - that force the creation of these alienating big tents that prevent truly representative elections - to the past. From that point on, the Left could be true to itself. There could be multiple parties, of socialists and liberals, greens and radicals, without each hurting the election chances of the other.

It might end the stifling of legitimate political voices, that denies voters the opportunity to make clear their priorities. The Left could still then work together in government, in the spirit of co-operation and consensus for the common good, to ensure that we do not again have a government of narrow interests ruling on just a third of the vote.

Election 2015: Labour Party

In 2010 Labour sagged to a narrow loss under the weight of thirteen years in government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Two wars, an assault upon civil liberties, and the financial collapse of 2008 had burnt out many supporters on the New Labour brand.

Amongst Ed Miliband's tasks in 2015 has been to face the legacy of Blair and Brown. So far he has approached that task by claiming that the Labour Party of the past was wrong (ITV, 2015). The trouble is that not much has changed from the New Labour days to make the party more progressive.

The party's five key pledges for 2015 are:

1. A strong economic foundation
2. Higher living standards for working families
3. An NHS with the time to care
4. Controls on immigration
5. A country where the next generation can do better than the last

Beyond that very vague language is very little drama. The pledge to raise living standards comes with a new regulator for energy suppliers and a rise in the minimum wage - though only to £8 by 2020, which is only a slight advance upon the already expected yearly rise (BBC, 2014).

Labour's pledge on the NHS largely amounts to a recruitment drive, albeit much needed, but there has not yet been a commitment to the funding that the NHS has claimed will be needed. Even Labour's announcement on the election campaign's opening day that they would cap private profits made from NHS contracts is tantamount to admitting that Labour is not interested in ending the creeping privatisation that expanded so much under the party's watch (Wintour, 2015).

As for the pledge to build a strong economic foundation, analysis of Labour plans seems to suggest that they will borrow some and cut less in order to eventually open up a £39bn spending gap over the Conservatives (Peston, 2015). Yet Labour seem to be determine to convince people that they are sticking to the Conservative austerity script, scrambling to offer confusing reassurances to critics regarding whether they will, or how they will, borrow for spending after 2015 (Eaton, 2014{1}; Hope, 2015).

But the pledge that best represents the problems with Labour's thinking heading into this election is its commitment to 'controls on immigration' - complete with its own mug (Perraudin, 2015). It is on immigration that Ed Miliband thinks his predecessors have gotten it most wrong. A look at their proposals is even more disconcerting for progressives. They place a heavy focus upon allowing the rich and influential to move how they like, while denying access to the poorest. For those already driven away from Labour by the party mimicking the Far-Right in their language on immigration during the Blair and Brown years, or those that agreed with Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems in their opposition to child detention, Labour is doing itself no favours (Hasan, 2014).

Their lurch to the Right on immigration is matched by the party's shift in position over welfare (Eaton, 2014{2}). The party's proposals include a 'return to the contributory principle', which would mean the introduction of further conditions for access to welfare (Byrne, 2012). Nowhere will that weight be felt more than by those aged Eighteen to Twenty-one (Wintour, 2014), who under Labour would have extra conditions, including means-testing, placed upon them at a time when unemployment amongst young people is already threateningly high all across Europe (Tse & Esposito, 2013). The fact is that those supportive of generally accessible welfare for those in need are fighting a losing battle against public opinion (The Guardian; 2014).

Commentators have for some time been calling for Labour to come out with a strong and hopeful, passionate progressive message (Jones, 2015) - but what they have gotten is at best pragmatism - and at worst a rather cynical appeasement of the Far Right.

All of it amounts to one painfully obvious thing. Labour just don't really seem to understand how to shake off the disaffection that saw Labour finally lose its majority in 2010.

For progressives, alarmed by austerity being driven by social conservatism, Labour - historically the party representative of the centre-left - aught to be the safe and obvious port of call. But the party has leaned so far to the Right, with so few concessions towards radical, socialist and liberal Left-wingers, that it is hard to see Miliband's Labour Party as much in the way of an alternative to the current coalition.

That reality is particularly sad because there are positive ideas out there, such as profit-sharing proposals from the party's partner Co-operative Party (Boffey, 2015). But they seem to have found little public traction in a Labour party that seems to be allergic to trying to reform their pro-establishment attitudes - and determination to siphon money out of corrupt institutions to remedy the wrongs they have caused, rather than attempting to reform them.

Much as the Conservatives are struggling just to consolidate their position, Labour too seem to be lacking a positive spark. The difference is that Labour should have everything going for them. They are the supposedly left-leaning opposition to a government imposing unpopular austerity. Their nearest competitor for left-leaning votes, the Liberal Democrats, have largely burned themselves out through coalition with the Conservatives.

And yet Labour seems incapable of taking the initiative. The fact is that the polling suggests they will lose votes and seats to other progressive parties, and pick up votes and seats from the governing parties - but that is unlikely to be thanks to anything more than a negative vote, a reaction against austerity - regardless of whether or not Labour actually intends to end austerity.

---

Prospects: 34% for 273 seats (a gain of 16).*

Possible Coalition Partners: SNP (51 seats), Liberal Democrats (28), SDLP (3), Green Party (1).

Verdict: While they can likely expect some voters to return to due to the party representing a historically symbolic vote against conservative austerity, Labour have yet to do enough to win back progressive voters who went away looking for better alternatives. Like the Tories, they will do well to simply consolidate their position.

---

An Alliance of Labour and Liberal Democrats could do so much more

In the news this week has been talk that, come 2015, negotiation between the UK Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats over an alliance or coalition at the next election could be very likely (Mason, 2014). It isn't an outcome hard to imagine, as the parties have much in common and have been down this road before.

The recent commitment by Labour to a government of, should they be elected, 'big reform, not big spending' certainly closes a lot of the gaps between the two groups (Sparrow, 2014).

The Lib Dem wing closely associated with the Orange Book, a work encouraging the market liberal strain of thought within the party, would certainly be able to work with the new Labour Party direction (Priestland, 2014) - as long as they remain open to various political, social and economic reforms, that don't involve expanding the state, or state spending (Mason, 2014).

Yet it seems like there is a much more that the two parties could do. From interest in social liberal causes, like decentralisation and the extension of liberties, to progressive economics, like co-operativism and mutualism, both parties have a strong progressive heritage.

Right now, though, both sides are too concerned with meeting the present political orthodoxy. Under pressure from the right and left-wing strands of pressure groups, Labour have tried to walk the tightrope between the two. On the one side, the left-wing Trade Unions have called strikes and been active at protests, yet at the same time seen their influence within the party reduced by internal party reforms (BBC, 2014).

On the other, the right-wing has pressured Labour to seize the political centre and play to the interests and concerns of the middle class. To encourage the capitalist market and related ambitions, and to distance themselves from the policies of state management, public ownership and nationalisation of the past.

Among those applying that pressure has been former Labour leader and Prime Minister Tony Blair (Wintour, 2014). He has said that Labour needed to stay in 'reality' with their progressivism, and not be derailed by delusionary ideological views. Yet, when Ed Miliband, the present Labour leader, spoke before a trade union audience, he still made conciliatory noises supportive of rail renationalisation (Wintour, 2014{2}).

However, the latest step Labour have made, to commit to 'big reform, not big spending', demonstrates a first real commitment to Labour's right-wing, to a market liberal direction. And that move brings the party very much in line with Clegg's market liberal Lib Dems.

An alliance between the two, though, would not have to go in such a mainstream, pro-Market Capitalism, direction. The two parties certainly have much more progressive ideas in common.

The late Roy Jenkins, formerly a leading member of both parties, described the two parties as sharing in a great liberal tradition (Jenkins, 2001). From the decentralisation of power, such as the Liberals' support for Irish Home Rule to Labour's realisation of Scottish and Welsh devolution, to the campaigns for social reforms, such as pensions and the NHS, the two parties have a major heritage of social liberalism.

On the matter of economics, both parties have expressed their support for co-operatives and mutuals. The Labour Party has a long standing relationship with the Co-operative Party and the Liberal Democrats have also stressed the importance of worker stakeholdership, in their call for a John Lewis economy (Ashton, 2012).

The Left has long been divided between these two parties, despite their having much in common. If they are able to negotiate an alliance at the next election it would be a significant step forward for Leftist politics in the UK. And yet, an alliance between Labour and the Lib Dems has so much potential there is the danger of it proving to be a massive let down. To avoid that, they need to be brave and take the risk of not sticking to the moderate, middle of the road, middle class capitalist agenda.