The Alternative General Election 2019: Progressive parties need to settle their differences

This is another election that will come down to a simple arithmetic: how can progressives prevent another Tory government, led by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. That simple arithmetic is given a crudity by the fact that most of the progressive parties do not get along.

It's a particularly extraordinary factor in British politics, when you consider how close our progressive political parties are to one another - in their concerns, in their approach, in their policies. Those crossovers continue into this election.

Progressive Goals

All of the progressive parties share a commitment to tackling the climate crisis, with emissions goals set for the 2030s. The features vary, but include tackling energy costs for households and funding the reorganisation of the energy sector and industry to reduce pollution.

Lifelong learning is also a common feature, committing progressives to spending more to enable people to retrain during their working life, and adapt better as the economy changes.

Across the progressive parties is also an instinct to ease the burden that comes with welfare, including, in some form or another, a trial scheme for a basic income.

And of course, tackling the housing crisis is a key priority for all of them, with each making their pitch for how many and what kind of homes they will build.

As ever though, the parties have their differences. What primarily divides the progressive parties are their jealous priorities - and also their deep seated dislike for one another's approach to politics.

Priorities

For Labour, it is what they call real change - the role that public ownership could and should play in giving people a fair chance at a good life. A possibly expensive policy objective that has riled up a lot of people within and without the party.

For the Greens, it's the climate emergency. The centrepiece to a manifesto with some big commitments is £100bn to reach emissions targets by 2030 - much more ambitious than those of the other parties.

And for the Liberal Democrats, they have made "Stop Brexit" their slogan, and to the annoyance even of some of their own supporters, almost the single issue for which the party now stands - even when they might make meaningful pitches on welfare or education reform.

None of these priorities ought to rule out cooperation, but the mutual antipathy between the parties and their memberships always makes things difficult. But imagine if they could cooperate?

For now, see for yourself how close the two biggest progressive parties get in their manifestos, which we breakdown in these articles below:

Labour manifesto review, 'Real Change';

Liberal Democrats manifesto review, 'Stop Brexit';

and then contrast those with the manifesto, and the record in government, of the Conservatives, 'Status Quo';

How badly do you want the Tories out?

This election has all the makings of another two horse race - however much Jo Swinson may be hoping for a Canadian Liberal scale landslide shift. This country's two-party system is just too hard to crack without extenuating circumstances, and the Lib Dems have made too many people mistrustful.

Which makes Labour's determination to stick to it's majoritarian big tent attitude - even in the Corbyn/Momentum era - all the more absurd. Yes, Britain has a two party system. But it has many more parties, that all gain votes and all have devoted supporters who at times are openly hostile to the big two.

Not working in alliance with the third parties, and not working to break up this inequitable electoral and parliamentary system, is a ludicrous act of self harm by the Labour Party - which clings to the remnants of power, mostly expressed these days in the one-party-state level of control it holds over some communities.

Not that other parties have been displaying much of an appetite for unconditional cooperation. The Lib Dems have been trying to oust Corbyn, or deny him the Premiership, as their price for working with Labour. Meanwhile, the SNP want a second referendum on Scottish Independence as their price - one that is too high for most English parties.

That's not to say there has been no cooperation. Working in a small progressive alliance, the Lib Dems, the Greens and Plaid Cymru will probably be able to pick up some crucial seats among the sixty where they are working together. Taking seats away from the Tories, but perhaps also taking seats from Labour.

Labour need to be on the right side of these political alliances if it wants to get into government. The balance of support, in England in particular, means that Labour depend upon tactical voting for them against the Tories, and voters elsewhere leaving the Tories for parties who have a chance to oust them where Labour are outsiders.

Like at the last election, it may be left for ordinary voters, campaign groups and local party associations to work out the cooperation that the national level party leaderships can't if progressives are to oust the Conservatives and their damaging era of austerity and government-by-press-release.

And the damaging era of Tory rule must end. It's been a disaster for the most vulnerable, with the return of Dickensian poverty. Austerity is bad and there is no end in sight under the Tories.

Boris is already demonstrating how his government will be all tell and no show

Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister - a phrase that used to sound like a joke - made a lot of promises in his first speech from Downing Street. His announcement of £1.8bn has been reported as the first down payment on these pledges.

Here-in lies a key sample of what we can expect from Boris Johnson and his verbose new government. A big promise and an announcement, with all the PR trimmings to follow, which on inspection fails to live up to the terms.

All tell and no show. The Boris way.

It's also been the Tories way through all of their time in government, whether under Cameron or May. Announcing old funding again as new funding, relabelling and reannouncing, fiscal politics played out in the media rather than in the treasury. And all the while, the cuts go on.

In the present case, Boris has offered up a lump of extra cash for the NHS. But it isn't what it seems. In fact, the £1bn 'upfront' is money that the government had already promised to the NHS - in exchange for three years of trusts slashing their budgets - only to then block hospitals from spending it.

The second half is for what is know as capital spending, long term investment to pay now for projects that will be ready years from now. This kind of spending is deeply important, but does little for struggling hospitals in the present - and even that sum isn't coming right away.

What the government cares about are the flurry of headlines that follow these press releases - often printed wholly and uncritically in the media. While the front pages tell people what the Tories want them to hear, the analysis is buried and with it the debunking of the government's claims.

These headlines are the heart of a long term government strategy, all about governing by telling and not showing. It has allowed them to slash and slash again at budgets, and the services they fund, and to deflect criticism on to others - mostly the vulnerable, exposed by the Tories' own austerity politics.

Don't be fooled by the headlines. Don't let the Tories, as John Harris puts it, sow "discord and resentment via austerity" only to reap the rewards of the chaos with a sharp PR strategy. If we're not sharper ourselves, we'll face the consequences of Tory disaster politics while they profit.

European Parliament elections 2019: With dangerous times ahead, progressives need to carefully consider their vote

The facts haven't changed. The first referendum had little to do with the lives of working people. It was one lot of middle class who were pro-market liberals arguing with another middle class group of pro-market conservatives. There was no working class option on the ballot.

Remain meant continuing a framework in need of reform, as it wasn't serving Britain's poorest regions. Brexit was a bad joke, offering more of the same, but with less rights, lower standards and a chance for the rich to prey on all of the instability and austerity that would follow.

Two Years On From the Referendum

Of the two choices, Remain was the least worst option - as we spelled out in our guide to the EU Referendum. That hasn't changed and is still the case two years on. Meanwhile, voting for Brexit - even for most of the middle class, never mind working class - is still the turkeys voting for Christmas.

You can see it most clearly in the calls for Leave on 'WTO terms'. The far right charges the European Union with attacking the UK's sovereignty - a claim entirely undermined by the WTO's priorities, of which meddling with domestic lawmaking is paramount to tackling 'non-tariff barriers' to trade, as we debunked in our article on the World Trade Organisation and Trade.

While these two middle class groups argue about which is the best way to make a quick buck, it's the far right who feed on the resulting turmoil. Slick media campaigns, scrubbing their candidates clean for their supporters - covering up racism, intolerance and greed - break traditional editorial filters.

In Britain, that's letting all of the creepy-crawlies come out of the woodwork - the bogeymen are assembling. From the odious charlatan Nigel Farage, to petty thug Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who hides under the disguise "Tommy Robinson", a dangerous crowd are trying to get elected to the European Parliament.

But the danger is amplified by alliance building going on among far right nationalists in the rest of Europe - under Matteo Salvini, Lega leader and Interior Minister in Italy. After years of forcing their way into the system, they're now gathering for a concerted push on what they feel is their ripest target - the European Union and it's vision of a borderless continent.

Conservative ministers are briefing that the 2019 European Parliament Elections will be the biggest protest vote in history, and they might not be wrong about that. But that only adds to the danger - with voters choosing the far right to convey dissatisfaction, they risk the creation of a powerful far right bloc in the European Parliament.

Vote Remain, Vote Green, Vote Liberal

For progressives, the options are fairly straight forward. This isn't a second referendum. This election has lasting consequences if Brexit doesn't happen - elected representatives taking seats in the European Parliament on our behalf, voting on the European agenda for the next five years.

There are two parties in these elections that have clear pro-European and pro-Remain credentials, and who are well organised with other parties across Europe to have a big influence on the future policy. Labour is neither of them - though well connected, it's stance towards Europe has long only been about convenience.

The obvious party are the Liberal Democrats. They are a part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, led by Guy Verhofstadt - one the European Parliament's most recognisable figures - and the public clearly know that a commitment to Europe is one of their primary positions.

The Liberal Democrats are moderately progressive, but mostly lean towards the centre and compromise positions when in power - indeed, their European group includes plenty of liberals who would be comfortable with David Cameron's 'modernised' pro-Business, pro-Market Conservative Party.

The less obvious of the two parties, but growing into becoming a real factor, are the Green Party. Consistently pro-European, and well-organised across the continent alongside other Green Parties and small progressive parties, this election is their chance for a big breakthrough in Britain.

Green parties have been making headway in a number of countries, such as in Germany where they now have 67 seats in the Bundestag and have polled above 20% of the vote - ahead of the old Social Democrats - heading towards taking over as the party of the progressive opposition. Further headway has been made at the regional level in a number of countries.

A Cure for Toxicity

Something needs to change, because the political atmosphere has become stiflingly toxic. In Britain, it has become hard to breathe in political spaces filled with the billious air of Brexit, that leaves no room for many more pressing matters.

I am honestly unsure that the Liberal Democrats can provide the kind of change that is needed. I might have thought differently ten years ago. There is a pro-Business, pro-Market, wing to the party that wields a lot of influence where it matters, and keeps dampening the party's more radical voices.

The Green Party on the other hand, unsullied by government and toxic alliance, could inject a new energy into progressive politics - if they can make a big breakthrough. It may be time for something new, to sweep away the old. But that, first, has to find a place to start, a way into the public consciousness.

One thing I am sure of, is that the far right will not give people what they desire. Their path is only to more division, more suffering - because that is what feeds the far right machine, what gives the far right support and power.

In this election you get one vote, though the system is a little more proportional than Britain's first-past-the-post. Tactical voting is not a priority, with turnout much more important - and convincing people to turn out and vote for a progressive and Remain candidate, prepared to work hard in Brussels. For progressive voters, you need to consider who you want to represent you in the EU, and which party can do that while sending the right message at home.