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.

The Conservative reshuffle is a sleight-of-hand - all about distraction to disguise the main objectives

Last week, the UK's Conservative Party launched a cabinet reshuffle. The reshuffle, reassigning ministerial portfolios to new ministers, is a fairly standard and regular occurrence in politics. Yet this one carries a lot of symbolic meaning. In advance of the 2015 UK general election, the Conservatives reorganising themselves.

That makes their choices for cabinet members very interesting. The clothes they choose to dress themselves in tells us a lot about what they think will be needed to placate voters their less popular policies. Behind the window-dressing, matters like the choice of ministers will also give us some insight into the policies the Tories will look to pursue.

On the surface, all of the attention seems to be paid to making the party look more representative. Achieving this has meant attempting to increase in the number of women in the cabinet, and selecting an overall younger group of ministers (The Independent, 2014). Yet under the attempt to create a representative cloak, we find other, sterner and more reactionary, messages.

They read: anti-Europe; centralised United Kingdom; business prospects and profitability before the enrichment of life; institutional inequality; and, of course, the same old welfare 'restructuring' rumbling on. Herein lies the danger of a popular cause: they can too easily be used as a cloak to hide other purposes. In the case of the Tory cabinet reshuffle, paying close attention to the changes, or lack of them, can expose some idea of their true intentions.

Beneath the veneer, even some of the symbolic, representative, moves very quickly begin to look superficial. Women in the cabinet, even those taking over positions previously held by men, find themselves with less seniority and less pay (Mason, 2014{1}).

Meanwhile, the ministries of education, equalities and women, all individually important matters, have been combined into one portfolio, under one minister (Mason, 2014{1}). That puts a lot of broad, and quite inspecific, matters into the hands of one minister, which could be taken as a diminishment of the importance given to them. The appointment of a female minister seem like a cold cover for that.

The fact that the minister is a woman, is also a cover for some other uncomfortable facts. Nicky Morgan not only voted against equal marriage (Mason, 2014{2}), but also argued for expensive, private, higher education. She described tax-based education as an institution used as a rite of passage, rather than - as she thinks higher education aught to be - a sleek, privately paid for, system in which young people make pragmatic decisions about what will best help, and least hinder, their future business prospects (BBC, 2010).

The egregious Conservative welfare policy will continue to be reinforced by the reshuffle survivor Iain Duncan Smith. He remains at the helm of the much derided reconstruction and dismantling of the social safety net (Jones, 2014).

Pro-Europeans, and defenders of some European institutions, have found themselves purged (Mason, 2014{1}), as part of a continuing anti-European direction. Even the new Minister for Wales is opposed to devolving power and considers it dangerous, while representing part of the UK run by devolved institutions (Mason, 2014{1}).

The pragmatic, and even cynical, aspects of this cabinet reshuffle only expose how out of touch the Tories are from the world outside Westminster. Things like representation are still seen as little more than pieces to be moved around the political board, as part of an election strategy or an attempt to make the party leader appear strong or decisive (Rawnsley, 2014).

We have to expect better from elected officials than these cynical strategies, aimed at raising popular support by any means. Such populism becomes a back door, by which policies can be smuggled into government - in this case thinly veiled and deeply conservative, even reactionary, policies.

We can't let ourselves be deceived so easily, or allow such cheap deception to be one of the most effective means of gaining elected power. We must be vigilant of the danger posed by the power that is afforded to those who can effectively exploit the latest populist cause to their advantage.

==========
References:
==========
+ The BBC's 'Reshuffle at-a-glance: In, out and moved about'; 15 July 2014.

+ The Independent's 'Cabinet reshuffle: A new-look team that David Cameron hopes will keep him in Downing Street'; 15 July 2014.

+ Rowena Mason's 'Conservative backlash against Cameron cabinet reshuffle begins'; in The Guardian; 15 July 2014{1}.

+ Rowena Mason's 'Nicky Morgan's gay-marriage stance causes equalities role confusion … again'; in The Guardian; 15 July 2014{2}.

+ The BBC's Politics Show (East Midlands); 7 November 2010.

+ Owen Jones' 'Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms are disastrous – yet he’s still standing'; in The Guardian; 16 July 2014.

+ Andrew Rawnsley's 'A reshuffle that opened a window into the soul of David Cameron'; in The Guardian; 20 July 2014.

Strikes make a strong statement, but need the support of many voices to make a debate

In the final months of 2011, the Occupy movement reached its crescendo. At its peak, the movement had occupied many important, central and highly visible areas of major cities. Since then, however, the movement has disappeared out of the mainstream. Occupy showed exactly how a progressive protest could be mobilised in a highly visible and effective manner, burning bright like a beacon for those disaffected. But it also showed how such a movement can also burn out after only a short while.

Meanwhile, other progressive, leftist, political protests against the economic establishment have rumbled on, quieter and receiving far less attention. The the trade unions have been in the midst of the UK's own anti-cuts, anti-establishment, protests. Even when they have managed to get coverage, they have struggled to find consistent support among activists, protesters, the general public and the political order. If the strike actions of history tell us anything, from May '68 in France to the ongoing Chilean Winter, you need all of these facets to produce comprehensive reform.

This has been particularly demonstrated by the latest round of trade union strikes (Taylor et al, 2014). Trade unions called strike action on 10 July, with over a million public sector workers walking out to protest low pay and zero hour contracts, as well as stagnant public sector pay at a time when the standard of living is falling and the cost of living is rising (O'Grady et al, 2014).

Yet, strike action has not been accompanied by a visible enough progressive, leftist, activism, and the general population remains largely passive. That in particular makes it easy for the trade union strike tactics to be criticised by David Cameron and the Conservatives, who want to put stricter rules on future strikes (Morris, 2014). The Conservatives, whose policies are being protested against, have been criticised by the Liberal Democrats and Labour for wanting a clampdown (Mason, 2014).

Whichever way that political posturing goes, a quick look at history will show that, either way, strikes alone can only apply so much pressure. They need support, and a general comprehension of their plight and of their cause, as part of a vision supported and actively campaigned for across the left (Chessum, 2014).

In France, in the May '68, students and workers held several protests and strikes that coincided, but were not coherent. The combined pressure of both movements managed to force President de Gaulle into calling an election. However the lack of unity among political parties on the left, their lack of connection to the protesters, and the lack of coherence between the protesters and the wider public, especially beyond Paris, resulted in a quite catastrophic defeat for the left.

What the protesters of May '68 did achieve was largely fractured and fragmented, won piecemeal by each of the groups. The workers negotiated a better deal out of the government, increasing pay and reducing working hours, and the students succeeded in winning concessions with regards to the running of a number of universities (Lichfield, 2008).

But the major victory was social. The movement broke new ground for personal freedoms and paved the way for some of the concessionary social legislation that followed (Poggioli, 2008). But comprehensive political change was missed, because the various groups did not pull together to build a coherent vision that sought for all of their concessions within a better framework. They made a statement, but did not launch a debate.

The slow success of the Chilean Winter emphasises this point. Still struggling on, after four years, confederations of students, workers and unions are slowly seeing reform. The protests began as a student campaign for the reform of the education system, and slowly expanded into a generally supported push for political reform.

In 2013, that campaign saw the electoral defeat of the political allies of conservative President Sebastián Piñera, with Michelle Bachelet a new socialist President elected, along with a new left-wing alliance (Collyns & Watts, 2013). Among those elected where the prominent figures from the student protests Camila Vallejo, for the Communists, and Gabriel Boric, for the Autonomous Left. Only through persistent, widespread and interlinking activism and support has this, and the other small concessions so far won, been possible (Aljazeera, 2014).

The message is clear: strike action alone is not enough. It is however a strong and visible statement. In order to make a push for real political reform however, rather than just to secure concessions, the visibility and broad inclusiveness, of a movement like Occupy, needs to be combined with a sustained activism. The aim has to be to produce a general comprehension and support of the aims and values of the movement. The strikes are a statement. Next comes the debate.

==========
References:
==========
+ Matthew Taylor, Rowena Mason, Helena Horton & Rebecca Maguire's 'Public-sector strikes: hundreds of thousands join rallies in pay protest'; in The Guardian; 10 July 2014.

+ Frances O'Grady, Felicity Dowling & Stuart Guy's 'Why we are going on strike'; in The Guardian; 10 July 2014.

+ Nigel Morris' 'NUT strike: David Cameron announces crackdown on strike action ahead of mass industrial action'; in The Independent; 9 July 2014.

+ Rowena Mason's 'Vince Cable opposes tightening industrial action law'; in The Guardian; 10 July 2014.
+ Michael Chessum's 'The anti-austerity left is re-emerging. This time it must take root'; in The Guardian; 20 June 2014.

+ John Lichfield's 'Egalité! Liberté! Sexualité!: Paris, May 1968'; in The Independent; 23 February 2008.

+ Sylvia Poggioli's 'Marking the French Social Revolution of '68'; on NPR; 13 May 2008.

+ Patrice de Beer's 'May ‘68: France's politics of memory'; on Open Democracy; 28 April 2008.

+ Dan Collyns & Jonathan Watts' 'Bachelet pledges radical constitutional reforms after winning Chilean election'; in The Guardian; 16 December 2013.

+ Jonathan Franklin's 'Chile's Commander Camila, the student who can shut down a city'; in The Guardian; 24 August 2011.

+ Aljazeera's 'Tear gas used at Chile protest over education'; 12 June 2014.