Pluralism is more than choices - it is how we re-engage and build a real civic consensus

Corbyn, seen here speaking at at CWU event in Manchester, rejected the idea of a multi-party progressive alliance at the final Labour Leadership hustings in Glasgow.

The stalemate in Spanish politics, unbroken now by two elections and very much looking like leading to a third election in the space of a year (Jones, 2016), is the most obvious symptom of a divided society. But Spain is hardly alone in that.

Recent elections in the UK have shown British politics heading the same direction. The two traditional big tents are losing their grip and people are looking for other options. As a result, the broad social cross-sections needed to hold majority power - even under a majoritarian two-party system like first-past-the-post - are becoming harder to build and control.

The questions is, what can be done to avoid such an impasse?

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the surest path to stability is pluralism. But getting there requires rethinking what is meant by pluralism, away from the simplistic image of a fractured multi-party politics.

The tendency in the UK has been to portray plural systems, with their coalitions between multiple parties, as a system of never ending deal making - in contrast with the direct and little-trammelled power afforded to majority governments by the two-party system.

But that deeply simplistic picture ignores both the necessity for representation and the true building of consensus. Under the two-party system, politics is squeezed and distilled into narrow establishment and opposition positions - politics simplified into two parties locked into adversarial stances that drive a wedge through society.

That reduces politics to a polarised dynamic, with no space for nuance. Worse still, policy has become a professional art, the preserve of a narrow group of think tanks and party policy officers, that usually offers watered down versions of public campaigns - ostensibly to make them broadly palatable.

But trying to stretch a big tent over a broad membership, and expecting them to fall in line behind a professionally crafted policy platform, just alienates people from the responsibility to try to find consensus and imagine grounds for agreement.

It is politics made more efficient, but robbed of its essential character: as a public forum for critical debate on how to shape our common space, where representation and inclusion are the priority not minority voices competing to 'win' the right to direct everyone else from their own narrow perspective.

It is one of the more disappointing elements about the Labour Party that it has consistently failed to grasp this idea - even under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn talks of re-engaging social movements, but fails to engage with pluralism, with multiplicity, rejecting particularly the prospect of a Progressive Alliance.

Even under democratic socialist leadership, the party is still presenting itself as the self-styled only option, where the ideas of the Left - even when including trade unions and social movements of various and diverse kinds - must still ultimately be filtered through one single political party, pitching for broad public consumption, to achieve political expression.

What a contrast that is to how Barcelona's radical democrats view their task. Barcelona En Comu, not so much a party as a civic alliance, also talk of rebuilding the civic representation aspect of politics, but they are demonstrating it in practice.

Their municipal government is built around an alliance of various movements and parties. They understand their task in the civic space, in the movements and in the squares, is to involve both their opponents and fellow travellers of different parties alongside their own supporters, if they are really going to build a system of political pluralism - representative and inclusive

If Catalunya, the wider Spain and Britain keep down the road of adversarial politics the only result there can ever be is a society where the majority feel disconnected and uninvolved with their own physical and social spaces.

Politics isn't about winning. Its about representation. A plural politics takes as its starting point ensuring that people are able to see their views represented - whether directly through assemblies or a little more indirectly through multiple parties.

The next step is to rethink how these groups then interact. Rather than adversaries, these groups then hold a responsibility to craft, through debate, discussion and, yes, compromise, their various policy themes into a coherent shape that reflects the particular, distinct and plural society from which they have sprung.

Only then can people begin to reconnect, both with politics and with their civic spaces. Consensus is key. Representation is key. Pluralism is not the beginning of division and instability, but the only path to a real and lasting stability.

Secularism is supposed to be at the heart of free thought and expression, not an excuse to suppress them

Written over the door of the Faculte de Droit in Paris is the promise of liberty, equality and brotherhood from the secular state to its citizens, yet secularism still faces accusations of overbearing paternalism.

Secularism, at its most literal, means the separation of church and state. At the core of the principal is the idea that no religion - or any other formal, organised, set of beliefs - should play an integrated role in the governance or administration of civic institutions, so as to maintain their neutrality.

However, it is also intended to guarantee to citizens the freedom of conscience, and through that policy give support to freedom of thought. So as much as it means religion staying out of public administration, it also meant the state leaving personal beliefs, including religion, as a private matter.

How that principle is applied in practice, in modern times, has come under a spotlight in the past week thanks to the response of some to a rising fear in Europe of fundamentalist Islam. In France, local government in some areas have passed prohibitions against certain kinds of outward religious expression - the most notable result so far being the clamp down on 'burkinis' (Amrani, 2016).

One thing is absolutely clear. Issuing legal commands as to what women can and cannot wear does not convey "la légitime et saine laïcité", the legitimate and healthy secularity, or the guarantee of the freedom of conscience, promised by the French secularism that descends from the 1905 laws.

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that the world today is not the world into which those particular laws where issued. Listed amongst the laws of 1905, almost paradoxically next to the freedom of conscience, was the prohibition of public displays of religion.

The France that had the 1905 law applied to it was a country deeply entwined with the Catholic Church. The entangling influence of the church was deeply resented and the emergence of laicite came hand in hand with a history of anti-clericalism that pushed back and tried to wrestle society out of the grip of the clergy..

The Left bloc government that advocated secularism, formed by Radicals and Socialists, wanted in particular to end the influence of Catholicism over education - which had been traditionally provided almost exclusively by the clergy. Yet the broken clerical influence was simply replaced with that of the centralised state.

As much as laicite, and in particular secular education, was a republican and humanist project, it was also deeply nationalist. In early twentieth century France, secularism was at the centre of a broader policy of 'modernisation', that sought to establish and project the power of a centralised nation-state - seeking to make the civic state the centre of a society with a singular, integrated and unifying, language and culture.

In modern Europe, secularism has largely succeeded, yet it has done so alongside the advance of the centralised nation-states and nowhere in Europe has secularism and the nation-state been so heavily intertwined as in France - as to represent a major component of the 'national values' and national identity.

The rise of extremist and fundamentalist religion, and extremist and fundamentalist ideologies - that seek to play an active role in government to directly impose their values on citizens - do call for careful thought. The Nationalist Right's answers to these complex matters has been to call for a more strict imposition of 'national values' - and in France that has meant using secularism as the means to legitimise an overbearing policy.

This is a threat to the principles of secularism. The independence of the functions of government from any interest group is a worthy idea. The freedom of conscience is essential. As George Clemenceau - former Prime Minister of France, a radical and a contemporary to the 1905 laws - argued that you do not get liberty by fighting one tyranny with another tyranny.

Clemenceau wrote of his certainty that "apprenticeship in liberty can only be served through liberty" and that to "struggle against the church there is only one means - the liberty of the individual". Support for free thought, openness and tolerance are the progressive response to closed tyrannical intolerance. Stooping to the regulation of citizens' clothing just swaps one degrading paternalism for another.

'Housing market' is a lie - there is no market, only a corporate monopoly, fueling a crisis, that needs desperately to be broken

Government right-to-buy policy is plugging holes in the greedy housing sector, but is unsustainably syphoning homes form social housing to do so.

Britain's housing crisis rumbles on. When Theresa May returns to the role of Prime Minister in earnest, to face whoever will be (at least nominal) leader of the opposition, getting to grips with housing has to be at the top of the list.

An uncomfortable fact for the Conservative leader is that the money made by private landlords from housing benefit - received as a welfare benefit by households in order to pay their rent - has doubled over the last decade (Gayle, 2016).

That fact goes side by side with the continued rise in rents and prices, escalating beyond reality for the overwhelming majority of people (Chakrabortty, 2016), and the failure of successive governments to build sufficient housing. And then there is the siphoning off of homes from social housing stock (Williams, 2016).

To plug shortfalls in properties available for purchase by those with the means, former Chancellor George Osborne raided social housing and housing associations. Rent-to-buy took affordable housing for the least well off, to feed a greedy and bloated system in danger of collapse.

All of these facts point to a very particular problem. The housing system is very much tailored to the interests of a small group of people. Those who own property and those who have capital to spend, playing in a housing market that is exclusively for them.

Conservative policy has failed the worst off and served only an upper middle class of wealthy property owners and those fortunate enough to already have some 'equity' in the system. Everyone else, the poor and the young, is automatically frozen out.

For some this is a double blow. While private landlords reap astounding profits from housing benefits - since the government effectively subsidises this rentier practise, so literally encourages this state of affairs - it is the taxpayer that is funding this policy.

What is more astounding is that investing public funds instead in a big increase in homes in the social housing sector would actually reduce this private landlord subsidy by billions (Gayle, 2016), saving taxpayers huge sums at a time when spending on essential services is stretched thin.

Amongst the first tasks has to be to get to grips with the rental sector. New York housing chief Alicia Glen has argued that Britain's problem is the expensive and inefficient private landlording system (Murray, 2016), which flies in the face of the lower costs, and so cheaper rents, of operating at scale - although that implies that the purpose is efficient service not self-enrichment of rentiers.

But larger organisations, operating at scale shouldn't be the end of the story. There is room and need for mutuals and cooperative principles - for rental housing that can operate at scale and which honours the stake held by those investing time and money in living in those properties.

However, this is nothing less than a complicated situation. Not all private landlords bad or greedy. For some it is an essential source of income in hard times - look at the difficult situation facing tourist trammelled Barcelona, where efforts to stop illegal renting to tourists runs up against the needs of people with otherwise limited sources of income.

A small clan of property owners are being enriched by rising property prices as most people are simply cut off from access. Some exploit that position further as rentiers, raking in cash from private renters and from public subsidy. It is clear that a new approach is needed.

Part one of any response has to be public investment: build more housing and make most of it affordable, truly affordable, social housing. So many ills could be fixed through this one act of government spending, one that would pay itself back many times over.

But part two is more difficult. The entire housing sector needs to be urgently rethought, because it is not fit for use. Housing, a human essential, a necessity like fresh water, is being held ransom by those few holding it as property - stifling supply and bloating prices in bubbles that have disastrous rippling results.

Not least, steps should be taken to discourage unproductive property accumulation - like land banking or small rental property portfolios that gouge prices - and policies such as land value taxes should be taken into serious consideration, because the phrase 'housing market' is a lie. There is no market, only a corporate monopoly that needs desperately to be broken.