16 FOR A PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE Jay Morton reports on he Greens proposa ind assesses what thi means for the left: The Green Party elected new co-leaders Jonathan Bartley and Caroline Lucas at its Autumn Conference. They were elected with an overwhelming majority of 86% although some members resented the cherry-picking of Bartley, an openly Christian former campaigner for John Major, coinciding with the inevitable coronation of Lucas, the Party's only Westminster politician.
The major theme of their leadership campaign was to the need to work with other parties to defeat the Tories, including at the next election. The idea, still in its infancy has been branded a
This narrative comes from the cross-party co-operation during the EU referendum campaign through Another Europe Is Possible alongside the major democratic deficits with the current electoral system. And of course First Past the Post has failed to deliver a progressive government for a long time. The Tories were last elected on a minority vote granting them a majority government not reflecting the will of the population.
Although there is no clear idea what form this Progressive Alliance would take it is thought to include electoral pacts of various forms with centre-left parties from Lib Dems to Labour and the nationalists SNP and Plaid Cymru. The SNP to their credit have expressed lip service support to the idea despite them benefitting enormously from the current electoral system.
In the panel session on a Progressive Alliance at Green Party conference, Lucas said that she was not proposing a top-down approach but putting the idea forward as part of a grassroots social movement for an end to austerity, a positive and progressive approach to the terms of Brexit and a push for fairer, more representative democracy.
I liked the idea of this electoral pact when Britain was facing the prospect of Miliband's hapless Diet Austerity mainly because the Greens and SNP were adopting some of the radical politics necessary to oppose the Tories and global financial elite. I hoped that an electoral pact would drag Labour back to the left to achieve a decent opposition and secure an overall win. Since the rise of Corbyn and attempted coups of the Blairites, is this reasoning is still valid?
The alliance has been proposed as a one-off system to end Torydriven austerity and transform the outdated electoral system to direct Proportional Representation. Based on the last vote share the "Progressives" would lose on 47.5% versus Progressives" (UKIP and Tories) 49.5%. A lot has changed since the last election and it is not yet known how the rise of Corbyn and Labour's Left, coupled with the fallout from Brexit charade and deceit, will affect the overall balance.
Local parties would be given autonomy to negotiate the Progressive Alliance as they see fit which does not fill me with much optimism that anything will be achieved. Co-panellist Labour MP Lisa Nandy supports the idea of co-operation between parties but refuses to endorse Labour standing down in any wards. For a Progressive Alliance to actually work some give and take would have to take place. It was suggested the pact could hold open or closed primaries to select the best
What should socialists make of all this? Defeating Tories where possible is the main objective. It is an opportunity to stop the squabbling of Westminster and create a formida ble opposition in the uncertain world post-Brexit. It could be an opportunity to push the eco-socialist agenda, and sideline the undesirable aspects of each party's politics and form a Nordic style Red-Green Alliance in Britain.
If played well, I think the gamble would pay off it could be the start of a much broader social movement against the old style of politics. A move to proportional representation could trigger a split of the PLP without entirely destroying the Labour movement. Furthermore it could allow an increased resurgence of the Left where many independent Marxist and Ecological parties become viable alternatives in direct democracy.
Ctava Cocon
The proposal for a Progressive Alliance has had a fair bit of coverage in the media. But it should not be viewed in isolation but as the product of left radicalisations fed by the betrayals of Blairites and Clegg which gave rise to the Greens and now Corbynism. Jeremy's call for a "new kind of politics" during his first leadership election had a wide echo. It seems like an appeal for a less tribal form of politics mirroring the broad social movements of in other parts of Europe such as
Attending The World Transformed festival, I was impressed that ecosocialist ideas were a significant part of the transformative agenda proposed by Momentum and could finally start to diffuse through to Labour's frontline platform. At Sunday evening's main event 'Future Visions', Friends of the Earth campaigner Asad Rehman spoke on a wide range of issues including the effect of climate change on the situation in Syria and the need for solidarity with indigenous activists protecting their sacred lands and hence the whole planet. On Monday, a session called Climate Change: What can Trade Unions do about it?' which discussed the role local and regional trade unions can play in fossil fuel divestment. It advocated 'One Million Climate Jobs' pushing for investment and employment in the sectors needed to reduce both climate change and austerity, through renewable energy, housing upgrades and better public transport. Tuesday featured a
page 17 of the scan
session called The Green Industrial Revolution' hosted by Environmentum, the wing of Momentum with an environmental focus, pushing for the policy of 'eco council homes for all" and showcasing the promo video for Corbyn's 'Energy Policy for the 60 million' through community owned renewable energy.
Meanwhile, Caroline Lucas brought the conversation about the Progressive alliance to Labour's conference through a fringe event to launch the book: The Alternative: Towards a New Progressive Politics co-authored with Nandy and Lib Dem Chris Bowers. This was followed by a panel discussion at The World Transformed. Both were hosted by the "soft left" think-tank Compass who champion the idea of an alliance.
The panel debate was supposed to involve pro-alliance Clive Lewis, but he didn't turn up, so Compass' Neal Lawson from the Chair spoke in favour of the alliance together with Lucas. Lawson argued that the old system of two-party politics is dead and in order to secure a progressive government it is imperative Labour reach out to allies such as Lucas. The counter argument was represented by Momentum's Jon Lansman who proposed a Co-operative Party type affiliation to Labour and Labour NEC member Rhea Wolfson who argued that the SNP were enforcing austerity. It seems to me their arguments are rooted in a falsely romantic view of Labour as the only party of the working-class, recklessly ignoring recent betrayals over Iraq, union-busting and austerity. This has led to working class disaffection witness the current reality of Labour's collapse in Scotland.
Those arguing against the alliance called for everyone to support the
Corbyn movement. It's certainly is the fastest moving vehicle on the left, but is it enough to secure a victory at the
next election? Is it the best way to
involve all those affected by Tory austerity, by Brexit and by the horrors of
climate change. In my view it would be
an error to dismiss the idea of a progressive alliance which could be the
best way of taking forward Corbyn's
call for a new kind of politics - and
for seeing him as Britain's next Prime