Perhaps the most “progressive” first step would be to abandon the decidedly doctrinal “left/right” analysis.

Replace intellectual analysis about activism with more activity, please.

British politics isn’t dreary or dull, if you say it is that’s because you don’t get out there often enough.

I think you raise a good point Sunny. In Britain the left has always relied on party politics, now Labour has abandoned liberal policy and is moving ever closer to the centre-right (arguably), liberals are left adrift. The left has tried every trick in the book to get Labour back on side but it hasn’t worked and meanwhile, our civil liberties erode further by the week.

Even the LibDems are disappointingly quiet on liberal issues of late, that’s not to say that they don’t support them, just that they aren’t particularly vocal about it. British conservatives have never restricted themselves to party politics. They are very happy using tabloids and interest groups to mislead the British public. So maybe it is time for the left to step up and organise itself. MoveOn.org has managed to attract plenty of liberals (and their money), and the US is a more conservative country than the UK.

If they can do it, i’m sure we can!

Sunny,

i am genuinely interested in how you plan to do this:

The Labour Party may have become better at positioning itself against the Conservatives, but without compelling new ideas and momentum, it cannot build and sustain a progressive movement. Maybe it’s time for others to step up to that task.

I’d agree with that remark, but I’d like to know, is it a takeover bid, is it a new product, or what? I’d like to believe. Perhaps you’ll spell that bit out next.

We’ve already ascertained on this very site that no-one who has any power is listening to anyone that isn’t already inside Westminster, and until a general election it seems anyone without power is unwilling to realise this (or if they are, they are failing to act on it).

The analysis is benign, to me, between the American situation and ours here in Britain because solely the Democrats in America are NOT in power. They are willing to listen, when the money comes they want to hear how they can get more of it. Labour already have the power and they’re happy enough pissing all over us with it.

If anything I’d appreciate this article much more in the context of the Lib Dem’s where it would make a much more poignant and relevant comparison.

We’re in catch 22 here in the UK as far as I’m concerned. No-one wants to fund a party that doesn’t keep it’s promises and has shit legislation, no-one wants to engage with that party…but that party feels it can’t win an election if it doesn’t act the way it does. Something has to give, now why is it the activists, the bloggers, and the donors that have to do so in this scenario? It’s not the Democrats wanting to get in to power and being willing to progress, it’s the Labour party IN power simply not realising they MUST be willing to progress and change if they want to survive.

Send a memo to Labour HQ, as if it makes a difference, without them significantly changing strategy nothing that is compared above has much chance of happening here in this country I feel.

Labour clearly isn’t interested in dialogue. It’s under siege. It knows its time is almost up.

Of course, we’re not a two-party system. The Lib Dems, while still seen as a wasted vote by many, do split the left-leaning vote – much to the delight of the Tories.

The thing is that there is no will to get behind New Labour. It has utterly wasted the goodwill that helped thrust it to power in 1997. The Liberal Democrats need to position themselves as the last remaining progressive option.

The Liberals are not shackled by the baggage of socialism, and nor are they beholden to the unions. The country clearly wants progressive politics, David Cameron’s slippery re-branding proves this point perfectly. So why don’t the Liberals seize the initiative?

I’m disappointed with Clegg. He clearly lacks the radicalism and bravery required to break the glass ceiling that separates them from genuine electoral progress. He’s allowing Cameron to claim the crown without a fight.

Going back to Sunny’s post. Who will finance any movement? Where are the billionaires (or even millionaires) with a desire to help progressive politics build a message machine outside of the current party structures?

Labour will be out at the next election. The people will see that – while there are a few new faces at the top – the Tories are the same shower they threw out of power a decade ago. Then the people will listen to the progressive blogosphere and a genuine movement can be built.

I think that we have to be ready, willing, and able to seize the opportunity to build a coalition. Politicians will only listen when you have something they want. If we can build a network – okay, a message machine – then they’ll listen, and maybe the next “progressive” government will not become so detached from those who helped get it elected.

Another big difference between the American and British scene, is that Americans get things done.

They’re optimistic. They believe they can build something that will change things.

The British political blogosphere, particularly on the left, is splintered and resentful. It doesn’t believe a coalition can be built. Progressive bloggers don’t want to be caught actually being optimistic, when being negative and sniping from the sidelines is so much safer.

As a negative sniper, I really wish you’d stop describing New Labour as left wing. We all know they aren’t.

Aaron, doesn’t the negativity vs optimism come down to the resources and money issue again though? i.e. that American bloggers have them, and left leaning bloggers don’t?

I know for one that I’d love to be part of a movement that makes a difference, but there is a vacuum of ideas or channels for making any change, it seems from my perspective.

Lee,

To some extent you need funding. But we all have computers, cell phones, and the software to build a network. I’m worried about whether we have the ideas?

I think the real funding is needed for people to work full-time on any project. If that’s needed.

I agree, I’m not entirely sure you need people working full-time. My personal perspective is we have had the ideas for a decade, at least in terms of how to make politics better. Unless you mean we don’t have the ideas on how to influence them, in which case I completely agree. It seems the prime tactic at the minute is to let Labour run themselves in to the ground enough that they can’t do anything but listen, ignoring the Lib Dem’s completely, and then hope that when they are at their lowest point that for some reason they’ll listen to us.

It just seems to me that there’s a lot of blind hope going on, but I don’t necessarily blame bloggers…as you said above, Labour just don’t seem to care enough to listen.

I don’t necessarily think we need full-time activists, I was simply suggesting that would be a reason why we’d need significant funding – which I’m not sure we do.

Labour is broken. I’m not interested if its people listen any longer.

Perhaps the most “progressive” first step would be to abandon the decidedly doctrinal “left/right” analysis.

Mmmmm…. well, yes and no. I think it still has a place. But this piece is primarily about American politics – where the divide is much starker.

They are very happy using tabloids and interest groups to mislead the British public. So maybe it is time for the left to step up and organise itself.

This is a spot on point – and one that I’m also always trying to make. There is far too much obsession on the left with Westminister politics and passing more legislation rather than looking at other ways of affecting politics.

I’d agree with that remark, but I’d like to know, is it a takeover bid, is it a new product, or what? I’d like to believe. Perhaps you’ll spell that bit out next.

I think there are several elements to this:
1) intellectual: where do we want to get to? What old thinking needs to be ditched and what should be the new ideas?
2) Logistical: Getting people to work together on issues. And without much of the factional SWP fighting please.
3) Building capacity among civil society organisations and activist orgs.

This is not a Labour takeover bid, primarily because I think we need to think beyond Westminster.

that no-one who has any power is listening to anyone that isn’t already inside Westminster,

Lee, I don’t think I agree with any of your analysis. And besides, its disingenuous to say all of Labour behaves the same. And plus, if you look at the rhetoric and circumstances – there are and were a lot of similarities between the Democrats and New Labour.

“Lee, I don’t think I agree with any of your analysis. And besides, its disingenuous to say all of Labour behaves the same.”

My point wasn’t that they all act the same, it’s that those without the direct power of being able to say something and make it happen seem to be in *exactly* the same situation we as the left in the public are. That, to me, is a sad thing when people in their own party can’t affect change, so I have to ask (not in a defeatist way, in a challenging way) if they can’t change things with politics in this country, then why do we think we can?

Also, might I add, that without changing the public’s perceptions on some issues I find it highly unlikely that one key area of fighting back, using the media, can be utilised. After all the tabloids are where the power is, and they just speak what they think the people want to hear and will sell right? I have to say we’ve had positive moves on the 42 day situation but as Obsolete’s blog shows the vast majority is still the same old right-wing illiberal bullshit.

Is it catch 22? Can we change the media without changing the public, and vice versa?

[i]Mmmmm…. well, yes and no. I think it still has a place. But this piece is primarily about American politics – where the divide is much starker.[/i]

I was referring to both. “Libertarian/authoritarian” matters far more to me than the tired, rather misleading “left/right” analysis. In America, either candidate will almost certainly (one hopes) be an order of magnitude more liberal than the incumbent. In Britain, even though “liberal” is not as dirty a word here, we are ironically moving away from it on a great number of issues. Labour has entirely abandoned it, favouring a Murdoch-pleasing lurch towards “national security” and “only the guilty need privacy”. The Conservatives have taken it up in parts, but this may well be to persuade wavering voters that the traditional, hard Tories are behind us. And the Liberal Democrats? They have the right ideas (in my opinion), but as noted earlier, a surprising lack of voice. While I understand the current media bias makes things difficult both for a liberal and third party, Clegg is doing a disappointing job.

Synergy6,

Sadly, I agree with your analysis.

I wish I did not.

It is getting increasingly difficult to explain to folk that what their parents, grandparents and great grandparents fought and died for, are the liberties that they now appear to think they have the right to throw away like sweetie papers.

I disagree with every arguement that allows statists to extend their grasp on us. The idea of ID cards, or DNA databases, is to reduce us back to slaves of the state. It is the state writ large, as opposed to the person writ large. That is the where we are at, I would suggest. That is the revised debate. Not left and right, but us and them. And it is the invasive state that has brought this arguement upon itself. Evil bastards, I would argue…

Which, I would submit, is what we ought to be talking about.

Lee @ 15,

I understand your comment,:

After all the tabloids are where the power is, and they just speak what they think the people want to hear and will sell right?…..

Well, is that not perhaps the power we have to try to break ? I get almost all my news off the internet.

See me as Internet man.

See me as the future, someone that doesn’t buy into print media at all. See me as someone that thinks that what Lee Griffin says, or come to that what Sunny Hundal says, is more important than what main stream media are likely to say

It seems to me that you might see a lot of valid words in that. I’d have thought that what you have to say might be seen as daft.

Obviously, I’d wouldn’t vote for you, even assuming you weren’t standing against Sonia or Sunny. When it is pretty obvious where my vote would fall….

You wee fluffy bunny, awe?

“You wee fluffy bunny, awe?”

Now I’m just confused and slightly creeped out

“It seems to me that you might see a lot of valid words in that. I’d have thought that what you have to say might be seen as daft.”

Again, maybe it is the Monday morning drudge, but you might have to explain this for me as well

Lee,

I’d drunk a bottle of wine watching Wimbledon. So the fluffy bunny comment was uncalled for. However it was supposed to rally you. We do not give up, we do not surrender to any adversary, as a fluffy bunny might.

So, apologies, it was uncalled for.

Again, maybe it is the Monday morning drudge, but you might have to explain this for me as well

If you read the paragraph that preceeded the one you quoted,

See me as the future, someone that doesn’t buy into print media at all. See me as someone that thinks that what Lee Griffin says, or come to that what Sunny Hundal says, is more important than what main stream media are likely to say

you’d realise that I am more likely to accept your analysis of an event, than I am to accept the analysis of a bog standard journalist. Party because I think you talk sense, most of the time, and partly because you are open to debate. That is a combination that is not available in any mainstream media, as far as I can tell.

I think you and I are equally frustrated that a Liberal Conspiracy has not changed the world, just yet.

I’m dunno about being frustrated about Liberal Conspiracy, I think it’s a huge positive that needs time to get to be as influential as it can be. I’m a realist here Thanks for the rallying call though, I was worried it was something more affectionate I was missing

What I am frustrated about is that some of us are talking all optimistically and positively about a Labour party as if it is listening or ready to change. We have to accept it is not. Individual MPs *may* listen enough on single issues to make a difference, but 42 days showed that party loyalty comes first on even most controversial and illiberal authoritarian measures.

Until the Labour party help themselves by changing their leadership and strategic direction, I don’t see how “we” can help them, and I use the term we loosely as I’m sure there are plenty here that simply don’t want to help them any more.

Lee,

I can assure you of one thing. I am an old fashioned heterosexual. Which doesn’t channel me down an arguement, but does, I suspect, largely define me. You are safe from my affections. As, unfortunately, are most women. On to other things:

I’d agree that Liberal Conspiracy is a huge positive. It is a space where thee and me can argue back and forth. To some extent, that is just you and I reinforcing our mutually held opinions. It is important, for this site maybe, to try to reach for a larger audience. Comments on our comments would be worthwhile.

I dunno. Frankly I doubt that politically you and I disagree, an iota. What does that say for analysis?

My current electoral strategy is to vote SNP until they win. And then vote Liberal until I die.

I have, ridiculously, perhaps, more faith in a smaller state. And my ability to influence it.

Aye, I feel you’re probably right. What really needs to happen is for “mainstream” news sources to start offering up other sources of opinion more readily. Simply adding comments to BBC news articles would be chaos, but directing people to places like Centre Right, CiF, here, and other good aggregate sites would be immensely useful in broadening the debate.

The question is how do you find the balance between involving more people and informing the debate so that you’re not just telling people the news, and making sure that the debate is just that…rather than a sounding board. You look at places like BBC, and even CiF at times, and there is no direction, little discussion. We don’t want that either, right?

Following on from previous discussions about opposing individual politicians and their stances on particular issues I think it is an interesting evolution of the political debate which we could mostly agree with to rise above the fray of partisan politics by supporting individual MPs/campaigners.

There is a wide variance of opinion here about what parties can offer which I doubt any coalition could be founded on, so it’s a big distraction for us to us the parties as the primary terms of reference when it comes to forming our own position on a subject.

Lee,

This is probably stating the obvious to you. I’d be more likely to absorb your opinion or viewpoint than any politician, see the David Lammy thread for evidence. It is to the point that I don’t know you from Adam, yet you generally make sense to me, at least. Which is not an attribute of say, Nick Cohen or Madeleine Bunting.

I’m a guy that thinks that, on an equal basis, your words have as much power – to me at least – as the words of journalists. Don’t mean I agree with you, just means that I have equal respect….

The British left can certainly learn from the Americans as it can from numerous other sources but above all it needs to find it’s own path, have it’s own vision. Nye Bevan had a vision for creating a national health service and he had to fight practically every vested interest you can think of and damn nearly lost. It was the vision, not just free health care, that put the British people behind him and forced it through. Since that time there has been very little vision from the left, little to inspire the dream and hope and possibility of a fairer, better, co-operative Britain.

The focus in British politics has for too long been on gaining power for powers sake and therefore manifestos are targeted at the middle majority who are in the main centre right. At the present time it would seem that ‘New’ Labour will be ousted in a couple of years and in come the Tories with all the same old horrors of their past. Sadly the Lib-Dems elected as leader a Cameron look-alike, sound-alike and therefore offer no hope of change.

Now is the time for planning for six years hence, for the left to dream impossible dreams and turn them into possibilities, to create a vision that will inspire and lift spirits and take the voters with them. It could happen but then I’m a dreamer.

Hello LC, please take a look at my blog post on Obama and the lessons his campaign holds for progressives everywhere:

http://rayyanmirza.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/yes-we-can-barack-obama-and-lessons-for-progressives-everywhere/