Yes indeed. The basic point is that the left (in all its forms, going back in this country at least to the Newcastle Programme formulated by the National Liberal Federation in 1891) has adopted a narrative of struggle rather than a narrative of government, which is what the Tories are so good at. For example, it has always been easier to sell a TU membership card than to get someone to join a political party.

We need to be very clear about what is going to happen at the next General Election. Forget the BBC/Guardian spin about Labour being 15% behind – the polls always overstate Labour because they can’t properly identify likeliness to vote – people who actually won’t vote say they will because they think that’s the right thing to say. This factor affects Tories less than supporters of other parties because voting is a way of identifying with the narrative of government. At the election the Tories will poll two votes for every one cast for Labour which will be reduced to about 150 seats. This follows from “Smithson’s Law” which states that the most accurate poll is the one with the biggest Tory lead. And Mike Smithson puts his money where his mouth is, betting on the markets, and has paid for a slap-up family wedding (among other things) as a result! (Nor is he a Tory.)

The Newcastle Programme contains a lesson: Gladstone said he would ignore it, and others thought that the Liberal Party would never deliver anything like it for all its fine words, and so set out to provide Labour with its own Parliamentary wing. That led to an electoral pact (considerably easier in those days, when many urban seats returned two members) which in turn empowered Lloyd George’s 1909 budget – especially after both the 1910 elections resulted in hung Parliaments and the government had to rely on Labour votes and Irish Nationalist abstentions. It is a measure of the power of the “narrative of struggle” that Labour did not seek Cabinet seats in 1910 although the Parliamentary arithmetic entitled them to do so.

One other feature of the present situation which is, I think, new is that Cameron is the first effective opposition leader the Tories have had – previous Tories in that position (Churchill, Heath, Thatcher) behaved like the puzzled ex-ministers they were and won by default in 1951, 1970 and 1979. Cameron, of course, is not an ex-Minister. Neither will the next non-Tory Prime Minister be.

Note I say “non-Tory”, not Labour. The Labour Party to-day is no more fit for purpose than the Liberals were in 1891 – even if it were capable of a Newcastle Programme of its own. The “narrative of struggle” is exhausted – at least so far as domestic politics are concerned, and the next order of business for the left is to identify a new narrative which engages with contemporary reality.

“First, that its time we started thinking strategically about politics rather than talking about ideological positions and betrayal all the time.”

Great, I think we (Liberal Conspiracy commentators and contributors) generally came to a loose consensus that we needed to do this…what…3, 4 months ago? maybe more? I don’t disagree with your article but we’re equally as guilty of recognising what needs to be done then not actually doing it. Perhaps this ties in with what was said at the blog nation event about resources in terms of money and time, but surely one of our priorities as a supremely fast growing site for the liberal and left is to find a way to come up with that coherent strategy that we said we needed all that time ago?

How do we go about doing this? Does it need to be lead by popular opinion (as Compass seem to be operating at the moment) or by a more insider based view on what can and can’t be won? The two will most likely converge in areas, but it’s no good sitting down and just claiming what it is we want without any authority to see why it is that such a set of beliefs would lead to a victory for the liberal-left.

But the other factor is at what level betrayal stops being on small points of personal ideology and when it becomes a wholesale removal of core beliefs. As Mike above alludes to, I don’t think the future is with Labour if Labour are determined to continue on the path they’re on. We can thank them for the minimum wage (though some won’t), and we can say hooray for the implementation of civil partnerships…but like candy from a stranger we shouldn’t let these good things cloud what is ultimately a severely illiberal and barely leftist party in power.

It is not just infighting and nit-picking that is causing the crisis at the moment on the left, it is the lack of a credible “team” to support, and to that end we have to ask if any kind of strategy we as a collective can adopt online will ultimately change the direction of what was up until recently the best placed party to achieve our goals. If it won’t then this needs to be accepted. There is being pragmatic and realistic, and then there is being equally deluded as those that think their party should do everything they wish and nothing that they dislike, in the sense of believing that everything will be ok if we had power back to a party not in tune with us and that they’ll suddenly actually start listening.

Labour are no better than the Tories, from a liberal perspective, and they are little better on the economic front either. This needs to be accepted before anything can move forward, whether that forward direction includes trying to wake Labour up to it’s roots or just abandoning them as a lost cause.

Sunny: The odd thing is – wasn’t the ‘winning is everything’ argument precisely the rationale behind New Labour? The sense of party discipline – as in the term ‘on-message’ – was one of its most noted features in those early, heady days, as was the idea that we should ‘grow up’ and accept what New Labour was actually doing, not what ‘we’ would like it to do. Polly Toynbee, for example, has spent most of the last ten years writing variations on this position,. only to find that New Labour weren’t the social-democrats-in-waiting she thought they were. Secondly, it’s arguable that Blair built his political power and electoral popularity on the grounds that trashing everything the Labour party ever stood for, on the grounds that if the left started shouting ‘betrayal’ it proved he must be doing something right. If anything, these days there’s very little left to ‘betray’.

So, faced with your suggestion But surely we should be less interested in ideology and more interested in ideas we can call socially just and improve our country? And then, how we can get those ideas put into practice?, I would say that the much-debated issue of a windfall tax is just one such idea (if only as part of a wider campaign for progressive/redistributive taxation…hell, I could come up with an Amazon-style wish list of ideas in about a minute). Trouble is, New Labour has spent ten years or more being deaf to such ideas, no matter how well organised they are, while insisting ‘we’ should be grateful that it’s not the baby-eating Tories in power. It was ‘party unity’ which both led to the Iraq war, and also saved Blair from any payback for it with his job when the WMD didn’t show up. Likewise, it was ‘party unity’ that led to the 10p tax fiasco. A pro-Labour ‘netroots’ organisation is one thing to get out the vote; trying to separate that from ideas, and ideas from some form of political philosophy or ideology in terms of what to vote or is another.

As far as LC is concerned it would help if there were occasionally some of the more sensible right-liberal articles for us to disagree with and get our knickers all twisted up over.

I say this not because I want to agree with them, but because exploring the principles of disagreement helps us discover the basis of agreement.

If we are liberal then we must be open-minded and stop making assumptions (such as on policies which are part of the furniture like the “welfare state, NHS, BBC, minimum wage etc”) – we cannot take anything for granted and if we wish to retain the things we hold dear in any form then we must continually seek to improve them.

redpesto – can you tell me what Labour stands for? It seems that for every two people to express themselves there are two different opinions.

This is a very interesting thread. I tend to agree with Lee that Lib Con has a pretty unique viewpoint. I also agree with him that that debate -here- is largely won. If you didn’t agree with the general prescription then you’ve buggered off by now. There are far fewer Libertarians assuming that they could do a reverse takeover, for instance.

I’d be really interested in some articles spelling out the nuts and bolts of a strategy for taking this off line and making it mainstream.

Well, one of the problems for the UK left as opposed to the US is that it is split in two (leaving aside the splinters e.g. Greens). Within mainstream US politics, you’re either one of us (a Democrat) or one of them (a Republican).

In UK politics, you can be a Labour or Lib Dem supporter and still be of the ‘left’.

@douglas: I’m not sure what you mean by “Libertarians assuming that they could do a reverse takeover”. There are several libertarians, including myself, DK, Nick and cjcjc, who posted here in the beginning and still do; but LC has always been regarded as opponent territory, and not something that can somehow be turned into a Libertarian blog. There are also the left-libertarians such as Lee, and Chris Dillow, but I don’t suppose they are who you are referring to.

thomas – I’m not enough of an expert in political philosophy to answer that question (and it would probably take a thread in itself). What I was pointing out was the way in which a lot of what I understood were the traditions of the Labour party – for example, its roots in the trades unions and the working class; its belief in the power of the state to ensure the markets serve the people and not the other way around; it’s sympathy for the disadvantaged – had been undermined by Blair and the they architects of New Labour. Much of this was done in the name of being ‘electable’, i.e. winning. As for the disagreements, they’re inevitable in any broad-based coalition, yet it seems that at present the government is united by the resistance to any alternatives, and its acquiescence to a right-of-centre orthodoxy.

One key issue is the approach which a “left” politics should now take towards the State.

Labour has tended to see it historically as a “good thing” – get hold of the state apparatus and we can lick that wicked market-place into shape. Clearly the limitations of state power in contemporary capitalism mean that this cannot be a sufficient programme even if you think it’s ethically appropriate – itself a proposition questioned by such strands as feminism and the green movement among others.

Why I like (to pick one name to stand for a school of thought) Chris Dillow’s approach is that he is sceptical of both State and market-place in equal measure, while recognising their strengths. A spot check: consider the privatizations of the last quarter-century – does anyone, of left or right, want to claim that they have been equally (un)succesful? One thing we need to – and I think can – agree upon is a “what works” approach, unencumbered by ideological fantasy.

The other is to recognise that a form of political organisation which exists solely, or even primarily, to elect MPs and councillors is always going to be hollow and at risk of being led by fantasists of the Blair type, flanked by dour wonks and others who seek supporters rather than participants. Our leaders need to have a lively sense that they have been temporarily entrusted with responsibility, not offered “careers”.

We need to develop above all a narrative of civic engagement to replace the passive consumerism of the hegemonic culture and the exhausted idea of “struggle” – that,no doubt, is still what’s needed in Latin America and many other parts of the world – but our little corner of it has moved on.

redpesto, that’s part of the point I was making.

For every member or adherent who subscribes to ‘Labour roots’ theory there is another who supports ‘Labour values’ from within the establishment (think Atlee, the Benns, Blair, Harman, the Milibands).

Brown himself wrote books on this dissonant history and should have been more aware of the difficulty in reconciling the different sides, but he proves just how easy it is to alienate support for a well-meant cause through an insistent centralising tendency and inconsistent authoritarian style.

I couldn’t agree more, Sunny – anyone who self-describes as left or liberal should focus on criticising McCain, not Obama, at least until Obama is elected. I am tired of people moaning about tiny and insignificant differences he has with the UK left – the UK left is on the margins and Obama is mainstream. In his 8 years as president, he will do far more for progressive causes than everyone on the miniscule UK left put together have done/will be able to do for many many decades.

If we are to play any role in these elections beyond glorified commentators, it is in supporting Obama and learning from the best of his campaign tactics, suggesting where he could alter his tactics:

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

Its because there are still too many of us obsessed with retaining ideological purity than the dirty business of coalitions or compromise.

It’s interesting you say this and have been critical of the 1990 Trust’s work with groups you dislike.

Any left-winger or liberal in the UK worth their salt would be a Democrat if they were in the US, and would be working their guts out to get Obama elected. All of the progressive blogs support Democrats, and across the pond they are not only the only game in town but also far superior to the Republicans. In a UK context, speaking as a Green, far more unites the centre-left than divides us: there’s no reason we can’t work together on major causes against Labour’s authoritarian swings and the Tories. Those who attended Ken’s appearance at the Green Party conference this weekend will have noticed he intends to set up a “Progressive London” website that will act as a focal point for progressive campaigning in the capital. Whilst there is no chance he will be the Labour candidate for Mayor in 2012, or that he would win if he ran as an independent, Ken could play his part by helping to rebuild a progressive alliance.

They wanted to discuss what the Democratic Party needed to do to win and retain power – simple as that.

Problem is is that it’s exactly that type of thinking that created New Labour and the Blair government which has turned out to be a real disaster. You talk like that toward the left now and you’re likely to provoke those kind of memories…

Rayyan – “Any left-winger or liberal in the UK worth their salt would be a Democrat if they were in the US”

Or an independent. Or disillusioned about politics. Or a non-voter.

I see you’ve swallowed the forced choice argument hook, line and sinker.

Mike, some really excellent points there.

It is not just infighting and nit-picking that is causing the crisis at the moment on the left, it is the lack of a credible “team” to support, and to that end we have to ask if any kind of strategy we as a collective can adopt online will ultimately change the direction of what was up until recently the best placed party to achieve our goals.

Then we need a more straight forward assessment of how Labour stacks up V the LibDems maybe, and ask, most importantly, whether the Libdems actually have it in them to become one of the big two.

Right now, the evidence is scarce. As the polls have moved towards The tories, they have denied Labour but not handed the Libdems anything that suggests them being an alternative.

Redpesto:
Sunny: The odd thing is – wasn’t the ‘winning is everything’ argument precisely the rationale behind New Labour? The sense of party discipline – as in the term ‘on-message’ – was one of its most noted features in those early, heady days, as was the idea that we should ‘grow up’ and accept what New Labour was actually doing, not what ‘we’ would like it to do.

I agree with that, and also your points regarding the pitfalls of party unity re: the Iraq war and 10p.

And yes, its true. But I still maintain that in some cases party unity is important. This is also why the other day I criticised language that says the PM listening to Compass would be “capitulation”.

I’m not defending the record of New Labour, though they have done far more progressive things than the Tories would have done.

The problem is partly that other than “scream betrayal”, the Labour grassroots still haven’t come out of their hardcore socialists leanings. Furthermore, they haven’t generated any new ideas or narratives as an alternative. We can blame the New Labour hierarchy for its narrow vision, but I don’t think the supporting structure is absolved of any blame either.

The left, for the past 20 years or so, hasn’t come up with any major ideas either. What can we point to as providing an alternative intellectual framework?

QT – In UK politics, you can be a Labour or Lib Dem supporter and still be of the ‘left’.

I’m increasingly less certain that the Libdems can be defined as of the left. Though, neither can New Labour. Which brings me to the question – what is the left about?

Mike @ #10
We need to develop above all a narrative of civic engagement to replace the passive consumerism of the hegemonic culture and the exhausted idea of “struggle” – that,no doubt, is still what’s needed in Latin America and many other parts of the world – but our little corner of it has moved on.

I think this is spot on. You should write more about this.

It’s interesting you say this and have been critical of the 1990 Trust’s work with groups you dislike

Leon, yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere! Most sensible people would draw that line before working with HuT

Rayyan – completely agree with all of that.

thomas:
I see you’ve swallowed the forced choice argument hook, line and sinker.

A non voter is a non entity when it comes to the actual business of politics, so how exactly can they be regarded as being engaged?

The only argument I’ve swallowed is that politics is about getting things done: independents can vote for Obama, and many of them are active in mobilising support for him. I’d much rather see a President Obama than a President McCain, and if anyone sits on the sidelines when the stakes are so high, they are actively contributing to the decline of the democratic process. The only way to make things better is to engage with them, rather than criticise others, who do engage with reality, on the internet.

I don’t think that, outside the fringes, most people on the left are looking for ideological purity from Labour. Most of us just want a moderate centre-left social democratic government and we are reasonably pragmatic – we recognise that governing parties have to make compromises and there will be issues where we disagree both with the government and between ourselves. That’s fine as long as we can feel that the government is broadly on “our” side, that it is moving broadly in the right direction and it is willing to engage with its critics on the left where we disagree. But many of New Labour’s policies cannot be seen as “compromises” but are antithetical of what should be excepted of a moderate Government of the left, and as Redpesto has pointed out Blair’s view has always been that to disappoint Labour’s left wing supporters was not just an occasional regrettable neccessity but something desirable in itself, a badge of honour in fact.
Blair and New Labour’s most argent supporters have always refused to engaged with their critics and to acknowlege any possible alternative to the policies they have pursued, and have dismissed friendly and constructive criticism as the carping of “Old Labour, Bennite, Scargillite” types. Therefore it is hardly surprising that many of us have lost that natural attachment we felt to the Labour party and now that Labour is in a big hole it has made for itself it cannot rely on those who should be its natural supporters to rally round and support it in its time of need. And it is not enough for those who want to persuade me to support Labour to simply recite a list of the bad things the Tories would do if they were in power, I want some positive reasons to vote Labour.
I think it is fair to point out that those of us disenchanted with New Labour have failed to come together and produce a coherent popular movement with practical and coherent alternative policy ideas. It is not enough to just oppose New Labour, we need to provide an alternative vision. I think LC is playing a valuable role in this respect but we need to start nailing it down and come up with, if not an alternative set of policies, then a coherent (sorry, I’ve overused that word) set of principles which people on the Liberal Left, whether Labour supporters (or ex-suporters) or Lib Dems or Greens can sign up to. There is certainly too much factionalism on the left and we need to be more united but we need something to unite around, rather than just opposition to New Labour. And there’s nothing wrong with ideology – what is “Liberal Leftism” if not an ideological position? “What works” sounds very reasonable but how can you decide what works if you are not agreed on what you are trying to achieve?

Sunny, a non-voter is not a non-entity – even on polling day.

If you’ve ever been involved in a tight race where every single vote counts, you will be prepared to go to extra lengths to inspire them into action, but you clearly don’t do inspiration. You’re just being elitist and lazy stating such condescending claptrap; you’re exposing your inexperience, short-sightedness and prejudices all at the same time.

As for describing the LibDems for not being ‘left’, that’s no bad thing, and as for them never becoming one of the ‘big two’ well that’s a false criticism from you considering your self-proclaimed support in the past for smaller minority parties.

I personally think the more parties with representation in parliament the better as this will negate the extremists and ideologues on every wing and party – a dozen parties of around 50 each in strength would be ideal – ha, fat chance though!

“Right now, the evidence is scarce. As the polls have moved towards The tories, they have denied Labour but not handed the Libdems anything that suggests them being an alternative.”

Indeed, though we’re talking here about dialogue, and it’s something that the Lib Dem’s are entirely starved of while we continue to talk up the Labour party. Catch 22 really.

“I personally think the more parties with representation in parliament the better as this will negate the extremists and ideologues on every wing and party – a dozen parties of around 50 each in strength would be ideal – ha, fat chance though!”

Agreed completely. I think the best outcome in 2010 would be a hung parliament personally, it would be the ideal situation for actually reviewing what the hell our democracy is all about.

“Barely had Barack Obama been crowned Democratic nominee for presidency that the doubtful editorials started. How badly will he disappoint us, the liberals, lefties and greens started asking in earnest. Everything from his stance on national security, foreign policy, the environment and even (bizarrely) abortion rights have been held up as examples of his betrayal and coming disappointment. “

Well, I don’t think that people will have any right to feel “betrayed”. It’s quite plain that some of Obama’s speculations – intervention into Pakistan and abstract rabble-rousing about “going after” Al Qaeda – are both bizarre and dangerous, and Biden has a poor foreign policy record.

One has to admit this before preparing, as you encourage, points of pressure.

Ben

The right gets this better than the left, which is why they don’t scream traitor every five minutes.

There is a fairly simple explanation for that: the right expects less of government, and therefore has fewer expecttions to be disappointed about, whenever their ideological soulmates are in power.

The left, on the other hand, is composed of people with strong expectations of government – but they do not all have the same strong expectations. If you support a left-wing government because you think it will achieve A, and it sacrifices A to achieve B, you will naturally feel betrayed. And if it does the reverse, supporters of B will cry “treason”.

The right is less disappointed by its governments because it has less to be disappointed about.

I think the problem is that the old exponents of the “left” not only reached middle age but also a kind of “petit-bourgeois” respectability. After “New Labour” became for a long time the “natural” party of government and replacing the Conservatives in this role – where else was there to go? How many “horror stories” did we read about formerly “left firebrands” sending their children to fee-paying schools? “Green” policies are now mostly “sensible” and acceptable to both Labour as well as Tories. This leaves a whole mass of disaffected youth and other marginalised people who just neither relate nor subscribe to sensible “new” middle class viewpoints. The “new respectable” left or green class have also developed mechanisms which handily exclude anybody incapable of speaking the same language (whether PC or any other value-loaded jargon) and also anybody who isn’t a clone in all senses. They also maintain the right to close the gate to anyone they deem to be a threat (shades of Ivan Illich). Quite simply – they’ve lost the plot without any hope of ever finding it again – except perhaps in the last five seconds of their comfortable lives by which time………
Mike has often forecast the rise of a new populist political party both here and in other blogs which will accompany the demise of the “left”. The possibility of an Obama victory has given some kind of hope to a left which is staring down a long tunnel of decline and, as others have pointed out, is also incapable of losing its nit-picking habits of the past. I agree that we must not judge American politics and politicians by our standards but I also worry about the fact that several failed “left” leaders around the Old Continent are using the possibility of an Obama victory as a substitute for getting their fingers out of their ears or other orifices.

“I think it is fair to point out that those of us disenchanted with New Labour have failed to come together and produce a coherent popular movement with practical and coherent alternative policy ideas. It is not enough to just oppose New Labour, we need to provide an alternative vision. I think LC is playing a valuable role in this respect but we need to start nailing it down and come up with, if not an alternative set of policies, then a coherent (sorry, I’ve overused that word) set of principles which people on the Liberal Left, whether Labour supporters (or ex-suporters) or Lib Dems or Greens can sign up to. There is certainly too much factionalism on the left and we need to be more united but we need something to unite around, rather than just opposition to New Labour. And there’s nothing wrong with ideology – what is “Liberal Leftism” if not an ideological position? “What works” sounds very reasonable but how can you decide what works if you are not agreed on what you are trying to achieve?”

Isn’t this basically what Compass is for?

I think thomas is right — the forced choice argument cannot be accepted. It is always an attempt to narrow down the possibilities. And to make us choose the lesser of two evils, and to try to get us to forget that the lesser of two evils is still — (an) evil…
Rayyan is of course right that we must learn from the superb methods and tactics of the Obama campaign, as from the Dean campaign before it — I have consistently blogged along those lines. But what I have also started to blog about more recently is that, in terms of policy content, Barack Obama has changed, and is now a lot less appealing to a Green than he was before. His foreign policy, his gun policy, most crucially perhaps his oil-drilling policy — this is hardly an agenda that I for one can embrace.
To think strategically, one has to stop the rot. One has to stop running to the Right. One has to resolutely resist the allure of being a ‘New Democrat’ or a ‘New Labour’-supporter. One has to start to reclaim the political spectrum. One has to work to _shift_ the political agenda. One has to lead.
These are the key lessons of Westen and Lakoff. Obama is, I believe, making a big mistake in not seizing the moral high ground (literally) of setting out strong positions that will appeal in their own right to many millions of Americans on these issues. On gun control, on looking militarily ‘strong’ and ‘realistic’ in relation to Afghanistan and in his backing for Israel, on drilling for more oil, he now looks SIMPLY LIKE A PALER VERSION (SIC.) OF MCCAIN. This is fatal. He seems inauthentic — why not just vote for the real thing?…
The Green Party, in the U.S. and in the U.K., actually believes in something. It rarely seems that the LibDems or New Labour do, any more, beyond managerialism and staying in power. It seemed like Obama did, but now one isn’t so sure. If Obama wants the backing of folk like me, he needs to recapture that sense of self-belief and bold strategic agenda-setting and values-activation. The kind of leadership he exhibited on tax, and on race, last year and earlier this year.
We have a lot to learn from Obama on political organising; and I am not pretending that the Greens have yet learnt nearly as much from Lakoff and Drew Westen as we should have done. But t least we are headed in the right direction. One has to draw a line in the sand, and see that some things (e.g. not continuing to fuel the climate crisis, not caving in to gun-crazy nuts who have made it to the Supreme judicial bench under the Republicans, not being supine in one’s caving to the hard-line-Zionist policy lobby) are sacred, and cannot be conceded without a fatal loss of momentum to one’s opponents.

Blimey, I never thought I’d get a Green agreeing with me – especially over the issue of forced choices!

I’m surprised that it’d be from a Green who promotes the forced choice between Greens (who apparently are the only ones to believe in anything) and all the others (who apparently don’t)!

I’m also surprised that Mr Read can maintain a straight face while criticising Labour, Conservative and LibDems for their ‘managerialism’, yet promote himself on the back of exactly the same thing!

Leon, yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere! Most sensible people would draw that line before working with HuT

Fair point but they’re far less dangerous than Blair and plenty of people had no problem compromising to working with him (compromising being a new term for bending over)….

If HuT were ever to get into power, they definitely woulnd’t be less dangerous than Blair.

Miller 2.0 – yes, somewhat. But I think Compass is trying to build a specifically Labour left alliance rather than a broader left alliance from what I can see. and I think they focus too much on the Cabinet and not enough on grass-roots politics.

Rupert – I disagree. For a start the Greens don’t even poll 2-3% in the American elections. Your ‘line in the sand’ would be applicable if the Green party had more traction but it doesn’t. The Democratic party has more grassroots support and networks than the Greens, by a very long mile.

In which case, it makes more sense that if you want to make Green politics happen then you make it happen the way that America works – through lobbying and grassroots building (Greenpeace, FOE, WWF, PETA are a good example.)

Electorally, the Green party has as much chance of being elected as I have of taking a leap to Mars. There’s no point lying to yourself. So rather than focusing on the need to win elections, you would be better off being part of an Obama alliance that features more greens. Make an alliance with the evangelicals who have been becoming more green lately.

Lastly, to see the Democrats and Republicans as two sides of the same coin is to mis-understand the nature of American politics and politics in general – the electoral system doesn’t favour more than two parties nationally.

If the Greens built strong support in one state, say California, then you’d have more credibility. But they don’t have much traction there either.

Something missing from this is the issue I wrote about in comments here before: the application of influence. The biggest differences between the US and UK left(ish) blogosphere are:

a) They were born with their main party in opposition, in the UK, Labour are in Government. That’s slowed the community building enthusiasim.

b) The structure of politics and how to influence it. The way the US netroots grew into something of influence was that they aggregated small donations from across the nation and applied it to a few close races. There were successes and failures, but they had some impact, which built their profile, allowing them to get more donations and affect more races and slowly but surely they started to be influential at the national level.

This is the dirty secret, it’s not about the organising of volunteers, the smart writing about policy or clever put-downs of the opposition. The core of the influence of the US lefty blogosphere is that they’ve created a pretty serious economic engine. They’ve since parlayed that into other good forms of influence (netroots nation, vote drives, etc.) but the way they got noticed was the fundraising.

I don’t know enough about the structures of UK elections to know what is the “pressure point” that an LC alliance can press on to get some politicians to really take notice, but you have to find it.

Yes, you’ll need to work out a manifesto of demands and preferences, but that’s the fun bit which you (and I) will enjoy lots of threads participating in. The hard bit is how to actually affect a by-election (to begin with) such that your support is something people in power would like to have. Only then will they listen to your ideas.

Metatone – yes you’re right. I have been thinking about that too…