Meh. I think the OP demonstrates a very weak understanding of cause and effect.

This reflects how the progressive vote is slowly ‘circling the wagons’ and if Cameron does enter Number 10 that sense of deflation and recrimination will be the dominant mood for some time which will in-turn will produce eventual defiance and then resurgence.

‘Deflation and recrimination’ will ‘produce eventual defiance’? Er, what?

I agree that British politics is cyclical, and that a Labour government will follow Cameron’s government, however many elections later that may be. But this is nothing to do with any of the sentiments mentioned.

The key problem with the OP is that it left out the material considerations and battles which will shape the mood of the country, post 2010 General Election, such as Ken Clarke’s plans to eviscerate the trades union movement, or Cameron’s Bureaucracy 2.0 attacks on democratic accountability. These are the real issues to focus on. Win them, and we’ll derail the government.

Ignore them, as with this touchy feely crap that expects progressives to feel the same way, and assumes a generalised feeling without attaching it to actual events, and ‘progressives’ (i.e. Labour) will be out of government for three parliaments.

Can I inquire what the writer means by “progressive”? To me it is a more-or-less indexical adjective, meaning not much more than “that of which the speaker approves”. As someone of a certain age who spent time in the USSR, I cannot see this word without a cringe and/or a yawn and momentary visions of Brezhnev/Castro/Mao/afro haircut. No speech, no political book, no newspaper in the USSR or the socialist countries, could be feasible unless it contained some reference to “the progressive forces of mankind”. In the 1970′s it was tossed around as a sort of cover-all hurrah word, in the same way that “fascist” was as a cover-all booh word applied to anyone who’s politics the left disapproved of. It devalues any context in which it occurs.

I’d suggest that progressive literally means “continuing to build and move in a certain direction”.

In the case of a Labour victory, pretty much anything they would do would be progressive by this definition, as it would be a continuation of Government.

The Tories, on the other hand, might have regressive tax policies, but they would probably have progressive defence policies, as they would pretty much pick up where Labour left off.

It’s a pretty woolly word.

Dave,

I was merely pointing to that cyclical nature and the fact that initially there will be alot of ‘crisis of the left’ types of articles produced. Already i’ve seen things about the ‘crisis of social democracy’ which to my mind is rather predicated on Labour taking an electoral hammering. Of the three parties I cite I think realistically the Greens are going to be the only ones with ‘reasons to be cheerful’ and even then that will of course be limited by the fact its only one MP. However, I would expect both Labour and the Lib Dems to be losing seats; the former deflated because they will be out of government and the latter because their talk of supplanting Labour will be ringing hollow.

I agree about the issues you raise and this in turn is what will lead to the ‘defiance’ I suggest will arise. It’s ok saying ‘we’ll derail Cameron’ eventually, I think its quite possible after just one term, but what do you intend to replace it with? This is where the ‘touchy-feely crap’ comes into play. It also comes into play in the actual process of derailing the government.

A General Election which always is a watershed moment in any countries political history.

Nurse, the subs!

Trofim,

It is a pretty wooly word (agreed Phil H) and its ownership is a contested space in politics. On one level I agree with you that it can be a catch-all hoorah word or even merely the interests of one particular party/individual but surely it has to mean more? Part of the post-election discourse will no doubt cover this especially as the Conservatives are claiming the idea for themselves. Nonetheless, despite what you say it remains a powerful idea in politics (hence the Conservatives appropiation of the word) so to totally dismiss it would be wrong.

Progressive is a word that can be used for right wing libertarians (Harry’s place and Ian Dale) or left wing liberals.
Every party of whatever political hue likes to be shown as the party of change and reform.
The future will be whether you believe in an individualistic / Capitalist corporate or collective approach to the problems of life.
BBC or Murdoch. Only fools or charlatans believe there is third way
Personally I believe in negative voting and will cast my X for Labour just to cancel out Nick Cohen’s Tory vote

We Greens also have a real chance here in Norwich South: watch the vid here: http://www.adrianramsay.org.uk/sites/adrianramsay/videos.html

One key place where it makes some sense to talk of ‘progressives’ versus Tories is on the central question of cuts: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/12/the-cuts-wont-work-time-for-a-green-new-deal/ http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/10/who-can-cut-the-hardest-the-narrative-firms-up/ But the LibDems’ talk of ‘savage cuts’ hasn’t exactly helped keep us all on the same hymn sheet, here…

Old Labour, do you live in the same constituency as Nick Cohen?

It’s a big shame that you believe in negative voting. Yes, it’s an inevitable side-effect of our voting system, but I refuse to do it. I won’t vote for someone on the basis of not being as bad as someone else, as it only compounds the two and a half party system.

I’ll be voting for a Labour candidate, assuming I live in the same place come election time – but because my incumbent MP is bloody good at his job, not because I want to keep the Tories out. And I’m no Labour supporter either.

Also, bollocks to ideologies, how dare you suggest that there is no alternative approach? You sound like you have an incredibly narrow-minded us-and-them view of politics. What a shame.

Phil H
Why not vote negatively ?
Brian Granville, the great sports journalist did it all the while, mainly against Labour.
Christ , don’t you read the newspapers. They have more anti labour comments than pro Tory. They are run on hate and negative comments.
Cohen’s articles attack labour for over spending, high taxation and trades unions but I have yet to see a postitive policy from any of the bile he writes.
If I want to cancel out the vote of a right wing tosser that is my democratic choice.
So F*** you

Now dare you suggest that there is no alternative approach?
Name one alternative to any sphere of life ?

The key problem with the OP is that it left out the material considerations and battles which will shape the mood of the country, post 2010 General Election, such as Ken Clarke’s plans to eviscerate the trades union movement, or Cameron’s Bureaucracy 2.0 attacks on democratic accountability. These are the real issues to focus on. Win them, and we’ll derail the government.

I’m not sure how ‘democratic accountability’ will rouse the masses and get them angry. We’ll need something more immediate than that.

I think the VAT rise is a potentially big issue. It will affect poorer families much more than richer ones.

I was arguing this on Five Live this morning – that the Tories talk about helping the poor but their tax levers have been focused on those that hit the poorest.

Old Labour, I said why I don’t vote negatively, and I said I think it is a shame why so many people do. If you want to join in the mudslinging approach to politics, well go ahead. You’re free to do so. Just because it’s in the newspapers doesn’t mean I have to join in too.

None of that justifies personal insult.

Phil H
Unfortunately life, especially politics is about insults.
Read Burke and Paine

Personally, I have always been tempted to interpret the phrase “I am a progressive” to mean “I am a self-righteous left-winger”.

Why else would anyone have invented the term “progressive” to describe themselves?

Nobody I know thinks in political speak.

12 years of “Progressives” in power has made the average person worse off. Personally speaking, I am now unemployed and really can’t understand why I bothered going to work all those years, earning a pittance, to just scrape by.

“Progressives” have made the elite more wealthy – and powerful – whilst creating a Dickensian underclass that is growing ever larger, because: more kids = more money.

Awesome!

@Sunny – not quite what I meant. If Cameron wins his battle against democracy, it’ll increase apathy by weakening any belief in the possibility of change through measures like voting. That’s how it will affect the mood of the country.

@Darrell. Being a Lib-Dem, you may not be paying much attention to other sections of “the Left”, but there are plenty of “crisis of the Left” articles that have been circulating since the late 1980s. Some of them even appear on this blog. Same with the crisis of social democracy.

These are predicated on the idea that whatever party one is attached to, the ideas themselves have been under thorough-going revision (i.e. attack) for years.

If the cheerleaders of the party leaderships – that is, gossip-mongering Guardian commentators and the less-than-bright members of the blogosphere of the kind who enjoy photo-opportunities – subsequently join in with cries of “Crisis!” well it hardly affects anything at all. It certainly won’t generate a mood of defiance. In fact quite the opposite – I suspect such people will, rather like Polly Toynbee, run around like headless chickens talking about ephemera. Or worse, they’ll swing further right with the battle-cry “Electability!”

We’ll see.

The mood of defiance will stem from the fundamental contradiction between the material interests of the majority of people in the country and the programme of the hypothetical future Conservative government (or New Labour, or Lib-Dem government for that matter). Everything else is, as I’ve said, touchy-feely crap.

@DaveSemple18

I pay alot of attention to the rest of the left and am well aware it has been in ‘crisis’ for some time but this latest bout of soul-searching is being caused by the possible electoral demise of Labour.

Either you think this crisis is terminal or at some point it is reasonable to expect a backlash as I do with my anticipation of some renewed defiance. Maybe your right about the likes of Toynbee but from what the general drift of her columns you appear to be totally wrong; essentially the criticism is that its Labour’s lack of fidelity to core vote and values that is making it unelectable.

I dont agree because there has to be some other cause of a mood of defiance; in general, for example, people have been willing to accept alot in terms of the erosion of civil liberties in the name of safety. They were also prepared to accept alot of broken promises from Labour in 1997 because they were fully behind the Party (unlike how they feel about Cameron). So, there has to be other contributory factors other than material ones to produce a mood of hardened defiance.

@KevH16

Nobody may think directly in those terms but the term progressive is still powerful in the political lexicon. Why else does Cameron want to make it a ‘Year for Change’ and did he suggest that everybody is basically progressive in his New Years Message?

The left’s crisis is a crisis of being organised enough, not lack of ideas or anger.

not quite what I meant. If Cameron wins his battle against democracy, it’ll increase apathy

My point is that ‘a battle against democracy’ won’t work because it’s unlikely to be an issue that will get people to come out and protest. That didn’t happen even during MPs expenses crisis.

You need a better wedge issue.

“Also, before it seemingly disintegrated; the Social Liberal Forum and Compass extended olive branches to each other.”

Who says it has disintegrated?