Anneliese Midgley of Progressive London argues that 2010 is a crucial year for all progressives, regardless of party label, to stand up to the right.
Given the sheer scale of the issues facing our society – from the worst global economic crisis since the second world war through to the enormous challenge of climate change – it is essential if we are to move forward that we discuss those issues where we can forge a common progressive agenda.
In London our different electoral systems for the mayoralty and the London Assembly have already driven a debate about the best way to achieve progress beyond party boundaries. Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens work together on the Assembly where they agree to hold the Conservative mayor to account and set out alternatives – such as over Boris Johnson’s fare increases, the problems over the policing of the G20 demonstrations or his plans to cut some bus services.
Progressive London, a forum initiated by Ken Livingstone in autumn 2008, takes a similar approach – aiming to provide a space for discussion of polices and issues from across the progressive political spectrum. Of course, we are not always going to agree and constructive difference of views is to be welcome – but where we do agree and where we can work together we must.
We are facing a general election that will be dominated by the issue of the future of the British economy. Alternatives that would eliminate the need for deep cuts in public spending are available – from ending our expensive support for wars of intervention and occupation and diverting resources to more productive spending, to investing over the long term to boost growth, stepping in to protect jobs and build homes to avoid the cost of unemployment, promoting green policies, and abandoning policies like ID cards.
This Saturday’s conference ‘A Progressive Agenda to Stop the Right in 2010’ aims to tackle these issues head on. It brings together activists, trade unionists, community leaders, cultural figures and politicians from Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green parties.
Sessions looking at national political issues include ‘PR – progress through electoral reform?’ with Mike Tuffrey AM, the leader of the Liberal Democrats on the London Assembly, Jenny Jones AM, Neal Lawson of Compass, Michael Calderbank of the Electoral Reform Society and Sunder Katwala of the Fabians.
Lembit Opik will be among those debating the argument that ‘The Tories are not Progressive’. Cultural figures from Mercury award winner Speech Debelle and John McClure of Reverend and Makers to Bonnie Greer will take part.
The Liberal Democrat leader of Richmond-upon-Thames, Serge Lourie – whose borough has led the way on radical policies to tackle carbon emissions – will be one of the key speakers in a session on climate change that also includes the Secretary of State Ed Miliband and the director of the 10:10 campaign, Eugenie Harvey.
In the week that Tony Blair faces the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War, speakers for peace and against Britain’s recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will include Kate Hudson of CND and Anas Altikriti of the British Muslim Initiative.
And there is plenty to discuss from the perspective of London politics, with a Tory mayor cutting policing numbers, hiking up fares, and backing the bankers. Leading Guardian blogger Dave Hill and Martin Hoscik of MayorWatch, will join representatives of the LibDem, Green and Labour groups on the Assembly to assess how Boris Johnson is doing as he approaches the middle of his term in office.
Attracting a broad breadth of speakers from political backgrounds is one thing but equally important is the diversity of delegates. Of course, at a general election every party will be working to gain its maximum support but we cannot let that divert us from working together towards a progressive agenda.
* The Progressive London Conference is on 30 January at Congress House, Great Russell Street WC1H, 10am-5:30pm. To register in advance go to www.progressivelondon.org.uk
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Calling them out
The railway wars come to Market Harborough
Constructive opposition: a phrase you will hear a lot
Friends of Riverside Nature Park AGM #dundeewestend
Hugh Young
Roland
Kevin Hawkins
Steve Trevethan
47 Comments
Labour doesn’t do progressive. It does nasty authoritarian. It does e-borders, identity cards and illegal DNA registers. It starts illegal wars. It occupies other peoples’ countries and kills their civilians. It does racist dog whistles about “British jobs for British workers,” while it imprisons refugee children in disgusting conditions. It scorns the most basic human rights.
We need these people out of our political system.
Well, of course the Tories aren’t progressive. But I’m afraid it’s a bit late to be converting to the cause of grand centre-left coalitions now. The way to make this possible was to hold a referendum on proper electoral reform – not AV – as was first promised in 1997, and then quietly forgotten.
It’s entirely human for Labour to want to jump on the bandwagon of “all working together” now, because it fears the electoral slaughter which First-past-the-post is about to dump right on top of its head. Labour know only too well that FPTP is no friend of a massively unpopular government in its dying days, especially with massive debt, bank bailouts and an expenses scandal all thrown into the mix. But these bridges were burned long ago. Labour is going to get tanked; Britain is likely to be left to suffer a bout of vacuous airbrushed Thatcherism, and nobody is going to ride to the rescue. From Labour’s point of view, this is no longer preventable.
The only crumb of comfort will be a generation of NuLabourites who will never forget what the crappy end of election day feels like, and will be determined to do something to reform our political system when they have the power to do it.
The two things that worry me about Progressive London:
(1) Labour (as well as ‘proper’ socialists – such as some of those in the Green Party) are not liberal.
(2) Progressive London is about forging a coalition that will back a Labour candidate for London Mayor.
‘Grammar police’ is correct, this event is an attempt to unite behind a ‘leftist’ candidate for mayor, probably Ken.
This event seems to be about socialism and the hard left, not much liberalism on the agenda.
I’ll have no part in ‘STOP THE RIGHT!’ alarmist campaigns, The only way to stop the tories is by campaigning for our parliamentary candidates, not cosying up to authoritarians. The authoritarian left are as illiberal as the authoritarian right.
During the 2008 mayoral election, I received repeated calls from members of the public who had suddenly had an extra £20 per month taken from their income as a consequence of Brown’s elimination of the 10p band. I’m going to echo the comments given above: Labour is not a progressive force in British politics any longer. More to the point, they are most certainly not a liberal party, and as such we shouldn’t have anything to do with them. This is merely a platform for Livingstone’s re-election campaign.
Sorry, but I line up to agree with the other comments. The Lib Dems are constantly being told these days that they should work together with the left, or that they should declare for Labour in the event of a hung parliament, or that they should declare for the Tories, or that they should rule the Tories out, or Labour out. How important we are all of a sudden. When is the bit where we get to actually fight for what we believe in? I think it’s probably now. For all this party’s faults and disagreements, absolutely no-one else will make the case for all the things we do.
Also, forgive my cynicism, but any progressive movement initiated by Ken Livingstone is likely to result only in the progress of Ken Livingstone.
Enough, already.
Lets work with whomever we agree with on what we agree with them about. Or, better still, if they share our values, persuade them to join our party.
Tabman, maybe I’m being overly cynical (again) but I am assuming Progressive London will be the same as all the other drinkies-and-earnest-discussion type events about the future of the left that have taken place in central London over the last year or two. I.e. a lot of Labour people and Labour-leaning people telling everyone else to stop being such silly-billies and adopt their definition of the word “liberal” or they’ll put on the scary Tory glove-puppet again.
Just looked at the agenda. The post-lunch plenary slot is a speech by Harriet Harman for chrissakes.
This is a woman who rates “the court of public opinion” above the rule of law, and you’re having her as a special guest to an event with the word “Progressive” in the title? Woah there. I dread to think what you’d consider regressive.
I like “any progressive movement initiated by Ken Livingstone is likely to result only in the progress of Ken Livingstone”.
More seriously, I certainly think we should work with anyone who shares a particular aim on a particular issue; but that stops short of backing a ‘movement’ or joint manifesto – elections should be fought separately. That’s what political parties are for (if I wanted to be in the Greens or Labour I would be).
Whilst I consider myself a ‘progressive’ and I share some (although not all) of the aims of some of our Labour and Green colleagues – I disagree about the means of getting there. And for me, that’s a key factor of what liberalism and community politics are all about.
This is a conference not aimed at getting Lib Dem support for Labour, but to have a debate and find out what we have in common and what sets us apart.
I would say from a Liberal Democrats point of view the main obstacles that prevent us from cooperating with Labour are 1/ Labour do not support proportional representation, and AV is not an acceptable alternative
and 2/ Labour must abandon the Rupert Murdock agenda, and agenda of attacking civil liberties, of centralising the power of the state, permitting the widening gap between rich and poor, and the unconditional support of US foreign policy.
Clearly there are some in Labour like Ken Livingstone who have never supported this agenda. We should recall that prior to New Labour the Labour party was in many respects much more liberal than it is today. The campaign for high pay commission was initiated by Compass (and not Centre Forum – I wonder why not?) and supported by Vince Cable shows that we have more in common with them than New Labour. The political perspective of the late Robin Cook was robustly supported by Ed Davey in his last foreign policy speach at Lib Dem conference last year.
The problem with our current voting system is that it makes us very tribal. Will we win seats in central London in the next general election, or will the Greens take votes off us giving victory to Labour are the kinds of things we get concerned about, and as a result we attack them, even though they are our allies in wanting to tackle global warming with radical policies.
It is possible after the next general election there will be a hung Parliament, and we will have to talk then to other parties anyway. So why not start now?
“This is a conference not aimed at getting Lib Dem support for Labour, but to have a debate and find out what we have in common and what sets us apart.”
You don’t think this is what Harriet Harman is turning up for?
Actually, in all other respects, you’re dead right. Those – proper electoral reform and an end to the Murdoch agenda – are the first two big obstacles. And just listing them out loud makes it clear how totally unlikely they are ever to become points of true agreement.
I think there has to be a soft-peddling of hostilities in certain geographical areas with Labour and the Greens, otherwise the Tories will again have a majority with 40% of the vote. In very, very broad terms this means Lab/Con marginals in the North West and North East with Labour and Brighton with the Greens. However, if Labour hang on in to their Lab/Con marginals in the South East and Midlands they will still have a chance of their own Commons majority so they need to be fought ferociously there.
Fighting for what the Lib Dems believe in is essential in most seats, but where they are a distant third the distortions of FPTP mean that it is likely to be counter-productive, resulting in another 5 years on the sidelines under a ‘majority’ government.
What’s a “progressive”? The Green Party believes that society should be downright regressive in a lot of areas.
Edward, I think you need to elaborate. I do not recall Caroline Lucas calling for a more regressive society.
There is a legitimate line of attack on the Greens, that they represent old style socialism. There is a wing of the party that wants to do deals with Respect (who apear to be absent from this conference – thank goodness).
But then again there are people with odd opinions in all political parties, including our own.
Looks to me like a bunch of trendy lefties who have not yet worked out
1) Why the Labour Party is a barrier to progression.
2) How to tackle the problem that the people most threatened by the right-wing shift in British politics under the Conservative and New Labour governments have been made to think the reaction is “politics is not for the likes of us” rather than “organise and vote to get the bastards out”.
Lembit Opik is put up as the main speaker from the Liberal Democrats – not someone I’d hitherto associated with a coherent left-wing message within the LibDems, though I do recall him as the only Parliamentary supporter of Mark Oaten’s leadership bid whose other keen supporters were our party’s loony right.
At any rate, if they were going to offer a coherent attack on right-wing politics in the UK, they wouldn’t be inviting key members of the New Labour government to speak to them.
I agree – it looks like Ken Livingstone playing his usual game of appearing to be one of whomever he’s with when it helps him. Hard line Labour lefty when he wants the backing of that lot, part of the Labour establishment when he wants the backing of that lot, keen pluralist so not really attached to Labour that he’ll occasionally say nice things about us when he wants our backing.
I actually do think there is a space for a coherent attack on some of the right-wing assumptions that have dominated political thinking in this country since the 1980s, first under the Conservatives, but then within the Labour Party and our party. In some ways there is a need for a return to more class based politics of the sort the left abandoned to become more interested in social liberalism because that IS now one of the biggest issues of our times (but I’d still put climate change as even bigger) due to the fact that our country has become much LESS equal than it was at the times when politics was largely class-based. It is as if we used to have a politics which was based on environmentalism but we abandoned that as irrelevant in the face of climate change.
But what we have here is not it.
“Respect (who apear to be absent from this conference – thank goodness).”
George Galloway is right there in the debate on Iraq, Afghanistan and Trident.
Hugh, are you the same Hugh that recently suggested on this site that we should tell our supporters to vote Labour in Reading East, or some such?
Alix, yes – looks like the same “Hugh” to me.
This is clearly just Livingstone and friends angling for more support…now looking over the precipice of electoral oblivion they are sudden converts to “we’re all in this together” philosophy. Nonsense. Labour have been the biggest obstacle to progressive liberalism in this country for over a decade. They are not part of the solution.
The Greens are a broad church considering their size, and there are clearly serious tensions in the party. There is even the case of a Green elected unopposed to Totnes Town Council, giving up his seat because of an internal row.
http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Council-hopeful-minute-stand-Green-rift/article-1771582-detail/article.html
However we agree on more then we do with Labour or Tories, both parties’ voters are cheated by the FPTP system. Subject to the local party agreeing we should stand down (in effect not select a new candidate) in favour of Caroline Lucas, and encourage our voters to lend her their votes in order to get PR. I would hope Greens in turn would withdraw in constituencies held by Lib Dem MPs.
I always reckon that you can tell an organisation by the links on its website. On that basis, Progressive London fails to demonstrate its inclusiveness on an epic scale. A string of trade unions, Socialist Economic Bulletin, need I go on? Links to Lib Dems? Oh yes, the Assembly Group. No bloggers, as far as I can see.
And besides, how ‘progressive’ is it to ‘stop the right’? If the electorate want to vote Conservative, it’s up to us to make a better case. The language is all about command and control, as usual. Labour have consistently lied about our record over a period of years and, at the point where the electorate are about to declare their verdict, this is all about scrabbling about for an escape route. I see no reason why we should trust the very people who have abused our generosity over so many years.
And by the way, ‘progressive’ is a cop out. Unless of course, the word is used to indicate progress towards re-electing Ken…
People are being a little unfair here. Let’s give Labour the sort of support they gave us 100 years ago…
“and encourage our voters to lend her their votes in order to get PR”
Oh look, another one.
“However we agree on more then we do with Labour or Tories, both parties’ voters are cheated by the FPTP system. Subject to the local party agreeing we should stand down (in effect not select a new candidate) in favour of Caroline Lucas, and encourage our voters to lend her their votes in order to get PR. I would hope Greens in turn would withdraw in constituencies held by Lib Dem MPs.”
The Green Party’s interests are best served by the introduction of proportional representation to Westminster. The best vehicle for that being acheived quickly is for them to urge their supporters to vote for the largest national party who actively supports that policy. ie us. Anything else is meaningless posturing.
No deals. That way oblivion lies … As Martin Land alludes to above, we made that mistake once 100 years ago. To make it a second time would be unforgiveable.
@ Hugh (and David, who makes a similar argument)
” . . . where they [‘we’ surely?!] are a distant third the distortions of FPTP mean that it is likely to be counter-productive, resulting in another 5 years on the sidelines under a ‘majority’ government. ”
Why is it counter productive? I might not want a Tory MP, but I don’t want a Labour MP either, even if I think they’re slightly less bad in some respects than the Tories. Not campaigning for a Lib Dem MP this time means that the Lib Dems in my constituency will never be in a position to challenge. In the short term it means I will still have a Tory MP. But I’d rather have a Tory MP for 4, 8, 12 years than a lifetime of being represented by Labour!
Similarly, we must make sure that the liberal, progressive vote is not split – by doing everything to make sure that voters in Brighton Pavillion have positive reasons to vote for a liberal MP – and don’t vote for the Green Party to get Labour out.
The Green Party are not a liberal party, and every vote for them that would otherwise have gone to the Liberal Democrats will actually result in there being fewer progressive and liberal MPs in Parliament. This means worse legislation, and reduces the chance of fair voting reform or changing politics for good.
Martin > “Let’s give Labour the sort of support they gave us 100 years ago…”
lol
I can’t help but smile at how keen Labour are to cosy up to us now that they’re facing electoral defeat. But we don’t need to go back to the early C20th to see their hypocrisy. Remember all that talk of a new order after 1997, when Blair would invite Ashdowne and co. in to discuss how to take the policy agenda forward? Didn’t see much consultation after the election when they had a majority of 179!
I think we can do without their new-found big tent collegiality. I agree that the best way to defeat the Tories is with a united opposition. In Bromley we’re going to achieve that by wiping Labour out.
Matthew,
Glad you share the general scepticism about this crass move to win Lib Dems over to the Livingstone movement. I have to take issue with one thing, though. (It’s in the rules!)
“In some ways there is a need for a return to more class based politics of the sort the left abandoned to become more interested in social liberalism…”
This is wrong. Irrespective of whether the party should be egalitarian and driven by concerns for “social justice”, we should never become involved in class politics. Liberalism is a movement for all. It believes that rules should be applied equally to all people. A liberal party can never, ever, ever a party of special interests.
Tom – I think you’re exactly right. If progressives really want to ‘unite to defeat the right’, then they should abandon their authoritarian and centralist parties and join with us (in the case of Labour, it’s actually difficult to even see them as a progressive party).
I understand that Anneliese is a former employee of the GLA. Where was the desire to form Progressive London and work with ‘other’ progressive people when Ken was in power? This is just Ken’s re-election campaign. Well, I don’t want a Labour Mayor – nor a Tory one.
A debate about issues, areas of agreement and where progressive parties might work together is one thing – and all to the good. A ‘common progressive agenda’, is another.
(I’ve missed a “be” out of my last sentence)
I am astonished at some of the comments here. Of course labour want our support. Having destroyed our economy, taken away our civil liberties, imposed thousands of new laws as part of their social engineering they rightly fear the wrath of the electorate.
Why would Liberals help them out of the mess they are in?
I would like to join with Edward and others to ask how “progressive” is defined. I have yet to see any definition of it, but since “progressive” seems to be the new political hurrah-word I think everyone is owed some kind of explanation about what “progressives” stand for.
Personally I’m happy to call myself liberal and that covers my political philosophy nicely.
Agree 100% now is the time to put Liberalism out there. No smudge/fudge & lifeboats to our ‘friends’, who many are to blame for the possible return of the Tories – shame on them!
Maybe it’s because I’ve never been involved in an area where the Green Party has a serious presence, but I think that a distinction ought to be drawn between Greens and Labour ‘progressives’. It is impossible for anyone who feels themselves to be ‘progressive’ to have remained in the Labour Party throughout the last thirteen years: the litany of infamy doesn’t need repeating. On the other hand there is certainly an overlap between the supporters of the Liberal Democrats and those of the Green Party, and, I suspect, between their activists as well, though as I’ve pointed out before ‘green’ is an idea that can be embraced by anyone along the ideological spectrum from anarchism to extreme authoritarianism, and for all I know the Green Party embraces all of these people. On the other hand, the Green Party’s manifesto contains a great deal that is common ground with the Liberal Democrats so it is a pity that we should be fighting over a similar group of voters, the consequence of which is to benefit of our real enemies. I’m not advocating that we stand down for Caroline Lucas or anyone else, though.
What is most offensive about this article is that the author is basically calling us Labour-lites. There is nothing ‘progressive’ about ID cards or keeping the DNA of innocent children on databases… or turning every adult into paedophiles… or sacking scientists when the science just doesn’t go your way. Even the more social liberals in this party cannot possibly be on the same page with the authoritarian social agenda of New Labour. The very first comment is basically spot on.
I must say it’s a while since I’ve seen such a united comment thread on here!
So long as we have a government that calls itself Labour, there will always be people on the left to show traces of loyalty to it. They will tell us to get behind Napoleon lest Mr Jones come back to oppress us even further.
This, in my view, is one of the main things that have allowed this government to pursue statist, authoritarian policies. Because they are nominally of the left (though I sometimes struggle to see how they are left-wing) the Sunny Hundals & Darrell Goodliffes of this world will ultimately defend them, however much they might not like policies on tedious details like civil liberties & so on.
This umbilical cord has got to be broken before anything “progressive” can br thought about. So I too reject this suggestion made by Midgley. I find it unpleasant in all its implications.
My view of Dave from PR is negative. But at least there’s a ghost of a chance he would be more liberal than this government, less enthusiastic in persecuting people, & better still he would unite people in an anti-government front when he did anything offensive, whereas now too many people pull their punches because they don’t want to attack Brown too hard. No, after 13 years it is his responsibility. If Thatcherism is the cause of our woes then it’s their fault for not following anti-Thatcherite policies in their years of office.
Labour have had a turn at having a Mayor of London. Now the Tories are having a go.
In the interest of cross party balance, fairness and the broad cause of progressive politics the blurb claims for this conference, I’m sure that Ken will be announcing there that Labour will be standing down at the next London Mayoral election in favour of the Lib Dems.
…..No? 😉
“Dave ….. at least there’s a ghost of a chance he would be more liberal than this government”
Well, a ghost of a chance. But there’s good solid evidence that the author of Michael Howard’s manifesto is no liberal at all!
“…& better still he would unite people in an anti-government front when he did anything offensive, whereas now too many people pull their punches because they don’t want to attack Brown too hard”.
Well, that’s jolly good. So the saving grace is that, while Dave orchestrates a double-dip depression and throws masses of people out of work, we politicals will have the lovely warm feeling of being part of a (powerless) united protest campaign!
(NB, yes I think Labour are the lesser evil, no that does not amount to defending Labour, or proposing we have any truck with the Livingstones.)
Well done, David Allen!
I am referring to people who refuse to oppose what Labour do, or put up half-hearted opposition, even though they’d be screaming from the rooftops if a Conservative government did half of what Blair & Brown have done. Well, it might teach them a lesson, just as those who scorned civil liberties have been taught a lesson they might just remember. As we saw with the last Conservative government, an incumbency that goes on too long will always lead to staleness, & to its supporters defending the indefensible by reference to the opposition being even worse.
Is it so hard to understand that as the incumbents of 13 years, Labour take responsibility for their intrusion of state control over our lives, & for all that they have left undone? Does anyone seriously imagine giving them another chance would lead to one thing being changed? “Progressives” would be used & discarded as before 1997.
I can already see, from the actions & policy statements of the shadow cabinet, that I will oppose a Tory government from day 1. But David Camoron hasn’t caused this country’s problems for the very simple & I should have thought obvious reason that he doesn’t wield power, Brown does. I for one will not be cowed into submission by Labour, who have zero interest in my concerns, in case the bogeymen come back.
The problem is that the Greens deliberately target those people they are supposed to be closer to. In Norwich this is clearly evident. One Green told me that their aim, like the Tories, was to make sure the Lib Dems didn’t win Norwich South at the next general election.
Then the Greens on the County council moan that the Lib Dems won’t meet with them to cooperate on issues. When your supposed friends attack you more than your political enemies, how can they be treated as allies ?
I have identified what is objectionable about Labour in a previous posting. But I think it is all beside the point to dig up these long standing complaints against “New” Labour when this organisation is clearly looking for a different kind of left wing politics. I really do not think that they want to attack civil liberties or centralise power in the way New Labour have. Surely that is why they are interested in what we can bring to the table?
I remember in the 1980s it was the left who were in the forefront of the civil liberties movement in this country.
That said, I do have concerns about the net being cast too wide to include the far left.
In the end this is simply a conference. Go along and say what you like, and listen to who you like.
As for who should be mayor of London; a Liberal of course. But where does my second preference go? Whoever is most committed to tackling climate change, and this is where Ken Livingstone has a track record better than any Tory when he advocated the congestion charge. And on this issue of course, this is where the Greens are strong as well.
Ha. Greens progressive. No. An anti-science bunch of luddites. How can there be any concensus with a party whose published policies include:
An immediate end to all research using animals
An immediate ban on embryonic stem cell research
An immediate ban on GM foods and GM research
A requirement for the NHS to fund loony tunes ‘alternative therapies’ like homeopathy & crystal healing on the same terms as real medicine that actually works.
Tom Papworth
“In some ways there is a need for a return to more class based politics of the sort the left abandoned to become more interested in social liberalism…”
This is wrong. Irrespective of whether the party should be egalitarian and driven by concerns for “social justice”, we should never become involved in class politics. Liberalism is a movement for all. It believes that rules should be applied equally to all people. A liberal party can never, ever, ever a party of special interests.
You have made a jump from what I wrote to assuming I must have meant that the Liberal Democrats should become a party which appeals only to certain social classes.
What you write is a bit like saying “Liberalism is a movement for all. Therefore we will not talk about race. We will pretend there are no problems of racial inequality or discrimination.”
I concur with ColinW – the green party is a mess and cannot have any of our support. They are old school socialist mixed with, as Colin says, totally deranged science policy.
To anyone contemplating “doing a deal” with the Greens (or Labour) in cetrtain areas, voting for them to keep out a tory, again, as has been said before, that way lies defeat. If you don’t campaign for a Liberal you won’t get a liberal. This is the best shot at voting reform in a long time -but we won’t get it. So any giving up will mean 2-way votes with no LibDem there. We cannot afford to pretend we are on the same ‘side’ as Greens or Labour and still work towards a liberal society.
It strikes me as odd that any organisation which stakes a claim to be ‘progressive’ shold automatically exclude a large section of public opinion – isn’t social inclusivity at the heart of progressivism?
Even on such things as Climate Change issues, the Greens are so idealistic that what Liberal Democrats do in the real world is rubbished by them. There is no indication whatsoever that Labout run Councils any more than Conservative run Councils are addressing Climate Change issues. Over 30 LibDem run Councils have signed up to the 10:10 campaign. Many Labour and Conservative Councils have done the same. There are many Conservatives who are Climate Change sceptics, but even some of them have realised that saving 10% of the Councils carbon emissions, will actually save the Council money! See my web site http://www.libdem-cnn.org.uk for details about what libDem Councils are up to.
Liberal Democrats should follow Liberal Democrat policies and only join with others when there is clear agreement on those policies. Only the Liberal Democrats have the principles, the policies and the political will to tackle climate change issues.