Not that we do party political of course

The idea of a progressive alliance in British politics is rearing its head again. We’re old enough to recall the last two times Neal Lawson insisted this was the true path forward and we’re still insistent that it faces the same problems it did then.

We start with the “why” of an alliance. The driving reason is political. The critical alliance is not one of parties or voters, but minds and then actions. The societal challenges we face – of climate, culture, care, technology, ageing and inequality – simply can no longer be met by any single party.

It’s possible to be cynical about politics and note that a political party exists to give each would be Fat Controller a platform from which to direct the lives of others. Given the plethora of would be controllers we’re going to end up with many parties.

Once we put aside such refreshing realism it’s also possible to diagnose another problem here. It might even be true that these are all problems that need to be dealt with. We don’t agree and we certainly don’t agree that politics is the way to deal with many of them even if they are problems that need solving. The idea that politics should determine culture is horrific for example.

But this other problem. Even among those who do agree that all of these are problems, problems that need to be solved by political means, there are many different solutions being offered. Each party offering a rather different set of solutions. Which is rather the point, isn’t it?

To argue that there should be just the one party - or alliance - is to be making the “something must be done” argument. But the crucial part is “What is it the something should be done?” rather than the usual error of “This is something so do this”.

What, exactly, is it that the combined progressives of the country would do once they gain power by combining? Given that there are at least as many different answers as there are current parties the combination doesn’t really solve that important question, does it?