Eye on Washington: Colbert and the Super PACS

In a new series of articles, Young Fabian member Alex Adranghi brings us the highlights from the 2012 US Presidential Election Race.

We’ve seen intriguing developments in the past week concerning the greatest non-candidate of the Republican presidential primaries, satirist Stephen Colbert.

Real-life Democrat Colbert, host of fake right-wing news show ‘The Colbert Report’, has been poking fun at federal laws concerning the funding of political campaigns.

While donations to candidates’ campaigns are regulated, two recent federal rulings have encouraged the rise of the so-called ‘Super Political Action Committees’ or ‘Super PACs’. These allow corporations to raise unlimited funds to campaign in support of a candidate- without the need for there to be regulated coordination between the actions of the ‘Super PACs’ and those of the official campaign itself.

What may seem bizarre to the British is that this ‘freedom’ stems from a 19^th century ruling of the Supreme Court which counts corporations as individuals in terms of freedom of expression. The ruling prohibits infringement on their ‘free speech.’ The power of corporations over elections was further reinforced in a 1976 ruling, which formally equated money with ‘free speech’.

Last week a poll in South Carolina placed Colbert at five percent, ahead of major candidate Jon Huntsman who subsequently dropped out of the running at the weekend. This led to Colbert’s announcement that he was exploring entering the race in South Carolina, placing his own ‘Super PAC’ into the hands of fellow satirist- and ‘Daily Show’ host- John Stewart.

This ‘Super PAC’ has already launched TV adverts in South Carolina portraying race leader Mitt Romney as a serial killer. This mocks the notion of corporations equalling people in terms of freedom of speech, using Romney’s career as a successful management consultant (where he liquidated troubled companies) to illustrate the point.

With no option in South Carolina to write-in names on the ballot, on Monday Colbert called for those who support him to place a vote for ex-contender Herman Cain who is ironically still on the ballot paper.

With wild media coverage of the faux possible candidacy, comes the real possibility of a ‘Colbert Effect’. There is speculation that Colbert could hurt libertarian Ron Paul due to their mutual appeal to younger independent voters.

We’ll just have to see if a protest vote materialises this Saturday.

Alex Adranghi is a member of the Young Fabians

Blueprint for a New Economy

In this Guest Post, Bren Albiston, a member of the Young Fabian Renewing and Reforming Our Economy Policy Commission, explores the ways in which we can change the way the country does business.

We have a big decision to make as to what future we want for this country.

Do we want to continue ever further down the road of an economic system that rewards rent-seeking more than productivity? Do we want to sustain an unfair system that generates friction between the Square Mile and the rest of the economy?

No. We can, and need to, improve this sorry state of affairs.

We have to grow our economy at more than 3% a year until 2035 in order to make up the losses incurred from the double-whammy of the credit crunch and recession. If we fail, we will lose something in the order of £4 trillion of productivity* . The task may seem insurmountable, but we must work to secure as much of that 4 trillion as we can.

Our capitalism is broken. This has been made clear by years of recession and static growth. We continue to pay the price of other people’s hubris; those who thought they could predict the unpredictable.

Despite this, we are still over-reliant on a financial system that is too cautious to invest. At the same time, the government is scaling back the public sector, our most potent means of inducing social mobility. We must reinvent the way we do business and the way that we create and encourage growth, not just because we need to recover economically, but because we need to recover socially as well.

Britain should not be afraid of taking the lead in reform. There are many ways in which the nation could change the way it does business. The establishment of a properly funded and empowered ‘Green’ investment bank is one option. As Will Hutton suggests, we should explore the benefits of a ‘Knowledge Bank’, a ‘Life Sciences Bank’ and perhaps a ‘National Infrastructure Bank’.

Through these institutions, we can invest in the technologies and expertise required to rebuild our economy. A new lending infrastructure will incentivise innovation, while benefiting traditional funding streams at the same time.

The new system would channel funds to those areas that are thought to be risky bets by orthodox lenders. However, it would need the backing of the state to succeed. It alone can provide the security and effective strategic direction needed, alongside a highly autonomous set of investment apparatus to keep its influence in check.

Fairness and just desserts should be the foundation stones of our new capitalism. In many ways, small business does more for this country than big business. At present, we neglect the small- and medium-sized businesses and leave them exposed to the predatory practices of our largest firms.

These giants operate largely unchallenged by both smaller competitors and government watchdogs. A study in 2005 revealed that the more competing firms were matched in terms of performance and productivity, the more they tended to register new patents** . We need a competition framework that actively promotes competition rather than protecting incumbent corporations.

Unfortunately, the balance between today’s consumers and tomorrow’s is too heavily in favour of the former. In consequence, there is little room for innovation and even less for emerging companies to replace those which are uncompetitive. We need an infrastructure capable of sustaining new corporate growth and innovation.

Britain is, in many respects, a world-leader in high technology and services. Yet as our manufacturing sector continues to decline, we remain over-reliant on financial institutions as the engines of growth. As the state retreats from its key role in encouraging social mobility, we are faced with a huge task: we need to reconstruct our capitalism to benefit society, and we need new institutions to help us do that.

• You can learn more about what the ‘Renewing and Reforming Our Economy’ Policy Commission has been doing by clicking here.

* H.M Treasury (2009) Pre-Budget Report: Securing the Recovery: Growth and Opportunity, HMSO. See Also: Will Hutton (2010) Them and Us. Little, Brown.

** Phillippe Aghion, Richard Blundell, Rachel Griffith, Peter Howitt and Susan Prantl (2005) ‘The Effects of Entry on incumbent Innovation and Productivity’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP5323.

Labour in the World – Reflections on the Arab Spring

In this guest post, Debbie Moss, Chair of the Young Fabian Labour in the World Policy Commission, reflects on our webchat with young Egyptian activist Hannan Abdalla.

On Tuesday, the Young Fabian Labour and the World Policy Commission held a web chat with a young British-born Egyptian activist, Hanan Abdalla.  When the Cairo uprising began Hanan took a break from her career as a film-maker to support her compatriots in transforming their nation.  She has since been charting progress in the region via Twitter, amongst other media.

In a week which has seen the world transfixed by the apparently imminent demise of Gadaffi at the hands of NATO-backed rebels, Hanan offered a fascinating perspective on events in the Arab World, focussing on social media, the role of the young generation, prospects for future stability and the role of the West.

We in the West inevitably experience world events through the prism of our predominantly inward-looking media outlets.  When a foreign dictator’s power comes under threat our thoughts quickly turn to the domestic political implications and the impact on our national self-interest.  Hanan’s responses were particularly refreshing because of her focus on the lives of people living in the Arab world.  This was encapsulated in her opening remark: “What’s been happening in Libya has been exceptionally moving and for me serves as a real testament to the strength of the will of a people and how they will stop at nothing for change.”

Predictably, Young Fabian members wanted to know about young people and social media.  Yet Hanan cautioned against the temptation evident in much of the Western media  to view technological advance as the cause of revolution, rather than a means of organising against anachronistic regimes. The “sexier” aspects of recent events have received disproportionate attention, detracting from other, more significant aspects.

Similarly, our focus on speculation that the Muslim Brotherhood could gain power was challenged.  Western fear of the potential rise of extremist Islamic groups distracts the world’s attention from the more immediate enemies of human rights – in this case the Egyptian army, supported, Hanan emphasised – by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel.  These uprising do not just challenge rulers – but global power structures.

And what of the role of the West? First of all, we should remember that it’s not all about us.  The uprisings were initiated by and remain the property of oppressed peoples forging a new political and social path.  But recent events, especially in Libya, do have significance for NATO and the international community, providing an opportunity to rehabilitate the doctrine of “liberal interventionism” and free it from the legacy of Iraq.

The Labour Party and all those who believe in progressive foreign policy should, all being well, draw on this to articulate a new formula for future interventions abroad.

Debbie Moss is Chair of the Young Fabian Labour in the World Policy Commission.

• Replay the webchat with Hannan Abdalla here. Find out more about the Young Fabian Policy Commissions here.

Guest post: The British prime ministership and the Murdoch press since 1997

In this guest post, Dr. Nicholas Allen examines the influence of the Murdoch press on British prime ministers since 1997.

Rupert Murdoch’s appearance before the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee on 17 July was a riveting affair. It was, he said, ‘the most humble day of my life’. It was also a day when the public learned that Murdoch had often entered Number 10 through the back door when visiting—because he had been asked to by its occupants. The question that prompted that admission was indicative of the concern felt by many about Murdoch’s relationships with successive prime ministers. His access to Messrs Blair, Brown and Cameron and their attempts to curry his newspapers’ favour have been portrayed in some quarters as evidence of excessive influence. Confirmation of his back-door comings and goings only added to the sense of his behind-the-scenes power in British public life.

The reality is probably somewhat different. No-one can deny the importance of news management to the prime ministership. As head of government, the prime minister is ultimately responsible for selling the record of his or her government to the voters and ensuring a supportive press. Blair must have been thoroughly grateful for the Sun and The Times’ support for the invasion of Iraq, for instance. Yet, at the same time, prime ministers need to be mindful of what all newspapers are saying- especially in the run-up to an election. Press coverage in the round also matters to prime ministers on a more personal level. The tenor of press coverage will affect his or her prestige and standing in the eyes of senior colleagues.

It almost goes without saying that the importance of press coverage in general undermines the importance of one man’s newspapers. The Murdoch press operates in a competitive market, and their influence on public opinion is limited. Prime ministers and their advisers almost certainly know this. Of course, some newspapers matter more than others. Murdoch’s newspapers are especially important in British politics because of their high circulation figures and because of their unpredictability. Titles whose political support can be taken for granted may find themselves taken for granted by prime ministers. Titles whose support is shallow or conditional will almost inevitably be treated differently. The Times and especially the Sun enjoy large readerships, and they have shown themselves to be conditional in their support for political parties. It is not surprising that they have been courted.

The Sun, in particular, has a near-mythical status in British politics. There is little evidence to support the claim that it was the Sun ‘wot won it’ for the Tories in 1992, yet many politicians still regard the Sun’s endorsement as a necessary step on the path to power. In July 1995, Tony Blair took the bold move for a Labour leader to travel to Australia to deliver a speech to News Corp executives. Reflecting on the trip in his memoirs, Blair wryly observes:

‘the country’s most powerful newspaper proprietor, whose publications have hitherto been rancorous in their opposition to the Labour Party, invites us into the lion’s den. You go, don’t you?’

Brown for his part was reportedly determined to have the backing of the Murdoch press when he succeeded Blair, and Cameron must have been delighted to obtain the Sun’s backing in 2009 (not that it won him a majority in 2010). In all cases, however, there is no evidence that policies were radically altered contrary to a prime minister’s preferences out of consideration for the Murdoch press.

Moreover, while Blair’s trip to Australia was the most memorable effort of any British party leader to woo a newspaper proprietor, both he and his successors have assiduously courted other newspaper owners and editors. Blair was determined to win over as much of the right-wing press as possible; he read a lesson at the funeral of Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Mail, and he invited Richard Desmond, owner of the Express, to tea. Gordon Brown and David Cameron have also continued the tradition of meeting owners and editors of various newspapers when they can. In this sense the friendliness shown towards the Murdoch press is hardly exceptional. (The fact that no prime minister enjoys the unconditional support of a newspaper might be taken as evidence that the effort expended is never worth the outcome.)

In truth, concerns about Murdoch’s and his newspapers’ hold on the prime ministership are wide of the mark. Amongst proprietors, Murdoch does not enjoy an exclusive access to Number 10, and all newspapers are, to varying degrees, wooed by the prime minister and his advisers. Instead, such concerns probably have more to do with Murdoch’s ‘bogeyman’ reputation, especially among those on the left, than with his actual power.

His newspapers have not, by themselves, empowered or disempowered the British prime ministership. Recent events have also shown his own power to be somewhat more illusory than many once supposed.

Dr. Nicholas Allen is Lecturer in Politics at the Royal Holloway University of London

Is Britain constitutionally challenged?

In this guest post, Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan MP, sets the scene for a speech he will give tomorrow on the British constitution at a joint Young Fabians/Society of Labour Lawyers event in London.

Labour’s 13 years in power were a period of major constitutional change for Britain – devolution for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London; introduction of the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act, creation of a Supreme Court; separation of the senior judiciary from our second chamber; and the removal of all but 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The list goes on.

But while our record stands tall, I also recognise that we left some areas of constitutional change unfinished.

We’re now faced with a government who are playing with our constitution in a way which is not in the nation’s best interests, but is simply about preserving the harmony of the coalition.

Parliament length is being fixed at five years, boundaries are being re-drawn and the number of MPs reduced by 50 – all to favour one, or both, of the coalition partners, riding roughshod over our constitution. Other issues which are contentious between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have been kicked into the long-grass – again, to ensure harmony within the government rather than what is in the country’s best interests.

Our constitution deserves better than changes made simply to satisfy the short-term, partisan needs of this coalition.

A future Labour Government will be left with the challenge of putting the pieces back together and restoring public confidence in our constitution. But we must also continue the modernisation of our democratic structures that we started when in power – looking at improving and widening participation in democracy, devolving of power and whether the country might be better served by a written constitution.

Rt. Hon Sadiq Khan MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice (with special responsibility for constitutional reform)

Put money where your mouth is, Mr Mitchell

In this Member Post, Lola Okolosie, writes about the challenges which remain for the gender equality agenda, despite the launch of UN Women.

UN Women. Never heard of it? Well, that is not altogether a surprise. News of its launch was lost amidst coverage of the North African political uprisings. In the month in which we celebrate 100 years of International Woman’s Day, it seems apt, then, to remind people of this little known organization.

Set up to ‘champion’ equality for women on the global stage, its remit encompasses tackling violence against women; advocating for female involvement in politics and making the economic argument for women’s equality. In the Asia Pacific region alone, it is estimated $40 billion is lost each year as a result of women’s limited access to employment. These statistics remind us of the urgency with which the issues linked to gender equality, in an age of ever increasing globalization, are a serious concern for all.

UN Women replaces four smaller organizations, themselves hindered by poor funding. A lack of adequate financial support threatens to render this new body as ineffectual as its predecessors. Only a handful of the UN’s member nations have made core-funding commitments, both the UK and US governments remain conspicuous in their absence. Such inaction threatens to make the organization and its director, Michelle Bachelet, toothless lions, merely existing as representational mascots to gender equality.

In July 2010 International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, supported the setting up of the organization. Indeed, he was “relishing the opportunity to work with the single powerful agency which will have responsibility for promoting the rights of women across the world, and ensuring gender equality.” He qualified this by urging ‘UN [Women] to get started with delivering real change on the ground quickly.’

The question is, how can this be done when it faces a funding shortfall of £312 million?

Kathy Peach, Head of External Affairs at VSO UK welcomes Mitchell’s enthusiasm. However, for many gender equality campaigners, empty support is not enough. Peach argues that “it is now time for the Government to put funding behind its words and commit a minimum of £21 million in core annual funding to UN Women so it can start to deliver real change for millions of women.”

Over 400 events were held to mark the centenary of International Women’s Day and to celebrate what has been achieved in that time. The congratulatory tones of the last week must not lead us to forget one key fact: we are still a long way from winning the battle for women’s equality.

It’s time to put money where your mouth is, Mr Mitchell.

Listen to a podcast of a Young Fabian Women/One World Action joint panel discussion on UN Women by clicking here.

Countdown to AV

In this guest post, Martin Edobor, a member of the Young Fabian Science and Society Network, argues in favour of AV.

Next week Jeremy Corbyn MP will introduce the first UCL & King’s College Young Fabians AV Debate. This will give the Young Fabians a chance to reflect on the referendum, and think deeply about the implications voting reform may have on our political system. With the referendum a few months away, it is important that we have an open and frank debate, where individuals from both sides can put forward their argument.

For me a move towards an Alternative vote is a move towards a more progressive electoral system, in which the voice of the voter would be empowered. Under AV a prospective parliamentary candidate will need to gain at least 50% share of preference votes before they are elected. This gives parliamentarians a stronger mandate as public officials. It also avoids the situation in which MPs can be elected with less than half the overall share of the vote, which currently happens under the first past the post system.

AV would produce a result which is representative of the amount of votes cast. Therefore it a system that is fairer than first past the post.

If AV had been the electoral system used in the 2005 general election, Labour would have gained 8 more seats, the Liberal Democrats 9 more seats and the Conservatives would have dropped 15 seats (BBC). This needs to be clearly put forward to the public: an AV system is both more democratic and fairer than FPTP. In order for Britain to move towards a more modern democracy, we must begin by adopting a more progressive electoral system.

Empowering voters – the argument for AV

In this guest post, Young Fabian member James Roberts puts the case for supporting AV.

There is something intrinsically fair about the idea that the percentage of seats that a party has in parliament should be at least approximately equal to the percentage of people who hold corresponding views in the country at large. In contrast, there can be little argument that for a party to secure a majority of 65 (and 55.2% of the seats), as Labour did in 2005, with the support of only roughly 20% of the electorate, is undemocratic. This is partly due to an inherent bias towards the incumbent and partly due to the low turnout that year, but mostly down to the strange and quaintly simplistic voting system at use in the UK: First Past The Post (FPTP).

However, the only reform on offer in the near future is a switch to the Alternative Vote (AV). The distortions inherent in FPTP are well known, and while it is rather less well known that AV can lead to even bigger distortions, it does result in a considerable increase in the number of marginal constituencies and a majority of people’s votes counting, as opposed to the huge potential for wasted votes under FPTP. Most of the numerical arguments have been made and so instead I will try to present the cultural arguments in favour of reform.

Wheras the battle now is between the ability of each party to raise funds in order to swamp a small number of swing voters with material and the appearance of local activity, the deconcentration of electioneering from marginal seats can only increase the power of the individual to make their choices based on the needs of the local community.

The first post-independence Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, a Fabian socialist, made the case that democracy itself is not a ticket to the elysian fields, but is the very medium in which we, if we believe ourselves to be democrats and socialists, have to and should operate: “Democracy is good… because other systems are worse… But merely saying that democracy will solve all problems is utterly wrong. Problems are solved by intelligence and hard work.”

How can we condone continuing to support an antiquated and clearly badly-representative system? Even the joint leader of the German Communist Party in the 1920′s, Rosa Luxemburg, knew the importance of frequent and meaningful elections for maintaining a healthy public discourse: “Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element.”

The critics of AV will point out that the trend of falling turnout in Britain is bad enough already, without introducing any ‘fiendishly complex’ reforms that will ‘put people off voting’. On the contrary, it is by providing people with real choices and empowering them with decisions that can actually shape their own lives and their communities, that we can expect to see an increase in voter turnout. The critics will also point out that AV will lead to ‘consensus politics’, often pointing out the example of Italy’s record in (not) maintaining coalitions. This is less about the system itself however than the political culture of a region. Sweden has had a form of Proportional Representation (PR) since the 1930s which has resulted in the Social Democratic Party controlling the agenda of the ruling coallition. This has led until recently to a powerful social democratic consensus and some of the best rates of equality in the developed world, with Sweden (alongside its other Scandinavian neighbors) regularly placing in the top 3 in indices of political and economic freedom.

Before and during the UK 2010 general election, there were very few people who voted for the Liberal Democrats under the belief that they were a party of the centre-right, and in some ways they have succeeded in becoming a ‘moderating influence’ on some of the most regressive aspects of Conservative policy. Even on one of the Lib Dem flagship issues, tuition fees, we see that a considerable number of Lib Dem MPs are prepared to defy the whip and vote against any increase. While it might seem distasteful in today’s political climate to work with the Liberal Democrats, AV could only work to increase the chances of being able to rely on the ‘progressive majority’ that so many voters believed in before the election.

Eventually, with a switch to a more proportional system, such as a form of Additional Member System (AMS) which I myself favour, we could see many of the eurosceptic members of the Conservatives join the likes of UKIP. Meanwhile, it is possible that the gains the far left and the Greens would make might come at the expense of Labour and the Lib Dems, but it is unlikely that a coalition of the left could arise without Labour forming the lynchpin of such a force, as in Sweden.

If we vote against AV in the referendum in May, we do so only out of fear, and yet it will be our undoing. The malaise which has afflicted turnout and general trust in politics in the UK is amplified by the ineffectiveness of our voting system. The thing that people disliked about Labour towards the end of the last government was that politics became something that was done to people, rather than something people did for themselves. Cameron has proposed the ‘big society’ as a hazy way to tap into this desire for localism; we can go far beyond this rhetoric and instead of expecting the army of volunteers to appear, actually empower people to make the changes they want to see for themselves. This is what the Labour movement has always been about. This is the kind of issue we as a party have to put to the forefront of our campaign. This is the political extension of the work done by the co-operative movement and can only result in greater levels of equality of income and opportunity.

But only if we vote ‘Yes’ in May.

This was originally posted on the Merseyside Fabians blog.

Right stupidity

In this Guest Post, Young Fabian member Christine Quigley takes issue with calls for “a leader of the Labour right”.

For ten minutes, we were all playing nice. Labour had elected a new leader, and Party Conference saw a swell of support for (not-quite-Red) Ed from all sections of the party. Most of us were just relieved that the long wait was over, and that we could begin the serious work of winning back the country from the Conservatives, rather than sniping at rival supporters over Twitter. For me at least, the Manchester conference this year embodied a feeling that we were all on the same side.

A feeling that lasted right up until I read Sion Simon’s blogpost yesterday about the need for a leader of the Labour Right.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the Labour Right has a leader. His name’s Ed Miliband. He’s the same leader as everyone else in the party has.

Calls like Sion Simon’s do nothing but further foster factions within the party. Debate is good; division is not. We need only to look at Labour’s implosion into internal wrangling after the 1951 and 1979 election defeats to know how disastrous this sort of infighting can be. Just last week, some Conservatives were attempting to capitalise on disaffected David Miliband supporters by extending the warm hand of friendship (and an invitation to join the party). I have great faith in all those who supported the defeated leadership candidates to back our new leader; putting party over petty factionalism.

We have always been a party that accommodates different voices, and we are stronger for it. It’s crucial that important decisions and policy positions that we take up over the next few years are discussed and debated, to ensure that we’re getting them right. But the scattergun support picked up by the leadership candidates itself demonstrated how individuals can cross factional boundaries. Setting up a candidate to channel right-wing dissent isn’t helping anyone. (And really – Ed Balls?) We have to stop talking about right and left and start talking about what we all believe in; fairness, equality and justice.

So, whether you’re a unilateral-nuclear-disarmament, nationalise-it-all, dyed-in-the-wool red, or the palest pink ultra-Blairite, now is the time to redouble your support for Ed Miliband and the new Shadow Cabinet team. We won’t all agree on everything the party leadership does over the next four-and-a-half years, but we can agree on one thing; Britain is better under a Labour Government. That’s something we all need to fight for.

On a progressive note

In this Guest Post, Young Fabian member Alex Adranghi ponders the meaning of the word ‘progressive’.

Whether it’s the debate on higher education funding, tax credits, or party ideology, the much sought after ground is that of a ‘progressive’. With a liberal usage, the term has become synonymous for all things good. The progressive position is claimed by all parts of the political spectrum, so either all claimants share a common policy – which is clearly not the case, or it is a word with different meanings for different people.

So what does progressive mean?

Puritans will say that being a progressive is merely accepting the world as dynamic and embracing reform with changing ideas of society. This is also the widest description. Others may go further and add a particular direction to policy – the aims to make society more inclusive and fair. More tangible still is the position that being a progressive is about tackling societies problems starting with the most vulnerable and weak before moving through society. This ties in with another definition of progressive in terms of taxation. But even this has limited use as most of the spectrum would agree with these notions, yet there is a constant jostling for the progressive crown.

If we were playing a game of chess, a progressive might accept the state of play and look for the next move to maximise the value of their position. But if they wanted to force the game to take a particular course, is the progressive limiting what moves they can make now? If we are steering towards an ideology, does this impair their progressive credentials? We aren’t adapting to the needs of society, but we are coming to the table with preconceptions on what direction society needs to go.

Does this mean that true progressives are playing the short game, with no strategic designs of future? Or does this mean that being a progressive is nothing about future intentions, but merely how willing you are to make the next move? If the latter, how do you measure how progressive a policy is?

For example, if we accept climate change is having a critical effect now the sustainability of our society for this generation and the next, should we not be doing everything we can to avert it? Or do we want a balance with ensuring jobs and prosperity for people today? Where does it leave us if we are managing conflicting progressive policies on a manifesto of topics? Less progressive? How do you measure each package?

The parties argue that they are the most progressive of them all. Does the political spectrum measure from the same stick? Or is a better measure of the policies of different parties just political ideology? If “progressiveness” isn’t a metric which allows comparison of policies, then why do we use the term at all?

Activists and supporters have an opinion greater than many in the public, but does using the term progressive obfuscate our message to the electorate compared to a situation in which we used, for example, the long-since abandoned “S-word”?