WHERE WE ARE

The years since the financial crash in 2008 have not been easy for progressive politics. Parties of the centre left, whether social democratic, green or social liberal, have lost ground and suffered defeats in almost all the major western democracies. In some cases, formerly successful progressive parties, like Pasok in Greece, have all but disappeared. In others, like the Dutch Labour party, they have lost the bulk of their support to new challengers. There have been some exceptions to this rule, particularly among new left parties such as Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and Jeremy Corbyn's Labour in Britain. But although they have brought a new energy to the left and some fresh ideas, none have yet shown that they have a viable programme for government or vision for society which could start to rebuild the fortunes of the progressive left across Europe and beyond.

Twenty years ago, at the height of the boom that followed the end of the cold war and the quickening pace of globalisation, the picture was very different. Centre-left parties were in office across most of the western democracies, including the US. The third way was in full swing, and its promise to combine economic efficiency with social justice through the policies of the social investment state proved widely popular. A new era of progressive centre left advance seemed to be unfolding. There was even talk of a progressive century. These parties and governments were working within the constraints of the new international order shaped by the doctrines of neoliberalism and the opportunities of globalisation, but they were demonstrating that there were practical alternatives to the kind of policies pursued by the Thatcher government and the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

This was a period of relative optimism and confidence that increasing political and economic cooperation could begin to solve some of the pressing problems with which the world was confronted, particularly on the environment, global poverty and nuclear proliferation. The rules-based international order, which had collapsed amid the economic slumps and military conflicts of the 1930s and 1940s, was rebuilt under US leadership after 1945 and, despite challenges and upheavals, particularly during the cold war and the stagflation of the 1970s, it had survived. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the increasing participation in the global economy of some of the world's most populous and poorest nations, especially China and India, a fresh beginning seemed possible. A new world order bringing all the nations of the world into economic and political cooperation within a single set of institutions and rules seemed to some within reach.

In the years that followed some progress was made towards this goal. The advance of China and India transformed the world economy, lifted millions out of extreme poverty, and changed perceptions of what the future of the world would be like. The old Eurocentric and western assumptions which had ruled for the previous two centuries were weakening. This was an optimistic time, a prosperous time and often an exhilarating time, but there were already dark clouds and a growing awareness that not all was well. There were repeated financial crises; problems in controlling the economic forces which globalisation had unleashed; the emergence of new ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda; the rise of new terrorist organisations, most spectacularly al-Qaida with its attack on the US on 9/11; the intervention of the western powers in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the failure to integrate Russia as a full partner in the western international order. Liberal peace became liberal war.

Before the financial crash of 2008 there were already signs of darkening prospects. Many things were not going well. Populist nationalist movements were loudly pointing to what was wrong and campaigning against the political and economic elites they claimed were running the international system and trampling on the rights and interests of nations. But these movements have been amplified hugely since 2008. Today there is hardly a western democracy which does not have a vigorous challenge from a populist nationalist movement claiming to represent the 'will of the people', pitching the sovereign nation against the global elite. What was surprising was that the major breakthrough for the populist nationalists when it came was not in France, the Netherlands, or Italy but in the US, with the election of Trump in November 2016, and in the UK with the vote in the referendum earlier that year to leave the EU.

The rise of populist nationalism has been a key factor in the fading fortunes of the centre left. Its politicians found it hard to articulate a response to the financial crash and the austerity programmes which followed. Centre-left parties were seen by many voters as governing parties, part of the web of elites who were held responsible for the crash and the recession. Having been so long in government during the boom years centre-left parties found it hard to find a voice as outsiders and critics. That was something taken up with relish by the populists who delivered simple punchy messages about immigration, jobs and services, the iniquities of globalisation, and the loss of control to supranational bodies like the European commission.

The decade after the crash brought to the fore trends which had been building for some time. The traditional support base of centre-left parties in the working-class communities of the industrial heartlands has been in sharp decline. The restructuring of many advanced economies away from manufacturing towards services, which was a marked feature of the 1980s, further accelerated in the 1990s as jobs were outsourced by multinationals to low-cost producers such as China (Figure 1.1). There was a sharp reduction not only in the number of people employed in manufacturing but also in the numbers belonging to trade unions. Many of the institutions which had sustained an independent labour movement no longer appeared relevant in the new age of globalisation, and there was nothing it seemed that centre-left parties could do about it except press for programmes which gave some support to communities and allowed individual workers to retrain. Many workers still ended up in low-skill, temporary or precarious employment, with few rights and a loss of the status and self-respect they had formerly enjoyed. Many of them felt left behind and abandoned. As traditional loyalties gradually melted away many became attracted to the new direct messages of the populists.

At the same time as support among its traditional base was ebbing, the centre left was becoming more attractive to other groups of voters, winning over ever greater numbers of young, university-educated middle-class professionals and public sector workers. To win elections centre-left parties needed to keep both groups within their coalition, but after 2008 few of them managed to do so sufficiently. The centre left has had few answers to the new politics of identity developed so seductively by the populists. Class has not disappeared as a factor in voters' allegiances, but other...