Thread by @syrpis

Seeing lots of reaction to proposals for a progressive alliance, and have been struck by one thing.

Members and activists tend to reject it; while 'mere' supporters of opposition parties tend to embrace it. 1/7

Obviously, there are a lot more 'mere' supporters than members and activists.

But, I don't think that there can be any chance that a progressive alliance will happen without the strong support of members and activists.

So, why might the two groups think as they do? 2/7

Members/activists might oppose a progressive alliance because:
a) they are familiar with the party rules (which make it much more difficult);
b) they are likely to think their party can win; 3/7

c) they have strong negative feelings towards the rival opposition parties, as they have campaigned against each other;
d) they know and emphasise the policy/ideological differences between the parties.
(Doubtless there are many more.) 4/7

'Mere' supporters might support a progressive alliance because:
a) they feel huge frustration with the fact that Johnson wins with c 40% of the vote, and think that the majority who oppose him should be be better represented and be able to win power; 5/7

b) they can't see how any single opposition party can win alone;
c) they see policy/ideological differences as much within as between the opposition parties.
(Again, doubtless there are many more) 6/7

I'm not sure whether or how the divide can be bridged.

But, a progressive alliance is only going to happen if there is a concerted move from the leadership of the parties to transform rules and cultures.

And that doesn't seem to be on the cards (for now, at least). 7/7