Some weeks ago, Ken Livingstone (and a range of associates) launched Progressive London. In its own words, it:

…campaigns to maintain and develop the progressive policies which London pursued at the beginning of the 21st century prior to the election of the present Tory London administration.

The campaign was inaugurated by Ken Livingstone, and aims to bring together a broad coalition of campaigns, communities, artists, trade unions, environmentalists, politicians from different political parties, community groups and individuals, who believe in social justice, excellent public services, environmental protection, good community relations, cultural innovation, a decent future for our young people and the many other areas in which London makes a progressive contribution recognised throughout the world.

In short, an attempt to create a broad-based, non-partisan coalition to forward progressive policies. Or, at least, present a united front against Boris. Neat idea, no?

If it were that simple. The project looks flawed even at this stage; a vehicle built by Ken to promote policies devised by Ken in Ken’s mayorality looks suspiciously like one to spearhead his re-election campaign in 2012. That might put off anyone who suppports the policies but worries a further Ken campaign will just split the left vote.

The impression isn’t helped by the organisation’s apparently top-down structure. Outside participation looks limited at present. You can subscribe to a newsletter, and you can come to the conference and listen to all of PL’s wonderful speakers. And you can sign their petition; apparently a “step-up” in activity. The approach seems to be that of a party organising activists, rather than organising a mass base.

That’s a shame, as the concept could have promise, both in and out of City Hall. Bringing groups on the GLA together to form a coherent opposition should help; Boris is barely accountable as it is. And likewise in general. Grouping together around shared ideals should advance those ideals, by removing unecessary competition from the field. If two or three groups agree on, say, 70% of policy, and disagree with one group on the same, doesn’t it make sense for those three to work against that one group?

Some suggestions, then. Any individual not immediately affiliated to Ken (maybe)-2012 would be rightly suspicious that the project is more about electing the man rather than the policies. And these are the people PL needs, as those already with Ken presumably might stick with him now. So, they need to be given a stake in the campaign.

The most convincing way to do that is to give them a say in the group’s direction. That, presumably already happens to a degree with that wide group of individuals from outside Ken’s team already involved. But they only give the group a narrow base, again at the top; who, without a wider support base, won’t turn out people to campaign and so only have limited influence themselves. It’s impossible to use the heights of local government to advance progressive policies when you don’t command those heights as no-one felt like going and and persuade people to give them to you.

Progressive London thus needs to build an enthusiastic, interested range of activists. It’ll only do that if they do feel they have a stake in the campaign; which means somehow opening it to grassroots participation. Here, the internet looks to be a smart option. Activists can make their voices heard through blogs and forums, individuals can make donations of whatever size they need. It presents a quick and cheap way to allow people to feel interested and engaged. And that, of course, doesn’t take into account the organisational power of tools like Facebook. If the new media can work for a President and House in the USA, why not for a Mayor and GLA in London?

New media already plays some role in London politics. This year’s election saw what must be the greatest engagement so far in British politics between an election and localised blogging. Sites like Stop Boris grew from a few posts to thousands of readers. Some videos went vaguely viral. Even outside the election, blogs and forums play a greater role than ever. Local blogs about; just look at the blogroll here. The central media opposition to Boris in office hasn’t come from the papers, but BorisWatch and Tory Troll. The closest this mayoralty has come to mass political activity, the Great Tube Piss-up of June, was organised through Facebook. Politics in London is moving onto the internet, and Progressive London would do well to exploit that.

Oh, and tone down the reference to Ken in the “About” section? I know the name has power, but it didn’t work when splattered all over the propaganda in May, and it doesn’t look like it’ll draw much more favour now.