Should the government talk to the MCB? What has happened to the New Generation Network manifesto? I have both the answers.

In November last year, I spearheaded the launch of a manifesto published first on Cif by a group of people calling themselves New Generation Network (NGN). I'm pleased to find the argument I made in an accompanying editorial, that New Labour's engagement with "community leaders" had essentially been born of laziness ("the colonial model of 'bring me your headman'"), has now been echoed by Madeleine Bunting despite her earlier misgivings. It feels like a vindication.

I have no intention of getting involved in the recent fracas between Madeleine, Martin Bright or David T, but I think it's worth having a stab again at the broader debate: who should the government engage with and on what basis. Have these commentators had any impact on policy? The conflicting evidence so far sheds little light on this.

My view is that there is no coherent government policy on terrorism and "community engagement", and it depends more on which minister is running the department and civil servants they are listening to, rather than any desire to embrace or run away from Islamism. But even these usually become irrelevant in face of the biggest factor - who can deliver votes.

Allow me to offer a few examples.

Why would Labour Stephen Pound MP publicly praise Ramesh Kallidai of the Hindu Forum of Britain, despite an exposé in the Evening Standard about their ideological roots? Why does Jack Straw MP keep getting elected in Blackburn despite his pro-war stance in a heavily Muslim area? Why would Ken Livingstone court Sikh separatist groups in London (or Huge Chávez in Venezuela), and David Cameron invite them to his party?

Regardless of what journalists say about the politics of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Hindu Forum of Britain (HFB) or Sikh Federation (SF), a political party at local level is still likely to make tacit or overt alliances with groups if they can deliver votes. All politics is local, as the saying goes. The opinion of journalists or liberals who want nothing to do with rightwing religious conservatives matters much less it seems.

Last year the columnist Pete Oborne alluded to the same, brilliantly arguing that Labour had become willing to feed into the demonisation of Muslims because it had calculated there weren't many votes to be won from them any more. It has ditched the MCB since.

Plus, such relationships are intentionally kept vague. Labour ministers do not explain the context in which they are "engaging" with Muslim organisations (cohesion? terrorism? for its own sake?), while the MCB has usually been vague on what it is campaigning for, what legislation it wants pushed/repealed and, especially, how it is measuring its own performance. It wants to be the preferred partner without explaining what it is giving and what it wants in return.

Arguments over the ideological origins of the MCB, HFB or SF, and whether the government should talk solely to them or to everyone, are only heard on the sidelines. The main focus, especially locally, is always on who can deliver votes. The examples speak for themselves.

So what should a liberal-left response be? Did the NGN manifesto serve no purpose? On the contrary, we must understand the dynamics if we are to affect them. My response would be three-fold:

1) Making the intellectual argument and taking it forward The manifesto made various arguments explicitly in a manner that hadn't been done before, in a national paper. It stated the obvious, yes, but that needed to be done. As the arguments become accepted, especially by its biggest critics, the agenda must be taken forward intellectually.

My focus on Britishness (including integration and culture) and addressing the criticisms of multiculturalism are central to that. There is also the debate around what is in the public or private realm. And there is space to go even further later.

2) Strategic intervention Such interventions are predicated on short-term legislative or policy goals. For example, the law and policy around forced marriages and domestic violence. This needs to be developed further, intellectually and politically. The scope should also expand to include civil liberties and terrorism.

3) Grassroots mobilisation Over the long term, however, nothing beats grassroots mobilisation and voter turnout. If liberals are serious about pushing forward their agenda, then they cannot do so from behind computer screens or newspaper articles. People have to be mobilised and MPs have to be warned that their alliances could cost votes. For NGN, and the liberal movement in general, there is no other substitute. I'll come back to this subject again, soon.

Given this context, liberals need to listen to everyone (including minorities) and offer them a better alternative than they are being given by the likes of the MCB, HFB and SF, using this three-pronged strategy.

Rather than an argument over who New Labour should talk with, I would prefer a discussion over what issues need to be debated and towards what goal. That provides a better idea of what can be achieved in partnership with different organisations. Their performance can then be measured too.

I would argue this is a better approach for NGN signatories and supporters, and the liberal left movement in general to take, if we want to affect the behaviour of politicians. That is the only long-term path to social cohesion. Enough arguing, let's get down to business.