Sometimes it's the little things that make a political situation horribly, utterly clear.

The ‘Don’t Spy On Us’ (DSOU) campaign backed by a coalition of anti-mass surveillance groups launched its latest attempt to oppose draconian legislation in the Investigatory Powers Bill (IP Bill) with Putin and Xi themed ads. As is oddly fashionable these days, oligarchs and despots were invoked to land a blow against the government.

The little detail lost in the glossy pics and the billboards was that online “Thunderclap” launch was backed by barely 250- chiefly from within the campaign itself.

250 people would be an excellent drinking night in a brewery, but a national campaign it is not. Particularly for a coalition including the chief UK civil rights ‘brand’ Liberty. Even more so for a campaign that is supposed to be drawing on the net-savvy. It brutally exposed how little core support outside of a tiny elite all of us anti-IP Bill activists have.

Sure, things don’t always go to plan, particularly in a long on-going fight such as on intercept legislation. On the sliding scale it wasn’t like Ed Miliband seemingly unveiling the tombstone of social democracy, or Ken and Boris unable to utter a sentence without “Hitler” popping out. But it has been apparent for some time the campaign is in serious trouble.

The IP Bill Commons vote in March where just 15 opposed was an indication that things have gone catastrophically wrong. The fact that the bill committee only really saw fit to correct spelling mistakes shows that no meaningful pressure is being brought to bear. Indeed it goes further back than this, ever since NGOs and activists were caught out by DRIPA, we have been on the back foot. Surveillance was not even remotely a concern at the 2015 General Election, the Snowden effect having long since dissipated.

It was the General Election result that should have been the wake up call. While DSOU has been insisting that the bill is being “rushed through”, in fact the situation has been clear for a year now. Theresa May announced immediately after the Tory victory that a new intercept law would be happening. That it would be broad, largely of this construction and include bulk powers was made inevitable by David Anderson’s report in the wake of DRIPA.

It should have been obvious that the job to head off a further assault on our liberties was a political job. By that, I mean political in the widest sense, engaging public opinion, speaking to those who know nothing of Tor and encryption in a language they understand and preparing for action, not simply working behind the scenes lobbying.

Instead the campaign and activists reverted to type, projecting for months that the job was technical and legal.

The endless committees had to addressed, that’s the job of the think tanks, technical, security and legal experts, and also interest groups. It is not a route in for the public at large, nor are somewhat stern remarks in committee reports the kind of victories that ignite a campaign.

We appear to have fallen foul of a couple of the favourite digital rights viewpoints that make sense, but are not helpful when you are in a political fight.

One of the most recurring is that politicians are dumb when it comes to tech and they just don’t “get it”. There is some truth in this in the sense that MPs and Lords can’t possibly be expected to have detailed technical knowledge or even a day to day interest in say Manning, or Lauri Love, or Apple v FBI or the doings of the Pirate Bay. Prospective MPs are drawn from backgrounds that most reflect voters concerns- for example the Labour candidate for the Tooting by-election being a junior doctor rather than a ‘hacker’.

The problem is that there is a misapprehension that MPs can be forced in to ‘getting it’ with points about technology’s capabilities and inabilities alone. Often this degenerates in to lengthy tedious discussion about packets or worse still, rudeness.

None of this deals with political realities and the competing pressures on MPs and the government. Furthermore, MPs like Matt Warman (a previous tech correspondent for the Telegraph) do “get it”. They just don’t agree.

The other misconception is that somehow concerns about security and terrorism can be waved aside or ignored entirely. The ‘you’re more likely to die slipping on your bathmat’ tendency is profoundly out of touch with the sensibility of most voters. The absolute low point of this attitude for me was the disparaging on social media of the appearance of one of Lee Rigby’s relatives at one of the committee hearings.

It’s not necessary to give in to the constant rounds of overblown security theatre to realise that we need to be able to reassure people and deal effectively with the accusation we are not interested in their safety.

These concerns about security, terrorism and crime remain right at the top of the agenda. The current favourite most damaging political weapon is accusations of being “weak on security”. The first Tory line of attack on Corbyn was he was a danger to the nation, even before questioning his economic credibility. In this context the more disconnected the mass surveillance campaign becomes from politics at large, the more irrelevant and shrill our ‘first world problems’ seem.

By contrast, months of soft power from the security agency side has been very effective. GCHQ can get in to the Guardian without having to pay for ad space simply by tweeting “Hello World”. Spook bosses are now regularly trooped out as calm voices of reason whether it is for Today programme interviews, as champions of LGBT work place rights, as authorities by EU Stronger In.

We need to be able to show that our point of view is not a security liability, quite the reverse. Many like Glynn Moody and Paul Bernal have been pointing out that frequently those behind recent terrorism outrages have been known to the authorities. The problem is not one lack of information, it is one of resource prioritisation and analysis. But to be able to make this point land it has to start coming from people within the UK with direct experience of security, policing or the military. This has to be as much in the foreground of the campaign as civil liberties.

Also to make worries about erosion of civil liberties an actual political force it’s important to move beyond noble but abstract principles to connecting with concrete groups and issues. This really should not just be the province of Guardian readers and avid panel attendees. Of the many examples I could think of the most obvious recently is the Hillsborough families, their quest for justice and fight against oppressive authority. I would have thought they would be the first ones to question further powers being handed to, say, the South Yorkshire Police and to express to Andy Burnham in no uncertain terms what they thought of the prospect. Yet DSOU seems utterly remote from working class northern football fans, let alone the broader world of the UK grassroots organisations.

And that is why we are in the political situation we are in. U-turns are frequent by Cameron’s administration. However when it comes to the IP Bill, for backbench Tory MPs who can have the fate of the government in their hands, there is simply not the support and pressure that would make defying Theresa May possible. That’s despite the fact that many in the Conservative party are fundamentally opposed to any sort of surveillance state.

This brings us back to the General Election result.

As Tom Watson observed, that is the given for dealing with the IP Bill. Without a strong grassroots campaign and a bulging email inbox the parliamentary parties have concluded that an IP Act is a reality because the Tories have the numbers.

That explains the different approaches. For the LibDems and Greens, they can just vote against to tussle over making opposition to mass surveillance a USP, even though the lack of backing for DSOU demonstrates there are precious few votes in such a stance. For Labour and SNP an abstention was a signal that ‘it’s complicated’, that even if an IP Act is a done deal, a little can at least be salvaged.

Neither approach is very satisfactory.

Despite Andy Burnham talking of making privacy the backbone of the legislation – a major shift in tone from Labour- what’s on the table will far from satisfy civil liberties campaigners. Pinning hope on an independent assessment of bulk powers will not be good enough for the grassroots for sure.

As for the LibDems and Greens the strength of principle is admirable, but by seeking to throw out the bill as it stands they are willing to sacrifice measures and safeguards in it (albeit imperfectly formed) that DSOU groups and many others of us have been agitating for, destroying years of work.

This is the very real dilemma and why communicating about the IP Bill has been so hard. The actual desired outcome has been very difficult to formulate. Liberty has been working with a “No Snoopers’ Charter’ slogan, yet the thrust of the visible parliamentary work has been submitting to committees and trying to put amendments. A clear goal is needed so supporters can know what they are actually being asked to back and so the message can cut through the relentless noise of current affairs.

Where this leaves us is that it is almost too late. The anti-mass surveillance movement faces not just defeat, but utter wipe-out.

But, one thing we can be sure of is that the Investigatory Powers Bill will not be the last word on the matter, however much that might be the intention right now. A shake up is needed, a broadening out of the base of support for civil liberties, meaningful engagement in how we create a liberal minded security system, a realisation that politicians and the public won’t just ‘get it’ unless we communicate in a way that makes sense on their terms too, not just ours.

This would be a little step in a more productive direction. A little step back from the brink. After all it’s also often the little things that count.