The State of the North: Conservative plans for devolution only make clear the need for truly accountable federalism

Sheffield, part of Conservative plans for a Northern Powerhouse. Photograph: Sheffield Town Hall by Matthew Black (License) (Cropped)

This week, IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) held a meeting in Sheffield to look in depth at the Conservative government's ongoing efforts to forge ahead with its 'Northern Powerhouse' project (Sheffield Telegraph, 2015; Cox, Prescott & Jarvis, 2015). Its report, 'The State of the North', lay out four tests that Conservative plans for local devolution have to pass.

The four tests came under the heading of a question, "How will we know whether the ‘northern powerhouse’ is working?" - and set out what the Conservative project must achieve (Cox & Raikes, 2015):

According to the IPPR, it must "generate a better type of economic growth", that brings jobs and higher wages; it must support skill development, particularly for the "very youngest"; it must invest in innovation and infrastructure to support "future success"; and it must "rejuvenate local democracy".

So far however, Conservative plans have been criticised as more about devolving the blame than devolving power (Bailey, 2015). It has been remarked that Conservative proposals hold onto or concentrate further power of decision-making at the centre, while shifting blame for outcomes onto the scapegoats who have to implement plans, on scarce funds, at the local level.

The criticism facing Conservative plans and some of challenges facing the North - highlighted by the substantial divide between North and South in areas like education (Bounds & Tighe, 2015; Dearden, 2015; Allen, 2015) - only make clear the need to embrace true federalism. And that will only the case if the North, the Midlands and the South, along with the nations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, can stand on equal footing with London's Mayoralty.

But it can't just be a case of setting up assemblies. It has to involve a comprehensive reorganisation of regional, city, local, borough, county and unitary council boundaries, as well as the administrative boundaries of essential public services like the NHS or Policing, so power over decision making and funding can be properly devolved to the appropriate level - where it must be transparent and accountable to its constituents.

Such a reorganisation, clearly done, would still leave room for the highest federal level to remain the place for the broadest strategic decision making. A central government could still set the broad scope and aims, direct investment and redirect distribution of resources to where they are needed. Yet clear separation of powers between levels of government could make work at the centre a share in a partnership, rather than dictation from an ivory tower.

Democracy functions best when the decisions made at the ballot box are transparent: when voters know clearly for what it is they are voting, what powers they are handing over, what its limits are and how they can get rid of those power-holders when the need arises.

What can progressives learn from elections around the world?

Progressives have struggled in recent years to get their distinct narratives heard over the cry of populist nationalism. Photograph: Argentina Elections posters from 2013 by Beatrice Murch (License) (Cropped)

On Sunday there where general elections in two countries separated by eight thousand miles, including two half continents and an ocean. Yet they both told a similar story. In neither Argentina nor Poland was there a revival of the Centre-Left like that which brought Justin Trudeau to office in Canada.

In Argentina, the populist and nationalist Justicialist Party, of outgoing President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, had nearest competitors who were fiscal conservatives, ruling party dissenters, and small state neoliberal capitalists. In Poland, that contest was reversed, with the neoliberals in power and the populist nationalists as the main opposition.

In both cases, the populist and nationalist parties were victorious. For the Left, that serves as a stark reminder that there are many places where the progressive voice remains quiet in opposition to populist nationalism, or where centre-left collapsed during the seemingly global discrediting of social democracy and has yet to be rebuilt (Lawson, 2011; Guinan, 2013).

General elections in Argentina

In Argentina, President Kirchner had reached her term limit and so her successor Daniel Scioli was leading their populist coalition Frente para la Victoria (FpV, Front for Victory), dominated by their Peronist Justicialist Party (PJ, Partido Justicialista), into the election. Their main opposition was the broad centrist coalition Cambiemos (Let's Change), featuring Presidential candidate Mauricio Macri's Centre-Right Propuesta Republicana (PRO, Republican Proposal) and Centre-Left Union Civica Radical (UCR, Radical Civic Union). The third major group were the conservative UNA, Unidos por una Nueva Alternativa (United for a New Alternative), a dissenting faction of the ruling Justicialists.

In the Presidential primaries, Front for Victory took 38% of the vote, while Cambienos took 30% and the UNA took 20% (Hodari, 2015). FpV and Cambienos had 8 and 12 senate seats at stake, respectively (with the Radical Civic Union alone holding 7 of them), while the majority of the 130 lower house seats at stake were Justicialist, in total 84, with only 21 from Cambienos (again, the Radical Civic Union alone holding 13 of them).

These parties and coalitions went into an election with the national economy facing escalating inflation and stagnant wages, with a slow recovery from high unemployment on uncertain ground. The election was also mired in scandals, with fears of electoral fraud and intimidation, and somewhat unsettling outbursts from Scioli accusing social network users of plots to damage his image.

Observers had expressed exasperation at the impact of Peronist populism remaining strong, with its nationalists and crowd pleasing facets, for its obstruction of a much more serious debate (Lampa, 2015). Criticism was levelled at the parties only drawing vagaries between the centrist's Cambiemos' more neoliberal approach, toned down to fiscal responsibility, and the populist FpV's centralised state intervention.

The election itself produced a recognisable situation: a country divided multiple ways between several parties. In the Presidential election, there was no clear winner with FpV's Scioli and Cambiemos' Macri both claiming around 35%, with the UNA candidate Massa claiming 21%, which will have to be settled in a run-off in a month's time (Davies, 2015). In the Senate and the House of Representatives, the indications where that there would be more division, with FpV increasing its upper house seats but losing overall control of the lower house (Watts & Goni, 2015).

General elections in Poland

In Poland a similar situation had evolved where one essentially conservative party ruled with others as their primary opposition. Yet in Poland, the situation was slightly reversed. The ruling party where the neoliberal Civic Platform party and the opposition where the populist, nationalist, Eurosceptic, anti-immigration and anti-abortion  Law and Justice party (Nardelli, 2015).

Despite eight years in government and having steered the country through the economic crisis with relative calm, in comparison to other European countries, polling and a loss in the Presidential election in May showed that the Civic Platform party was losing support - falling from 39% at the last election to 25%. For progressives that would have been welcomed as part of the rising tide of support for the radical Left or the recovery of the Centre-Left.

Yet the Presidential election was won, not by the Left, but by the hard-Right Law and Justice party (The Guardian, 2015). That party took 30% at the last election but had risen in the polls to 36%. Meanwhile, efforts to assemble a United Left group to contest the election have only managed to gather around 9% in the polls.

When the exit polls where released, it became apparent that the shift from the Centre-Right to the hard-Right in Poland was in fact being undersold by polling data. Law and Justice were set to take 39% and enough seats to govern alone of the vote while their Centre-Right opponents had fallen even further to 24% (BBC, 2015).

Even more remarkable was that the exit polls suggested the complete failure of a parties of the Left to gain even a single seat. The United Left electoral alliance appear to have fallen short the 8% lower threshold (Cienski, 2015).

Progressives still haven't found their voice

In both countries, the full official results are still coming in. Yet what is clear is that elections in neither Argentina nor Poland have shown the strong progressive movements that the Left in other countries, like Canada and Portugal (Evans-Pritchard, 2015), have tapped into. The progressives parties that do play a prominent role, such as Argentina's Radical Civic Union, find themselves caught up in a politics polarised between conservative electoral factions that are split only over state intervention and whether they should pursue big state or small state conservatism.

Both elections serve as a stark reminder that the Left has still not found a convincing answer to popular nationalism. In the UK, Ed Miliband, under the influence of Blue Labour, simply tried to mimic it so as to steal it away from conservatives. Yet nationalism, and appeals to popular power, remain difficult subjects for the Left. Progressives are at once drawn to popular movements - to protests, marches and popular organisation - and critical of the dangers of suppression of the individual and irrationality inherent to them. The Left is also often seduced by the cohesion and commonality of national pride, even as it undermines internationalist humanitarian ideals.

If progressives are going to compete with and defeat conservatism - and the political divisions apparent across the world say it is very possible, whether it is popular, traditional or economic conservatism - they must build a convincing approach founded in co-operation and pluralism. Those are the characteristics by which the Left stands truly apart from the Right and progressives need to be brave in making the case for them, regardless of how much better nationalism may play with the crowd.

The confrontation between government and opposition over Tax Credits is exposing the need to reform the House of Lords

David Lloyd George took on a Tory Landowner dominated House of Lords in his efforts to pass his Liberal 'People's Budget' of 1909. Photograph: Statue of David Lloyd George in Parliament Square by Matt Brown (License) (Cropped)

Attempts earlier this week by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Crossbench Lords to block the much derided Tax Credit cuts, where derailed yesterday due to fears of sparking a constitutional crisis (Wintour, 2015; Wintour, 2015{2}). Opposition parties where warned against threatening contravention of established parliamentary conventions by the Commons Speaker John Bercow (Wintour, 2015{3}.

The move marked an odd moment for progressive politics in the UK. Since Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George sought to take on the House of Lords in his attempt to pass his 1909 budget, the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords has been clearly defined: the Lords cannot impede the government's supply bills, which are concerned with taxation and government spending and, through the later establishment of the Salisbury Convention, the opposition should not block government manifesto promises for which their election is seen as a clear mandate.

The decision of progressives to use the Lords, against which Lloyd George had struggled when it was controlled by an overwhelming Tory majority, represents a severely pragmatic choice.

While the actual threat of constitutional crisis from the Lords blocking Tax Credit cuts has been called into question - on account of whether the changes actually counts as primary, budgetary legislation due to an election campaign promise not to cut them, and no reference to cutting them in the Conservative manifesto (Daily Politics, 2015) - there is a need to stop and consider the implications beyond the legal minutiae.

Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats (in particular) have proposed, considered and attempted reform of the House of Lords in the past. Liberal Democrat attempts where foiled during the last government, due to obstinacy from Labour and Conservatives (BBC, 2015); and during the last election campaign Labour pledged to replace the Lords with a Senate of the Nations and Regions (Labour, 2015).

The willingness of the opposing parties to even approach a risk of crisis certainly shows is the depth of opposition to the Tax Credit changes, even growing with the Conservative Party itself (Watt, 2015), and the limited legitimate instruments available to the opposition to challenge their passage.

But the hypocrisy it engenders also marks out the need for reform. The UK has an entire, massive and expensive, unelected chamber that cannot act. Any of its votes, and the legitimacy of any of its actions, can be called into question because its assembled numbers are not elected. This is an unacceptable state of affairs.

Contrary to Prime Minister David Cameron's belief that the issue has passed by and should be left alone (Wintour & Watt, 2015), it remains of importance. Issues like Tax Credit cuts are too important for the legislative instruments through which they pass, or in which they are opposed, to be anything less than transparent, clearly purposed and above controversy.

Whether that means establishing a directly proportionally elected upper chamber, or one representative of the nations and regions - in either case holding a longer term view, as opposed to the shorter term community and municipality based Commons - change is needed.

The problem facing the progressive parties, is what to do with those institutions in the meantime. The pragmatic decision - that has clearly been made by Labour and the Lib Dems - is to continue using those instruments as they presently are, despite their problematic nature, because the policies they oppose demand a response and they are the only legal instruments at their disposal.

It is a pragmatic position that Lloyd George would likely have agreed with. Despite being a reformer, Lloyd George was prepared to flood the Lords with newly ennobled Liberals to get his way and, later, the Welsh Prime Minister was still prepared to go into coalition with the Conservatives to pursue his policies.

Their are alternative paths, such as the decision by Justin Trudeau - Liberal leader and newly elected Prime Minister of Canada - to withdraw the Liberal whip from unelected Liberal senators (Mackrael & Wingrove, 2014). Yet such idealistic statements risk getting in the way of practical politics, like opposing policies that have been alleged to risk impoverishing millions of people.

The only solution to this conflict between idealism and pragmatism is to reform the Lords, along with broader electoral reform - for which the necessity is demonstrated by the fact that the controversial Tax Credits policy can only be pursued by the government because the Conservatives hold an unrepresentative majority of seats. Unless there is real reform and clear representation, the policies of any government and the tactics of any opposition will continue to be challenged and undermined.

Shift in Canadian federal election from three party race to two party polemic shows importance of electoral reform in ensuring a truly representative politics

Polling suggests Justin Trudeau has brought the Liberals back into contention from their worst ever result in 2011. Photograph: Toronto Centre Campaign Office Opening with Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau by Joseph Morris (License) (Cropped)

As Canadians go to the polls, the tight three-way race, in which the Canadian federal election campaign has been tied, finally seems to have broken in favour of the Liberals and Justin Trudeau (Woolf, 2015). With momentum pushing towards a minority or possibly even a majority government, there are signs that the well known affects of the first past the post electoral system are, at the last, making themselves felt.

Over the final weeks, polling has seen the Liberal Party vote rise by a very significant ten points since the summer to 37% - with some polls even indicating support as high 40% and with momentum still moving their way - while left of centre rivals the New Democrats (NDP) has fallen back (Grenier, 2015).

With a guarded acknowledgement of the huge impact that 'Shy Tories' can have (Grenier, 2015{2}), the polling, the momentum and the impact of tactical voting all appear to favour a Liberal victory and a progressive leaning government (Grenier, 2015{3}) - whether a minority or coalition (Gollom, 2015).

And yet, it isn't hard to be sceptical about the polling shift towards a polemic division between two parties just as an election under a polemicising electoral system approaches. The majority of the campaign has shown that Canada is a country with diverse political ideas, split at least three ways between Liberals, Conservatives and Democrats - with other groups like Greens or Regionalists and Nationalists holding influence amongst certain demographics.

Quebec has a long history of producing its own distinct electoral results, with an influential Nationalist movement. Yet Quebec has seen its Nationalist government displaced by the Liberals just last year, despite polling suggesting that a majority Parti Quebecois government was possible.

At a different end of the scale, traditionally conservative Alberta saw a huge upset of its own this year. Alberta's so-called 'Progressive' Conservative Party majority government was swept away by the slow rise of the 'alternative' conservative Wildrose Party to become the official opposition and the surprise landslide majority victory for the New Democrats.

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, has been keen to point out the strength of her party amongst certain demographics. May stressed that the Greens are bringing many disaffected voters back to politics, and creating an entry point for younger voters, that is increasing voters turnouts rather than taking votes away from other parties.

What all of these factors tell us, including all of the peculiarities and upsets, is that a more representative electoral system is needed. The tight, divided race that marked the early part of the federal election campaign shows that political beliefs are clearly spread across many positions.Yet the electoral system forces voters to prioritise, even to pick least worst options, rather than make the politicians themselves listen, compromise and act like elected representatives.

While polls have shown for months that there is a clear progressive majority, split fairly evenly between Liberals and New Democrats, in practice that may transform into a government and parliament dominated by Liberals with the New Democrat voice much reduced.

The pressures that lead to these distortions reduce the representation of a diverse citizenry - leading only to disillusion amongst voters who feel their choices are narrowed - and, when they produce majorities, shut down parliamentary debate. Voters should not be forced to realign away from their beliefs and prioritise, just to pick partisan sides in a politics reduced to an artificial game that is context-restricted and held hostage by polemic factional disputes.

A progressive society is one that embraces diversity, embraces debate, and rejects polemic division. Progressives need to champion an alternative system that rejects the artificial settling of splits between parties and supports true representation.

Osborne's Fiscal Charter: Keynes argued both a surplus and deficit should have a clear purpose in a balanced economy

George Osborne has succeeded in getting his charter of fiscal responsibility through Parliament, though it has faced opposition. Photograph: The Chancellor with guests at Port of Tilbury on 1 April 2014 by HM Treasury (License) (Cropped)

On Wednesday night, George Osborne succeeded in passing his Fiscal Charter through the Commons - in theory committing governments to achieving a fiscal surplus in 'good times' (BBC, 2015). Labour, after some twists and turns and with some abstentions, opposed the charter alongside other opposition parties as simply being a parliamentary tactic rather than a commitment to the principles under discussion (BBC, 2015{2}).

The move to introduce the charter has faced criticism, in particular from Green MP Caroline Lucas. Lucas has argued that a surplus simply siphons money out of the economy, that is then patched over with private debt, and that borrowing to invest could stabilise an economy by increasing jobs and tax revenues (CarolineLucas.com, 2015; Sparrow, 2015).

As for the economic theory behind the move? Well, John Maynard Keynes may have had something to say about that.

Keynes clearly agreed with the idea that a national debt was a major obstacle to a healthy economy, with an impact so wide that creditor countries aught to think very carefully about the level of repayments they insist upon (Miller & Skidelsky, 2012). However, he also believed that creditors, as well as debtors, aught to settle their accounts (Inman, 2012).

While not wanting to weaken the commitment of debtors to honouring their debts, Keynes believed that pressure needed to be applied to creditor countries to not build up excessively 'positively' imbalanced trading accounts - even going so far as to suggest large interest payments be paid, into an international investment bank, on a trade surplus.

Keynes' ideas have implications for the broader economy beyond the fiscal, and the obscure world of international trade relations.

The OECD has stressed that income inequality damages an economy, strangling growth by vampirically draining wealth from circulation in the broader economy (OECD, 2014). The money extracted in the accumulation of wealth needs to be replaced. That can lead to the ever accelerating pursuit of economic growth and to an obsession with making an economy 'competitive'. It can also lead to escalating private debt.

When looking to build an economy, the key word to take from Keynes is balance. For Keynes, both a surplus and a deficit should have a clear purpose and an idle commitment to either would be a reckless course to take. Keynes would have agreed with the idea of budgetary and fiscal responsibility, but he would have included within that remit a government using deficit spending to rebuild or improve the economy - rather than the strictly austere contraction of government that the Chancellor is pursuing.

Cold, business-like, austerity narrative has a weakness: it leaves no room for compassion

David Cameron has tried hard to take for the Conservatives, from Labour, a reputation for a stern, serious, business-like approach to government. Photograph: Prime Minister David Cameron meets EDF workers, 21 October 2013 - Department of Energy and Climate Change (License)

At the Conservative Party conference On Wednesday, David Cameron gave a keynote speech described as that of a leader at the height of his powers (d'Ancona, 2015). That label suits the supreme confidence Cameron and the Conservatives are showing right now in their dominant austerity narrative (Jones et al, 2015).

So far David Cameron and George Osborne, his heir apparent, have controlled the political debate, making it all about fiscal responsibility. So confident are they in their position within that debate, they're now - apparently - trying to pitch their message to the centre and centre-left (Freedland, 2015).

However, the terms have started to change. The emergence of Jeremy Corbyn, and the popular movement surrounding him, has forced the addition of ethical and moral dimensions to the contest. The simple narrative of responsible versus irresponsible is now being clouded by a contrast being drawn between 'tough love' conservatism and the compassionate anti-austerity Left.

Since 2010 a political consensus has developed in the UK that focusses on Labour's alleged reckless profligacy and the resultant need for responsible management of the national finances - with the Conservatives pitching themselves as just the business-like grown-ups to save the country from the naive and reckless idealists.

But Cameron & Osborne might finally be overreaching with their effort to appeal to the centre and Left. While pushing austerity measures, originally pursued as merely corrective, into an extended and lasting policy, they seem to have forgotten how thin the support for their political 'consensus' is in reality.

In a country divided, where at least 34% chose at least a 'lite' alternative to austerity and 33% didn't participate, the remaining 33% who believed in further austerity, and so voted Conservative or Ukip, do not represent a consensus so much as the most well organised minority - with many of those who voted Conservative likely not to even consider themselves party supporters, let alone loyalists.

Those are shallow foundations from which Cameron is pitching to voters the idea that the Conservatives are the only party of the mainstream - laying claim to morality, nationality and sensibility as things represented solely by them. In itself, the attempt just reveals how far into right-wing territory the political consensus has swung.

Centrism is supposed to be about balance. It is supposed to bring together communities, individuals and traditions - appealing to democrats, liberals and conservatives alike - to create a society balanced between, and accessible by, all.

All Cameron's government has offered are right-wing solutions: restricting or taking away parts of the social security system, taking legislative action against strikes, and pushing market-based solutions wherever they can be forced onto public services. The Conservative brand of 'centrism' is profoundly unbalanced in favour of a meritocratic elitism, based heavily on the role played by wealth and competition.

As much as the Conservatives have made an opportunity for themselves out of the struggles of the Labour Party, they have left a door open for Labour to make a return to relevance. Corbyn's "We don't pass by" speech to the CWU's People's Post gathering, in Manchester last week, conveyed a compassion that is fast becoming the mark of the Left in opposition.

While junior doctors have struggled with their working conditions with an underfunded NHS, the Conservatives have turned a deaf ear. It has taken the threat of strike action, and the disruption it causes to 'efficient' services, to make the Conservatives take notice of their suffering.

Even then, the response has only been the offer of promises and guarantees that there will be proper monitoring, all while plans continue to be pushed ahead (Campbell, 2015). It was hardly a surprise, then, to see junior doctors taking their campaign onto the streets of Manchester alongside anti-austerity protesters.

Similar accusations regarding the lack of response by the political class to suffering have come from those warning of homelessness rising under conditions of increased debts, restricted welfare and a lack of affordable housing ((BBC, 2015; The Telegraph, 2015).

Hackney Council have come in for criticism for its handling of homelessness, after it threatened to criminalise homelessness and introduce fines for sleeping rough (Osborne, 2015). Singer Ellie Goulding has openly campaigned against the maltreatment of homeless people by London councils (Ellis-Petersen, 2015).

It aught to be a matter of concern for Cameron and Osborne that, despite Hackney Council being Labour controlled, in Goulding's campaign for better treatment of homeless people, it is to Jeremy Corbyn and Labour that she has turned, in search of someone to bring "some compassion back into politics".

It is in that contest that the Conservatives' self-assigned 'pragmatism' may finally count against them. A shift in the debate to include compassion will hurt a government that has chosen to bet the house on a cold lack of concern beyond a financial, profit-making, statistical assessment of economic 'success' which does not factor in the impact on individuals or communities.

With an increase in working poverty, linked directly to changes being made by Cameron's government (Wintour & Watt, 2015), the dominant austerity narrative in which Conservatives have shown such confidence is being exposed for its lack of human warmth.

All of a sudden, Corbyn looks to be exactly the opponent, with exactly the right tone, to trouble the Conservatives' thin hold on power. The Conservatives have tried so hard to take from Labour the reputation for serious prudent economic focussed politics. It would be a tremendous irony if, with the party strutting around as if it has finally assumed that mantle, the poisonous flaw in that reputation might just have been discovered.

"We don't pass by" - Jeremy Corbyn lays foundations for compassionate narrative based on renewing belief in public service

Jeremy Corbyn addresses a thousand people in Manchester Cathedral at a meeting organised by the CWU for their People's Post campaign, while several thousand more assemble outside.

Last night, Jeremy Corbyn had a strong message of support for the CWU's People's Post campaign. Yet just his presence alone was a great success for the Communication Worker's Union, as he drew an audience of around eight thousand people to the Manchester Cathedral meeting - the majority of whom were gathered outside for a parallel overspill event.

As part of the week of protests parallel to the Conservative Party Conference, it capped off a successful weekend for the People's Assembly that saw sixty to eighty thousand people assemble to march against austerity.

Jeremy Corbyn opened his speech with another of his recent references to the media coverage of himself, dismissing personal attacks by saying he really doesn't care about them:

"Once you get out of the swamp of personal recriminations people have to listen to the political arguments"

He also praised the politically active young people turning out for events like those this weekend, who he said had been 'written off by the political establishment'.

The focus of Corbyn's speech was on his belief in public service. Along with Dave Ward, the General Secretary of the CWU, there was praise for the post office as a strong force for good that connected people. The was also praise for the grandness of the principle behind the Universal Service Obligation.

Corbyn set his comments within the context of the importance of the public sector's role, echoing fellow speaker Natalie Bennett's sentiment that the private sector is 'no answer' for public sector provision of essential public services.

Corbyn also told the audience, echoing others at the People's Assembly rally on Sunday, that the campaign for the 2020 election starts now, not two or three weeks before 7 may 2020, and that campaigners need to start now to win ordinary people's hearts and minds over to hope. He expressed confidence that he, Labour and the anti-austerity movement would succeed.

The event also featured Kevin Maguire of The Mirror acting as chair; Owen Jones - who looked particularly fired up; and Natalie Bennett - who, looking more comfortable and confident than six months ago, received a warm welcome from a crowd that clearly had a lot of empathy with the Green Party's leader and her message.

Ultimately though, this was Corbyn's moment. This was another chance for him to lay out his new politics, with a different approach that is more reasonable and more democratically engaged with civil society. It was also a chance to lay the foundations for a new and more compassionate narrative, with which to oppose austerity based on renewing people's belief in public service. He summed up that message with the words: "We won't pass by".

The task now ahead for Corbyn and his team now is to maintain the momentum of the social movements that have come together against austerity. It was clear, however, that the majority of the crowd appeared to have turned up to see the new Labour leader and he was met, and departed from the hall, to standing ovations. If Corbyn can pull in near ten thousand people to hear him speak everywhere he goes, estimations regarding his chances of victory in 2020 are going to start changing dramatically.

Anti-austerity 'Take Back Manchester' event tries to prove that the Left is back in fashion

Billy Bragg plays to the crowd of protesters gathered at the start of the the march, which saw 60,000 people walk the streets of Manchester around the Conservative Party Conference.

The tone was set for several days of People's Assembly 'Take Back Manchester' protests at a day long gig on Saturday, organised by Sam Duckworth at the People's History Museum in Manchester. The event was headlined and closed out by Billy Bragg, who saved a rendition of The Red Flag for his encore - an anthem that Jeremy Corbyn's election seems to have brought back into style (Dearden, 2015).

The 'Take Back Manchester' protests, aimed at bringing the anti-austerity campaign right onto the Conservative doorstep at their autumn conference in Manchester (Pidd, 2015), follow an upsurge in activity after the shock Conservative election win. That surge has been given new energy by the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Labour Party (Young, 2015; Kuenssberg, 2015).

Billy Bragg told his audience on Saturday night that he'd been a member of the movement so long, it had become fashionable again. And that's a message that the People's Assembly is keen to impress upon the Conservatives - that the days of austerity are numbered in the face of a resurgent popular democratic Left.

Natalie Bennett addresses the crowds assembled at Castlefields arena at the end of the march.

That message was at the heart of what the speakers had to say to the crowds gathered in the sun at the Castlefields outdoor arena. Natalie Bennett told the crowd that the sun was shining on their movement - in this case figuratively as well as literally, on a beautiful Sunday evening.

Stood on the stage in the sunshine, Charlotte Church told the crowd:

"They can hurl abuse at us and we will fight back. They can scare people into thinking one way, but we can educate people into thinking another. They can claim that protest doesn't work, but we can prove protest has worked, does work and will work for us now."

Owen Jones followed by saying that a broad movement was needed to achieve these things, organised from the bottom up. Mark Serwotka went much further, arguing that the trade unions needed to stand together, as the real opposition to the government, and close to outright called for general strikes.

The emphasis everywhere was on the power of the popular movement and not without good reason. Without the support of a broad social movement, the new campaign for an alternative cannot succeed. The new leader of the Labour Party cannot succeed.

On Saturday, Billy Bragg told the audience that he believed that the last election proved that the times are still in flux. That there is a world to win. But Bragg followed up with a word of caution. He said that the real enemy was cynicism - which needed to be replaced with hope and the belief that victory was possible.

If the People's Assembly and the trade unions are to build a bottom up movement and have a sustained impact, then Jeremy Corbyn - who addresses the Communications Workers' Union this evening in Manchester - will have an important role to play. Whatever lack of loyalty the parliamentary party has offered him as the new leader of the Labour, the wider social and trade union movements have adopted him as their figurehead.

But Corbyn needs to be wary. Alexis Tsipras has shown perils and difficulties of serving the people's idealism within the depressingly pragmatic political mainstream (Cohen, 2015). If Corbyn can be a lightening rod, the focal point and agent of the wider movements, he could be both the coordinator and the public spokesperson for the movements aims.

Yet, ultimately, it will require the sustained attention, energy and engagement of those taking part to overcome the austerity narrative, because a political party alone in the political sphere is not enough (Rogers, 2015). Only a sustained campaign - debating, educating and informing - can change public perceptions and give people a reason to believe in an alternative.

What kind of economy would Labour's new economic advisory council build?

Photograph: John McDonnell MP, with residents and supporters of Grow Heathrow outside Central London County Court in 2012, by Jonathan Goldberg/Transition Heathrow (License) (Cropped)

John McDonnell, Labour's new socialist shadow chancellor, has moved to rebuild the party's economic reputation by appointing an economic advisory council (BBC, 2015). The council is, by all estimations, a supergroup comprised of the rockstar economists of anti-austerity thinking: Thomas Piketty, Joseph Stiglitz, Mariana Mazzucato, Anastasia Nesvetailova, Ann Pettifor and David Blanchflower.

There are two clear aims to this move. The first is to show that, not only is austerity thinking flawed, but that there are clear alternatives. The second is win back for Labour the credibility on economic policy that they had lost, fairly or not, by 2010.

It has been argued, seemingly endlessly, that without both credibility and a clear alternative, Labour's reputation - and so its ability to win elections - will not recover (Elliott, 2012; Kendall, 2015; Reid, 2015). So it is important to know what kind of alternative Labour's new advisors would have them construct.

The resumes of Labour's new advisors

Thomas Piketty is a French economist who had a large impact, in political and economic circles, with his 2013 book Capital in Twenty-First Century. In that work, he puts forward a simple premise and explores it in depth.

Piketty's thesis is that the concentration of wealth, resulting from the rate of return on capital being in the long term in excess of economic growth, is as much a political problem as an economic one. In his assessment, the access to capital brought by inherited wealth and the 'rentier' power it gives, prevents the competition and distribution for which the free market is lauded.

That is an assessment agreed with by the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They argue that their findings show that income inequality in fact strangles growth, with countries that have a more even income spread actually performing better (OECD, 2014).

Piketty's proposed solution is for progressive taxes to be levied upon wealth and coordinated globally to suit the globalisation of capitalism. The failure to pursue this, in the French economist's eyes, means standing by as the rich consolidate control over society, crushing democracy in their wake by leaving the poor dispossessed and powerless (Naidu, 2014).

This concern with regards to inequality is shared by Joseph Stiglitz, former Clinton advisor and critic of the management of market globalization (Stiglitz, 2000). Stiglitz's work The Price of Inequality argued that inequality was as much the concern of the 1% as the 99%, as 'their fate is bound up' with how the other side live (Roberts, 2012).

To tackle inequality, Stiglitz argues that there needs to be a change in norms. He argues that free markets in fact need the protection of strong regulations and transparent accountability (Edsall, 2012), in order to break the monopolies on power that are used to influence selfish terms - to, in essence, reclaim capitalism.

For Mariana Mazzucato, reclaiming capitalism begins with reimagining the role of the state (Mazzucato, 2013). Mazzucato envisions the state as a risk-taking innovator, the creator and shaper of markets, and the natural agent to act in the 'common good' where privatisation is poorly suited and will not stop public subsidy (Mazzucato, 2013{2}).

She argues that this includes the provision of essential public services like education or health; investments in public infrastructure; investment and support for entrepreneurs, whether in business, for research, or for science and technology - all areas where steady, engaged, long-term investment commitments are needed.

Yet Mazzucato is not arguing for nationalisation or a growing of the state, but rather for a smarter state (Mazzucato, 2014) - bold and able to take risks. Quoting Keynes, she argues for a state that opens up new markets and regulates them:

"The important thing for government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at all."

As for the others on Labour's select list of economists?

Ann Pettifor predicted the severity of the economic crisis with her 2006 book The coming first world debt crisis and, in a very Keynes-esque manner, has worked hard to make clear the dangerous role that debt has played in events (Cooper, 2015). She has also argued that the debt crisis exposed dangerous collusion between governments and the finance sector that broke the 'link between risk and reward' and so chained 'free' markets (Pettifor, 2014).

David Blanchflower, a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, has spoken out against the idea that Labour 'caused' the 2008 financial crisis and against the economics of austerity (Blanchflower, 2015). Blanchflower was amongst the signatories of a letter during the Labour leadership campaign - along with Mazzucato - that argued Jeremy Corbyn's economic policy was in fact the moderate, mainstream response and it was instead George Osborne's austerity that was extreme (Blanchflower et al, 2015).

And finally there is Anastasia Nesvetailova, whose work Fragile Finance warned in 2007 of the fragility and instability of the finance-based economy, upon which the whole political and globalised economic house of cards was based (Nesvetailova, 2007).

The respectable face of economic opposition

So what kind of economy do these ideas combine to form?

In a definite stance of opposition to the dominant, and austere, conservative approach, the consensus running through Labour's new advisors is for the state to have a strong role - though not through nationalisation. The emphasis is placed upon the work the state does to create a framework for society - on infrastructure, on social security, on regulating market activity.

In fact, looking over the recommendations is almost like a review of German economics in the late twentieth century during the time of Germany's Wirtschaftswunder - its 'economic miracle'. The social market, so-called Rhine Capitalist, system that underwrote that economic boom was plush with public-private partnerships.

Inspired by German Ordoliberalism, the state was to act as regulator and facilitator in the Rhenist system (Guerot & Dullien, 2012). The aim was to ensure greater equality, and widely enjoyed prosperity, all while retaining an appreciation for free markets - so attempting to get the social aims and a vibrant market to go along hand in hand.

The ideas also bear some resemblance to those of Liberals and Liberal Democrats in the UK over the decades. Setting themselves apart from the Conservatives and Labour, their approach was to argue that it was not about a large or a small state, but about what the state is and what it does (Brack et al, 2007) - so Liberals might pursue the most efficient solution with the least interference with the individual.

In these similarities with liberal ideas, the approach of Labour's new advisors marks a kind of sharp change for the party, away from the centralised and overbearing managerialism it has pursued since the Second World War. But what stands out most is that, if we can accept that austerity represents a purely right-wing form of economics, the vision these economists are putting forward represent the mainstream - the democratic economics of the centre.

Building an alternative

With these very much mainstream, Keynesian-esque, ideas - based on broad analysis critical of austerity but friendly to markets - accomplishing the task of recovering Labour's credibility should not be such a long shot. Even reaching out to reintegrate the unhappy New Labour-ites should not be impossible.

For restoring their respectability, it is now a matter of building that model and presenting it to the public, which - if done right - could create the base from which the Conservative approach can be disassembled.

That would mean embracing Keir Hardie as Jeremy Corbyn did, in his first speech to the Labour Party conference as leader (Kennedy & Grierson, 2015). The existence of a credible alternative to the rigours of austerity allows the party to challenge the necessity of the suffering it has caused, and to try to 'stir up divine discontent with wrong'.

And yet, while the dry and balanced macroeconomic mainstream vision is the economist's dream ticket to government office, it is not hard to imagine these technical reforms falling short of progressive expectations.

There are radical ideas with not touched on here.

Citizen's income (Razavi, 2014), mutuals and co-ops (Webb, 2015), shorter working hours and the possibilities that automation are bringing (Mason, 2015) - these are all ideas tied closely to questions of equality, accountability and innovation.

However, there is likely more to come from the team of Corbyn & McDonnell - not least the pursuit of rail renationalisation (BBC, 2015{2}) and community owned energy companies (BBC, 2015{3}) - than is being accounted for here. Those extra measures are needed.

If we are to have more equality and accountability in the economy, there needs to be more co-operation. Which means more say for workers in the running of their workplaces and a greater mutuality of aims.

And if people are to enjoy full balanced lives, they also need enough time to embrace more than just their universal human rights to fair paid work and 'rest and leisure'. They need the resources and time to study, to raise families, to assemble, to debate and to act.

And if people are to have both of the above with freedom, from both want and coercion, they need the basic guarantee against poverty and homelessness afforded by a Citizen's Income.

As it says in the old Liberal Party's Yellow Book (1928), written under the deep influence of David Lloyd George and John Maynard Keynes:

'We believe with a passionate faith that the end of all political and economic action is not the perfecting or the perpetuation of this or that piece of mechanism or organisation, but that individual men and women may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.'

A true progressive alternative to conservative economics needs to embrace big ideas. It needs to reform, it needs to challenge and it needs to spark hope of a new way forward.