Cameron & Osborne reached Easter Recess having survived another tough short term battle, but longer term dangers linger unaddressed from failure to invest

Approach of UK Conservative and Canada Liberal governments to their respective 2016 budgets were worlds apart. Photograph: Parliament of Canada in Ottawa from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

As Parliament went into its Easter Recess on Friday, it appeared that the Cameron Government had weathered the political storm caused by the budget. Controversies had weakened the government's position, but had not toppled it. Yet Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor Osborne have only won the week, as tends to be their criticised focus (Kuenssberg, 2016).

While they manage the short term, there are larger, longer term, dangers they're not addressing - not least of which is the long term danger of failing to invest. Cameron and Osborne like to talk of not leaving our debts to the next generation, yet there are debts other than fiscal to leave to the next generation. One deficit they are sure to leave behind is infrastructural (Yalnizyan, 2016).

It is interesting how different priorities can be on either side of the Atlantic. In Canada, their new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled his first budget. As promised during the election, it involved deliberately running deficits in order to fund public investment in rebuilding Canada and setting it up for the future (CBC News, 2015).

John McDonnell's focus as Shadow Chancellor has been to try and undermine the perception of the Conservatives as the economically competent party, that can be trusted with the national finances. In his response to the budget, he paid special attention to the Conservative habit of over-promising and under-delivering, especially when it comes to public investment (McDonnell & O'Connor, 2016).

McDonnell has expressed particular and repeated concern that the Conservatives keep sending out press releases launching projects and yet, as argues McDonnell, don't provide or secure adequate funding. Meanwhile, against the recommendations of the OECD and the IMF, Osborne has continued to let investment consistently fall as he pursues a budget surplus (McDonnell, 2016).

What is interesting this is not a trend that Osborne began, but is rather just fitting into. Public investment in the UK has been falling steadily for the better part of fifty years (Thornsby, 2016). At the last election, both Labour and the Lib Dems wanted to put aside money for public investment, exempt from the efforts to balance the budget, but their efforts were timid due to lingering doubts about ignoring the debt or deficit in the short term to pursue a longer view.

While these doubts are being harboured in the UK, in Canada the situation couldn't be more different. At the last election the Conservatives were defeated by the Liberals coming from third place into a sweeping majority while promising to run deficits in order to fund economy growing public investment (CBC News, 2015).

Now there were certainly other aspects of the Liberal approach that helped them over the finishing line - not the least the fact that none of the parties leaders were Stephen Harper. The Trudeau campaign was open, relaxed and friendly with the public and the offer of limited-deficit funded public investment in infrastructure cannot be discounted as a factor (The National, 2016).

Yet it would seem to have only been possible to propose those deficits because the Liberals did not have the weight of a reputation for fiscal irresponsibility on their shoulders. Pre-election polls suggested that the public not only trusted the Liberals the most on the economy, but also believed they would be the most likely to have a positive impact on the economy (CTV News, 2015) - and aligned more with their promise to invest in infrastructure rather than simply cut taxes and balance the books.

While tackling the Conservative reputation, Shadow Chancellor McDonnell has also been trying to rebuild one for Labour. Bringing on a team of advisors, he has taken them on tour where, speaking across the country, they have explained how negative austerity has been and what might be possible in its place.

No one has typified this more than economist Mariana Mazzucato. In her own work, and in her work advising Labour, Mazzucato has consistently argued that the private sector is too risk averse and too short term in its thinking to handle the kind of positive long term investment that the public sector excels at (Mazzucato, 2013{2}).

In fact, if anything, she suggests that the private sector leeches off of public investment - privatising the rewards (Mazzucato, 2013). For those wedded to the fear of progressives forever being labelled as high spending, controlling statists, Mazzucato's call if not for a bigger state, but for a much easier to stomach smarter state (Mazzucato, 2014). A state that promotes growth by making smart investments where the private sector only hinders or won't take the risk; a state that promotes justice by seeing more of the reward for public efforts returned to the public.

The second, and maybe harder, part that follows the building of a reputation, is maintaining it. In Canada, the Liberals have been smart, deliberately managing expectations (Evans, 2016). While every $1 of infrastructure spending can lead to much bigger revenue returns - what Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, refers to as a virtuous cycle of investment (Taylor, 2016; Gray, 2016) -  they have nonetheless managed their forecasts down, leaving themselves plenty of headroom for showing the positive impact of their policies.

Public investment is important. In infrastructure, in education, in housing, in healthcare. All of these materially benefit everyone, even tackle inequality. Yet despite the Chancellor's obvious pleasure at announcing investment projects, there has been little to back it up (Pidd, 2015; Boffey, 2015) - with announcements seemingly serving as publicity to encourage private investment instead of the making of public commitments.

Sooner or later, the public will have to face the reality of the Conservative failure to invest - in education; in affordable housing; in technology, science and research. Long term public investment will be missed when the reality of selfish, short term, private investment is grasped. In the meantime, progressives have to do what they can, building the credibility of the argument for a smarter state that invests in the common good.

Ideology in politics is unavoidable, but transparency should be as well - we need the facts to scrutinise policies and the societal ideal they are designed to build

As Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission and Prime Minister of Italy, put it: the incorrect way to use facts is as a drunk uses lamp posts - more for support than for illumination. Photograph: Lamp Post in Rome from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Yesterday, George Osborne went before the Commons Treasury Committee to answer more detailed questions on the budget he announced last Wednesday (Sparrow, 2016). The Chancellor and his budget came in for some difficult questions.

During the hearing it was disclosed that, since the Coalition ended, the Chancellor had stopped analysis that would have showed, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) analysis shows, that the budget appeared to be redistributing money from the poorest to the richest (Stone, 2016). The Chancellor's defence was that he believed that the statistics provided could be misleading, and make deficit reduction look like "a bad thing".

According to both Iain Duncan Smith and the IFS, the welfare changes will disproportionately - for the obvious reason that welfare is mostly needed by those in lower incomes - hurt the poorest 20% (Inman, 2016). It was this fact that Osborne was accused of attempting to hide by changing the way the Treasury analysed the budget impact.

Playing with facts to suit political purpose is bad enough on its own. But this was also the suppression of facts - showing austerity and deficit reduction, at the present time and by the present methods, appear to be disproportionately damaging to the poor - in order to protect an ideological political project (Dudman, 2016).

Yet the problem is not so much the ideological motivation. As Romano Prodi put it, the incorrect approach to using facts is as a drunk uses lamp posts - for support rather than illumination.

In order to reduce so called 'welfare dependence', Osborne has ignored the data in order to treat welfare as the problem in and of itself - rather than a symptom. That means ignoring the fact that high welfare bills are the result of its corrective role.

In reality, welfare at its best is a safety net that helps to guarantee basic freedoms and at worst can be criticised as a form of corporate welfare, when policies like tax credits or the personal allowance subsidise companies paying low wages - but either way it is a redistributive mechanism that anchors the affluence of the rich to the wellbeing of the poor.

In both cases a high welfare bill is a symptom. It represents people struggling with low or no incomes, a lack of access to affordable housing and a lack of opportunity (Johnson, 2015). But as conditions improve, as the low incomes turn into living incomes, housing becomes more affordable and greater opportunity spreads, the welfare bill decreases.

Ideology is an inescapable aspect of politics. It is the philosophical view of what the world is, the ethics of how to behave on a personal level and the shaping of society around those beliefs to enhance them and produce the ideal outcomes. But that is no excuse for a lack of transparency.

If the Chancellor believes that there is a positive outcome in the changes he is making, he should have no fear in these statistics. He should be able to explain how his changes fit his ideological narrative, and produce, from his perspective, a positive outcome.

Instead of trusting people with the facts, the people are shown fragments designed to fit a narrative. If people are to hold those in public office to account they need the facts. Vigilance can only do so much, without access to the facts and openness from public office holders and parties as to the big picture, broad context narrative, that they see written in the data.

Britain's tented Hoovervilles show the reality of the humanitarian crisis behind the debt and deficit obsession of the Great Recession

Desperation, in the time of recession and austerity, has led to tented encampments springing up across the UK. This one lies a stones throw from Manchester Piccadilly station.

Iain Duncan Smith framed his resignation as the drastic last straw of a reformer, who's efforts were curtailed by the Chancellor's obsession with austerity (Asthana & Stewart, 2016; Peston, 2016). Whatever the true conviction behind the claim, it highlights something incredibly important.

The economic crisis, to which the Conservatives have ever been keen to keep the eye drawn in the last six years, has masked a wider humanitarian crisis. Only one small moment of the Chancellor's budget statement was devoted to it. He told Members of Parliament that:

"Because under this Government we are not prepared to let people be left behind, I am also announcing a major new package of support worth over £115 million to support those who are homeless and to reduce rough sleeping."

The government tried hard during the election the evade the issue, despite attempts to confront the PM directly with the fact that rising numbers of people were using food banks (Channel 4, 2015; Worrall, 2015). Yet the fact remains that homelessness is still rising (Gentleman, 2016).

In his response to the budget, Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the Chancellor's package of assistance, but stressed that rising homelessness was the result of desperate under-investment by the Conservative government (BBC, 2016{2}). A lack of investment which had starved local government of the resources to help and housing associations of the capacity to offer shelter.

While the Chancellor's budget did offer some funds to 'reduce rough sleeping', it was in reality much less than he previously cut from housing support - estimated at only "£1 in every £5" by Shadow Housing Minister John Healey (Healey, 2016).

It is, however, something more than the approach of some local councils to rough sleeping, which has been less than humanitarian (Ellis-Petersen, 2015). Yet even harsh measures haven't been enough to stop the emergence of small, and not so small, shanty towns springing up in places like Manchester, like the Hoovervilles of the 1920s and 1930s.

Europe and the other half of the crisis

The living encamped amongst the dead, along the Rue Richard through the Cimetière du Montparnasse, in Southern Paris, where tents line the road.

On the face of it, the fact that this is as much a broader European as a specifically British problem, may seem to exonerate the Chancellor and his policies. After all, it would be unfair to blame Osborne for the living lodging amongst the dead on the Rue Richard, at the Cimetière du Montparnasse in Paris.

Yet while Osborne has no part in French system - where, in response to their own crisis, supermarkets are no longer being allowed to throw away surplus food and must donate it instead to help those in need of handouts (Derambarsh, 2016) - he does have a role in the other half of the crisis.

War on Europe's borders has led to a second element of the humanitarian crisis: an influx of refugees, for which Europe was not necessarily lacking in resources to tackle, but certainly appeared unprepared. With the British government unwilling to take on the burden of the refugees, a camp sprang up on the British border at Calais.

That camp grew to become a large slum town, administered by aid workers running soup kitchens and handing out charitable donations. But even that temporary solution could not last and the camp is now being broken up, by force, in order to disperse the refugees (Weaver & Walker, 2016).

Hoover and the Great Depression

As President, Herbert Hoover oversaw the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression. Photograph: Herbert Hoover by Opus Penguin (License) (Cropped)

Osborne's approach, pulling back the state and public investment and looking to free markets and civil society to step in to the breach, has made him seem like a man more concerned about balancing his chequebook than acting in the face of a crisis. With that image, he risks receiving the same reputation that marred President Hoover during the Great Depression, as a 'do-nothing' (Leuchtenburg, 2009).

It isn't hard to draw comparisons between some key aspects of the approaches of George Osborne and Herbert Hoover. As US Secretary of Commerce, for two administrations between 1921 and 1928, Hoover was a follower of the efficiency movement - pursuing the ridding of inefficiency and waste from the economy (Hawley, 2006).

As when Osborne's Conservatives came to power in 2010 advocating for a 'Big Society' (Rigby, 2016), Hoover believed that the means of achieving his economic aims was 'volunteerism', as opposed to direction from government - trusting to, and nominally supporting, individual initiative, typified by his role as director of American charitable relief efforts in post-war Europe, particularly in Belgium.

His subsequent time as President, from 1929 and 1933, was however overshadowed by the Wall Street Crash and the beginning of the Great Depression that saw the poor of New York living in Central Park in tented encampments - one of many American shanty towns that became known as 'Hooverville'.

Hoover made more effort than previous Presidents to arrest the severe economic downturn, including some public works projects. And then (Gray, 1993), as now (Pidd, 2016), civil society stepped up to provide aid and relief. Yet when the election came, Franklin D Roosevelt won, and with his New Deal coalition led the United States for four terms, with a comprehensive and interventionist plan to support and rebuild.

While Osborne avoided the stigma of the crisis hitting on his watch, he has also avoided intervention. Instead he has cut public spending - saying that the roof must be fixed "while the sun is shining". Amidst years of economic turmoil and cuts to social security, while statistics say homelessness has continued to rise (Gentleman, 2016), its difficult to see an application for his maxim.

The cracks and those slipping through

The advent of these modern day Hooverville encampments suggest that there is an unacceptable break down in the welfare safety nets in Britain, in France and elsewhere in Europe. Not all of this can be put down to the pressures of the refugee crisis. There are cracks appearing and people are slipping through.

Throwing money at suppressing the symptoms is not enough. It won't tackle the core problems. As much as the Conservatives want the focus to be on the public debt, in order to justify their agenda, private debt is just as large of a problem. Individuals are hanging on by their fingernails, stretched thin by the high cost of living.

Housing is prohibitively expensive. The cost of energy needs to come down. Work for the lowest paid is too insecure and the safety net too full of holes. George Osborne doesn't have to become a believer in a big  interventionist state overnight to help. At the very least something might be done with small reforms, aimed at properly regulating the energy and housing industry to prevent anti-competitive behaviour and price gouging.

Above all that, Osborne might benefit from accepting a single simple lesson, one that most austerians should take note of: the bad times inevitably end up costing far more than the good.

Budget 2016: Osborne's Sugar Levy will get the headlines, but he's presiding over a weak economy and a fractured society

Osborne's budget will grab headlines, but there is more moving beneath the surface. Photograph: Pound coins from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

If there is anything you can take away from the UK government's 2016 budget statement, it's that the Chancellor George Osborne knows how to tick boxes. There was support for small businesses, a levy on sugary products and government help for savers (BBC, 2016).

The Chancellor gave these policies, gathered together, a budget for the next generation. Yet as ever, the headlines are only what Tim Farron called the 'political theatre' (ITV, 2016). There is much more to be found in the details - not least a revealing look at the Chancellor's approach to government.

Osborne admitted that economic growth forecasts suggest the economy is growing more weakly, and that the government has missed its own debt and deficit targets (BBC, 2016). Yet room was still found for cuts to corporation, raising the highest tax band and making cuts to capital gains tax.

Jeremy Corbyn's response was hostile. From the off he called the Chancellor's budget a legacy of failure, that was poor on equality (BBC, 2016{2}). The Labour leader argued that the breaks for the wealthy were being paid for by those who could least afford it.

Corbyn said that tax breaks for the wealthy were disgusting when they were accompanied by cuts to disability support. The poor attitude towards equality was epitomised in the continued existence of the tax on 'women's products', as in essentials like tampons and sanitary towels, and the patronising plan of distributing the proceeds to 'women's' charities.

As for the next generation, there was little in the budget to offer a tremendous amount of hope. Under-25s won't benefit from minimum wage rises - or increasingly from any kind of social security at all (BBC, 2013) - and savings help for under-40s won't do much to help deal with rising housing rents, let alone house prices.

There was also little information on how the Chancellor intended to find the funds to cut the deficit. Beyond the previously announced changes on tax credits and ESA, there were no other major spending cuts were outlined, beyond a vague commitment to finding around £4bn in government 'efficiencies' - and apparently raising an, astonishing, £12bn from closing tax loopholes.

From a progressive perspective, one thing that the budget did reveal was Osborne's attitude to government. The Conservatives have felt comfortable pitching themselves as supporters of limited government, the private sector and even pitching themselves as rendering the Liberal Democrats obsolete.

But the Chancellor's decisions reveal something different, highlighted in the way that he framed tax cuts for small business. In his statement, Osborne said they were made possible by higher revenue coming in from big business.

But what Osborne could not resist was to also take higher receipts as a signal to cut taxes. What this highlights, and the Chancellor himself alluded to, is the Conservative view of taxation as an incentive or disincentive. A mechanism to be used to manipulate social behaviour toward the governing party's interpretation of the 'national interest'.

What hasn't been asked by those handing out successive tax cuts is whether tax in itself has a role to play as a civic contribution, that goes towards the serving of the public good. Whether there is a contribution that ought to be made, back into the community, for the extraction of wealth in your own interest.

As Osborne cuts back government spending and the public sector he reveals something else. A vision of a small state, one that does little itself but interferes a lot: meddling and social engineering through the tax system, trying to shape society through supply and denial of small but crucial funds to devolved institutions largely bereft of funding.

The sum so far of Osborne's approach is an increasingly divided and unequal society. Taxes have come down but the economy remains weak. Burdens continue to pour onto the more vulnerable. Osborne will get the headlines, but they are only a mask that disguises a weak economy and a fractured society.

Budget 2016 Preview: Will the Chancellor again produce an ace in the hole that lets him to put off unpopular cuts?

George Osborne's Autumn Budget Statement promised the UK a bright future. Osborne took the chance offered by predictions of an economy looking more healthy to be a little less conservative with the national finances and drop controversial cuts to the police budget and to tax credits (ITV, 2015).

This time around Osborne is warning of dark clouds and the need to prepare for the worst (BBC, 2016). The Chancellor has been at pains to stress that there will be cuts in order to meet his fiscal targets. There might be some sugar coatings, but the medicine is still predicted to be sour.

However, the Chancellor will surely be hoping to be able, once again, to defy all expectations and match his Autumn reprieves. Yet those reprieves were themselves only temporary. They could only be delays of self-imposed hard choices that Osborne had undertaken to make.

Theresa May stressed that the police would still be expected to find efficiency savings (Travis, 2015) and the dropping of Tax Credit cuts were a diversion, as they were still set to come in later with the Universal Credit (Kuenssberg, 2015). They were also a gamble.

Osborne's Autumn Statement took positive forecasts as an opportunity to not make the unpopular choices, while still working on closing the deficit - betting on the forecasts panning out and with slight tax increases, around the fringes. Attempts were also made to temporarily ease the way for the middle class with the Conservatives' colourfully branded array of saving and house buying assistance - that buys time for much delayed house building (Wright, 2016) by siphoning homes from housing associations, depended on by the least well off, to increase competition in the private markets.

Wednesday's budget might reasonably be expected, by the opposition, to be the overdue reality check for those who voted Conservative last May, with the implementation of all of the delayed austerity measures. All of Osborne's public comments certainly seem to be preparing the ground for the further cuts - 50p in every £100 of government spending as he put it to Andrew Marr on Sunday (BBC, 2016).

Yet its hard to ever be too sure what the Chancellor is planning. Osborne managed expectations in the Autumn towards his plans for cuts to tax credits (Kuenssberg et al, 2015). Yet when the time came, he still found a way to avoid what would have proven a deeply unpopular cut.

This time around, with so much riding on the EU referendum including his own chances of succeeding Cameron as Conservative leader, Osborne is again unlikely to go antagonising voters if it can be avoided. Yet time is undeniably running out to meet his own deadline for eliminating the deficit (Verity, 2016), and small shifts in forecasts could lead to the need for drastically larger cuts to meet those goals.

Hints being dropped about new policies, to be announced on Wednesday, at the least suggest a wish to dampen the impact of announcing cuts. Yet the proposed new savings top-up scheme for the least well off seems to be little but a thin veneer (Mason, 2016) - as it's only likely to help a sixth of those who are supposed to be eligible, with Labour criticising the policy for its unrealistic appraisal of what people can actually afford to save.

Across the floor, Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has said he wants to see more investment (BBC, 2016{2}) - putting money into building up domestic industry as a way to rebalance the economy. McDonnell's advisors, like Mazzucato and Stiglitz, have certainly been making the argument that the state has a role to play in rebuilding the economy.

It is certainly hard to see a way forward without a lot of investment from somewhere. Osborne's own hope has been for investment in Britain to come from 'emerging markets', like India and particularly China (The Economist, 2015). For these private and foreign state investments to take the slack and pump money into sectors of the UK economy and infrastructure, according to market needs, so that the Chancellor can cut government spending.

Considering that, while defending the European Union, Osborne argued it was the UK, not the EU, that was responsible for the 'red tape' that puts off investment (Bloom, 2016) - and the Chancellor's desire to stimulate these private and foreign state investments - it might not be a long shot to suggest some sort of deregulation will be included in the budget. It would certainly offer some 'efficiency' cuts in terms of reduced bureaucracy.

If George Osborne has an ace up his sleeve, he has yet to let slip what it will be. The implementation of the National Living Wage (a higher minimum wage for over 25s), very limited savings assistance and the regular increase in the Personal Income Tax Allowance (introduced by the Liberal Democrats), do not amount to much of an offset to the expected large departmental cuts.

Will the Chancellor play some hidden card, or will the full weight of his targets finally begin to fall? He doesn't have much room for manoeuvre. His fiscal deadline is approaching, neither deficit nor debt are under control and his own outlook sees global economic struggles. And yet, after so many other sleights of hand, it would be foolish to rule out the possibility of one more gamble.

Caroline Lucas' National Health Service Bill seeks to restore the NHS to its reassuring place in the UK's social security safety net

Almost perfectly timed to follow on the tail of the latest round of Junior Doctors Strikes, Caroline Lucas' backbench National Health Service Bill has its second reading in the Commons today (Friday 11th).

The aim of the bill is to rein in, what has been called, the undemocratic backdoor privatisation of the NHS. The bill seeks to undo internal competition introduced in 1991 and reintroduce local health boards, to streamline the identification of the services needed and to provide them (Lucas, 2016).

Public backing for the NHS remains high, and the bill has received broad support from celebrities and other publicly notable persons (The Guardian, 2016). The good feeling towards the institution can be seen in the still high support for the junior doctors in the ongoing contract dispute between the British Medical Association, the BMA, and Secretary of Health Jeremy Hunt (ITV, 2016; Stone, 2016).

The junior doctors strikes themselves seem almost to be symptomatic of the problems to be found in the NHS' inner workings. Staff have been stretched thin across shifts for years (The Telegraph, 2012).

After a number of strikes, negotiations completely broke down, with Jeremy Hunt attempting to suggest that the doctor's union, the BMA, was trying to hold the government to ransom (Ashmore, 2016). Treating unionised medical professionals like they're mutineers at least doesn't seem to have helped Hunt's standing with the public.

Yet the decision by the Health Secretary to impose the government's newly designed contracts (Tran & Campbell, 2016), without further negotiation or bilateral acceptance, was a potentially damaging but possibly effective escalation of the dispute - effectively calling out doctors in the expectation of grumbling compliance.

For doctors are left with little alternative, besides interminable strikes, than flight - literally abroad, or figuratively, to the private sector. With the NHS in crisis in recent years, this has already been increasingly the case (El Sheika, 2016; Johnson, 2016).

Yet it has also been suggested that Hunt, and others who are actually in favour of a privatised system of healthcare, are unlikely to shed a tear for staff flying to the private sector (Stone, 2016). In fact there are some who see these events as part of a long chain, a long and concerted effort to discredit the NHS in order to pave the way for privatisation (El Gingihy, 2015).

Supporters of the NHS Bill, which is being debated and voted on in parliament today, see the privatisation agenda as both undemocratic and also contrary to the facts. Accusations have been made that the costs of healthcare are being inflated, in all parts of the NHS, by the infiltration of the private sector (Furse, 2016) - completely contrary to the standard narrative of market 'efficiency'.

Caroline Lucas', who is sponsoring the bill, has argued that the virtual army of staff required to manage private contracts is contributing heavily to the growing deficit and debt hanging around the NHS' neck (Lucas, 2016{2}). In fact, it has been pointed to that by the WHO, World Health Organisation, definition, the NHS is all but privatised already (El Gingihy, 2016).

The backbench NHS Bill is an attempt to reverse that direction and keep the institution alive and restore it for the future. The NHS remains an important part of the public safety net that guards against disaster. Alongside future progressive, like the basic income and a shortening of the working day, a free-at-the-point-of-use public healthcare system still has a place in ensuring justice and liberty.

Policing and Crime Bill, with oversight and transparency reforms, goes to Commons unlikely to face much opposition

Theresa May's Policing and Crime Bill has a stated aim of improving disciplinary and complaints systems, along with the Inspectorate, in order to improve public confidence in the Police.  Photograph: Police Motorbike from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

In Parliament today, Home Secretary Theresa May presents her Policing and Crime Bill to the Commons for its first formal vote (Parliament, 2016). With a Conservative majority, its passage at this stage should be just a formality - particularly when English Votes for English Laws is applied. That only makes it all the more important for those outside of Parliament to pay particularly close attention.

The government claim the bill will 'finish the job' of police reform (Home Office & May, 2016). Included in its aims are reforming the police disciplinary and complaints systems, strengthening 'the independence of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary', increasing protections for people with mental health problems, allowing chief officers to "confer a wider range of powers on police staff and volunteers", and introducing a requirement for 'suspected foreign nationals to produce a nationality document'.

While moves to increase oversight and accountability are always welcome, along with further considerations for mental health, elements of the bill have faced some criticism. For instance, the expansion of volunteers in police service with police powers has raised some concerns (BBC, 2016) - with suggestions that it may be an artificial way to inflate police numbers in the face of austerity and cuts. There is also some scepticism regarding the continually expanding role of the Police and Crime Commissioners (Russell Webster, 2016), though it has been argued that accountability brought by PCC's election are having a positive impact (Baird, 2016).

The Policing and Crime bill itself is being steered through Parliament by Theresa May. As Home Secretary, Theresa May has already overseen a number of disputes over law enforcement and policing policy.

May has been the force behind the slow and controversial progress of the Investigatory Powers Bill, the so-called snooper's charter (Watt, 2016). Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister, had forced early bills covering public surveillance, particularly on the internet, to be withdrawn. The most recent attempt has been criticised, not just for being an infringement of liberty, but for being largely unworkable (The Guardian; 2016).

By way of contrast, a positive move was made by May in response to Boris Johnson's wish to deploy water cannon in London. May promised never to deploy police with military style equipment, for fear of undermining the legitimacy of the police (Dodd, 2015) - which is supposed to be based on the principle of policing by consent.

Between refusing water cannons and promoting mass data gathering, and her lack of surety on elected Police and Crime Commissioners (BBC, 2016{2}), Theresa May has cut an inconsistent path as Home Secretary. That inconsistency, along with the Conservative government's poor attitude towards human rights, since cutting loose the Liberal Democrats in May 2015 (Bowcott, 2015), call for a particularly critical eye to be turned on any reform efforts they spearhead.

It is only the early stages for this bill. A bill whose aims will likely be disrupted by disputes over further 'efficiencies' to be found in police budgets (ITV, 2016) - and maybe still further cuts as those scarcely avoided by the Chancellor last time, through heavy dependence upon the prediction of an improved economy, may well come around again in next week's budget with the economy struggling and tough choices expected (Elliott, 2016).

Yet whenever one party seeks to make changes to the enforcement of law and order, it is important to stress the need for the public to remain vigilant. Reform is need. Oversight and transparency are needed. Clear statements of powers, who has them and when, are needed. But the process of reform should too be constrained by those principles.

Where is the grand vision? EU referendum debate is mired in a contest over who really represents the 'national interest'

The European humanitarian vision of peace, rights and prosperity for all individuals, regardless of nationality, religion or borders, is not just under attack but being largely ignored by two sides arguing over who represents the 'national interest'.

One of the saddest parts of the European Union referendum debate is that it seems to consist only of two patriotic factions, each arguing that their way represents the 'national interest'. For anyone with progressive, humanist and internationalist leanings, that clearly reflects the same narrowing of political debate that has hit the UK over the last decade.

The scope of the political imagination is being hemmed in. Europe, finding itself once again in the grip of 'national interests', has seen the grand vision that once underwrote the European project hollowed out (Spinelli, 2016).

Europe has faced at least two major crises that have hit the continent over the past decade, one financial and one refugee. If well administered and democratically accountable, European Governance could in itself have been part of the solution. And yet the idea, the entire political direction, has been largely suppressed as taboo in the 'national interest'.

David Cameron's renegotiation was entirely framed by the 'national interest'. Its primary purpose seemed to the search for opt-outs from a European system (Sparrow, 2016) - the ability to restrict or withdraw social security for non-nationals, exemptions from measures that might impact on the finance sector based in the City of London, reductions in regulations affecting business, and a two speed EU that removes an UK obligation to ever closer union.

The proposed Conservative bill of rights is a salient example. It proposes to console lovers of European Human Rights with a national counterpart, but it offers only certain rights - and those it gives to some people with less rights for others, with different categories of rights, creating different strata of people (Chakrabarti, 2015).

The In campaign has approached the referendum on much the same terms. The Labour Party's website for its 'Labour In For Britain' group makes its pitch all about Britain - national security, national economy and national influence, always framed as 'Britain' in the collective. This dynamic is an effect of the narrowing of vision, a seeming fear of anyone questioning patriotism, the kind of fears that lead to the advent of an left-wing party promoting itself with an anti-immigration mug.

As a result there has been little defence of the EU's work on its own terms. Its work across borders, for peace and prosperity and for individuals regardless of identity - protecting the environment, fighting globalised corporate corruption, supporting and promoting rights of the individual, often against infringements by their 'national' governments and nation-state authorities.

Under the aegis of the European Council, National Governments - including that of the UK, and with all of their attendant political bias - have in recent years taken control of the European agenda and turned it away from the grand vision according to their own 'national interests'. In doing their faces have turned inward, their vision narrowed and their eyes closed.

These governments have let fear be stoked, fears based on perceived threats to identity and vital safety nets (Zatat, 2016). This has pushed an EU exit onto the table, that would drop the pursuit of an international politics in favour of an uncertain future of globalised capitalism, doing business with countries who have little or no safeguards to protect their workers - that would in turn, in globalised competition, only undermine the safeguards protecting individuals in the UK.

The grand vision needs to be recovered. There are movements, such as Another Europe and Democracy in Europe Movement 25, and individuals, like Caroline Lucas and Yanis Varoufakis, that believe in staying and taking back Europe for its citizens. They want to improve democratic accountability, to recover the ideals of humanitarianism.

To leave Europe is no genuine alternative. It casts us, culturally, back into a small, narrow, inward-gazing isolation, while throwing us out onto the global markets without the kinds of guarantees that the EU has, at least tried, to offer. To leave is to pursue a revisionist false past, to satisfy some lingering notion of glorious empire. To stay, with a positive approach and a critical eye, presents the possibility of building the future.