Where is there left to go when politics breaks down into stark and implacable camps? The hidden peril of conflict

The latest junior doctors' strikes breached a controversial threshold when it withdrew emergency care. Ahead of the two days scheduled for the strikes, scare stories circulated talk of the NHS creaking - maybe encouraged by how the polls had previously suggested that public support would weaken.

In the event, support for the strike action actually remained in the majority with only a small percentage fall from before emergency care was withdrawn, with the public still largely seeing the government as culpable, and the NHS appeared to cope with the strain (Triggle, 2016; Broomfield, 2016).

The emergency threshold was breached and support for the strikers remained. That would seem to put matters in favour of the junior doctors. But the big question is - did the full strike change anything?

The short answer is... probably very little.

For those familiar with how things are actually achieved in politics - that is, usually through some kind of compromise - that shouldn't come as a huge shock. What the emergency strikes have not altered are the fundamental positions on either side of the divide.

The government didn't see the weakening of public support for which it might have hoped. And, short of those in other professions walking out in support, more akin to a general strike, the withdrawal of emergency care is as far as the strikers can escalate.

The doctor's duty of care means there are limits to the withdrawal of labour - unless a lingering rumour of mass resignations by doctors has any truth in it (Campbell, 2016). At this point, breaking the deadlock may require different kinds of resignations.

Not least forth in the queue for an exit has to the Health Secretary himself Jeremy Hunt, whose belligerence has allowed and encouraged the escalation of the dispute. The BMA - the British Medical Association, the doctor's union - has also firmly staked out a position specifically counter to that of the Health Secretary due to what they felt was a pointed threat to impose new contracts without negotiation.

On both sides, it seems only a toppling of their respective leaderships could allow for a change of direction while, as is often a priority in politics, saving face. The sides have so committed themselves to their respective courses, enough as to become completely entrenched, that it is hard to envision either being able to back down.

Therein lies the peril of competition and confrontation. Whatever can be said about the American, deeply partisan, political system, it is not a place where things are getting done. Instead, these grand monolithic forces butt heads, shaking the landscape and leaving people divided.

And that is the value of, not only compromise, but of cooperation. The ability to work with others is more than just cutting crude and dissatisfying compromises. It is also about creating a mutual respect that allows for healthy discussion, debate and an arena for grievance with effective means of redress.

A society at odds with itself would have a hard time finding resolutions in which all parts of society feel themselves to have a stake - which, in politics, is the short and medium term aim. Feeling represented is an important aspect of building engagement on the part of the public with the complexity of the challenges that their communities, their societies, face and the trust and comprehension of the outcomes.

That, more than anything else, puts Jeremy Hunt's name at the head of any list of those who need to resign. He has escalated and divided, an we are poorer for it: we have less cooperation, less engagement and less chance of an outcome in which all parts of society feel they are represented.

The Junior Doctors strikes are escalating, largely thanks to Jeremy Hunt's stubborn belligerence as deadlock goes unbroken

At the core of the junior doctors' argument has been that doctor's need to have safe schedules so that they can keep patients safe.

The next round of strikes by the junior doctor's are imminent, set to start Tuesday morning. They will run from 8am through 5pm, rather than the 24 or 48 hours time frame of other strikes, because the strike, in an historic first for the NHS, will withdraw emergency services (Triggle, 2016).

In previous polls, the possibility of the withdrawal of emergency services reduced, substantially, the support for the striking doctors from 59% down to 45% (Broomfield, 2016). Seemingly sensing an opportunity, the government side has been laying the scare factor on thick.

Stories of the apparent dangers posed by the strike have been coming thick and fast. Hunt's spokesperson has said that the strikes are disproportionate, will be damaging and come with huge risks (BBC, 2016), while Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS in England, has said that withdrawing emergency services crosses a line that will damage trust (Keogh, 2016).

This was followed by the General Medical Council warning that hospitals may struggle (Triggle, 2016{2}) and junior Health Minister Ben Gummer saying that patients are being put in harms way and the government is being held hostage (BBC, 2016{2}). Analysis has suggested that there are adequate measures in place, however, to ensure no one is endangered (Triggle, 2016).

The present stand-off is a result of, consistent with Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt's escalatory tactics so far, and despite now admitting no such power in the face of legal action, a threat to impose contracts on junior doctors rather than honour the negotiation process (Campbell, 2016).

Thanks to these clear misjudgements on his part, support for striking junior doctors may be reinforced by the fact that it is Jeremy Hunt who is being seen as obstructive. On Sunday, he rejected a cross-party proposal to introduce his new contract first only as a limited trial, subject to independent review, to determine its affects and suitability (Campbell, 2016{2}) - which will only further antagonise the public.

Hunt is reported to have argued that "further delay just means we will take longer to eliminate the weekend effect" (BBC, 2016{3}). A frankly preposterous position considering the very basis for his 'weekend effect' argument has been demonstrated to be without basis (Cooper, 2015), that he appallingly continues to be allowed use as justification.

Whatever the faults of Jeremy Hunt and the deficiencies in his method, the latest strike will regardless test the limits of public patience. How long can public servants push strike action before public sympathy wanes? Taking with it the essential power behind any strike or protest movement - solidarity.

The NHS has proven itself to be a special case, ensuring broad public support afforded to these public servants that has been more difficult to raise in other parts of the public sector. But this latest escalation is entering new territory. Who will be most affected by the strike and resultant cancellations.

If there is anything that defines British politics it is the resilience of the status quo to anything but meagre and gradual reforms. But right now, the status quo needs to be altered to break to end a stubborn deadlock. It is to be hoped that the impending strike, or the strike itself, restores some sense to the negotiations. Yet the most likely outcome seems to be more deadlock, followed by more escalation, unless the government backs down in the only way it really can - by removing Jeremy Hunt.

Alternative political thinking is alive and well, but Britain's political system makes that hard to believe

Paul Mason gives a lecture in Manchester on the economic downturn, as part of Labour Party Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's New Economics tour.

Last night in Manchester, John McDonnell's New Economics tour came to town with Paul Mason to discuss the global downturn and how to solve the problems that austerity is not and can not. What that lecture showed, as the others on McDonnell's tour - including economists such as Mariana Mazzucato, Yanis Varoufakis and Joseph Stiglitz - is that alternative thinking is alive and well.

Yet Britain's political system makes that hard to believe. When, last month, Caroline Lucas attempted to put forward a bill from the backbenches aimed at putting the opposition views on the NHS before Parliament, a Conservative filibuster ensured she didn't have time (Stone, 2016).

Lucas' NHS Bill was scheduled for a return to Parliament on Friday for another day of backbench, non-governmental, business. During the course of this week, the Commons will have only debated two bills, for short periods of two days - the third reading of Harriet Baldwin's "Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]" and the consideration of Lords amendments to Amber Rudd's "Energy Bill [HL]".

And yet, the NHS Bill sits on a list of more than two dozen backbench bills - including Norman Lamb's "National Health Service and Social Care (Commission) Bill", calling for an independent review into the future of the NHS, and a second by Caroline Lucas, the "Public Services (Ownership and User Involvement) Bill", that promotes "accountability, transparency and public control" over public services - which will not even be debated as Parliament isn't even scheduled to sit on Friday.

Time is monopolised by the government, which receives extraordinarily stacked advantages for 'winning' elections. This smothers alternative thinking, squashes legitimate debate, and keeps Parliament firmly stuck to the narrative set by central government.

But legislatures elsewhere in the UK show that politics doesn't have to function quite so dramatically this way. In Wales and Scotland, the more pluralistic assemblies have allowed for coalition and minority governments, and for a broader kind of party representation.

In these legislatures, under those conditions, alternative voices can make themselves heard. In particular, the Liberal Democrats have shown that a small party can punch above its weight, and make policy achievements (Masters, 2016). These have included securing major investment in education, in the Welsh budget, by working with the Welsh government (Coles, 2016), and speaking up for citizens' civil liberties against increased police powers and identity cards in Scotland (Macwhirter, 2015).

It is the mark of a vibrant and mature democracy that small parties can give voice to citizens' rights, to hold the government to account on matters like civil liberties or the environment and present a narrative counter to that set by the governing administration.

In Manchester, Paul Mason argued that the times may determine that the next government will be a coalition government, a progressive alliance in which, not least the Labour Party, will have to learn to embrace pluralism, cooperation and compromise. But in that necessity, lies an opportunity - a chance to push for a more grown up, more inclusive political system.

Osborne's damaged reputation encourages doubt in Treasury Brexit forecast - yet findings match those of other studies saying Brexit will be a blow to UK economy

The biggest issues, like accountability, have become international matters that require a multi-national response. In Europe, this international approach has encouraged not only prosperity, but shared prosperity.

The Chancellor has taken the opportunity presented by a UK Treasury department report released today, an intervention by the government likely to once again anger those in the Vote Leave camp, to stress how an exit would negatively affect the economy (BBC, 2016).

The Treasury decided to put front and centre its middle of three case studies, based on a Canada-EU style agreement, that suggested that a 6% hit to the economy would the result from an exit (Ahmed, 2016). For its 'best case' study, which involves following Norway and joining the European Economic Area, the treasury's numbers where closer to forecasts by other bodies (Chu, 2016) - which suggested smaller losses of 2-4%.

Those in Vote Leave have been quick to dismiss the forecasts on the simple grounds that Chancellor George Osborne and the Treasury have been so far from the mark, for so long on the economy (ITV, 2016) - a perfect demonstration of why reputation and the appearance of competence matter so much.

Even after years of missed targets, Osborne had managed to maintain the impression with the public that he, and his party, where the safest hands for the economy. Yet that image was massively weakened by the Budget 2016 debacle, when Iain Duncan Smith resigned and the Chancellor faced heavy criticism for high end tax cuts being laid out alongside cuts to disability welfare support (BBC, 2016{2}).

So with the Chancellor tarnished, where can we turn to verify the Treasury's findings?

Well, first of all, the Treasury's figures certainly concur with the other independent studies, despite variations, in saying that an exit from the European Union will be bad for the economy. That opinion is also shared by organisations ranging from the IMF, the overseers and facilitators of the global economy the International Monetary Fund, to the IFS, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (Allen & Asthana, 2016; BBC, 2016{3}).

Secondly, the idea of an EU exit having - at least in the short term - a negative impact on the economy has even been admitted by Boris Johnson, the most high profile supporter of the exit campaign (Stewart & Watt, 2016). At the core of why those in favour of exit say that this initial impact is worth experiencing, is to pursue a believed greater long term potential outside of the EU. Yet the exit campaign's own pretty extravagant claims must be treated with caution (Full Fact, 2016).

Even if post-exit economic prosperity - outmatching what might be expected in the EU - could be achieved, there are no guarantees that prosperity would be shared. The immediate benefit of any new investment would likely go straight into the hands of the rich and, as Ed Miliband stressed at the weekend, wealth in the hands of the rich doesn't trickle down but is instead stashed (Cadwalladr, 2016).

Reinforcing that point is the long standing aim of those on the 'pro-business' Right to 'repatriate powers' from EU regarding employment laws. The stated aim is to cut regulations pertaining to labour protections so as to make labour more flexible for businesses, cutting their costs. But that also means weakening the rights of workers (Farhat, 2014), and increasing the already precarious situation for people in work.

In contrast, the EU has built, gradually, an expanding market area, with free trade within and protection at the edge; with the free trade area being covered by rules and regulations that ensure protections for workers from unfairly low pay and poor treatment - on the basis of decisions made at the European level on the grounds that they affect everyone in Europe.

By building regulations into its system, the EU offers an alternative to the long standing debate between free trade and protection - lower prices and greater efficiency at the cost of precarity and low wages, versus the potential for higher wages and sheltered domestic production that comes with the risk of much higher prices and damage being done to international trade relationships through trade barriers.

In essence, the EU has built a pioneering model for the advancement, not just of free trade, but also of fair trade, where workers are protected and their contributions justly rewarded. Where the rights of workers, subject to multi-national corporations, are protected by corresponding multi-national agreements and cooperation (Stewart, 2016).

The world has gone global and multi-national. Corporations and wealthy individuals avoid tax across borders, globally and multi-nationally. If we want to work for the common good, if we want accountability, our horizons also have to broaden. The European Union undoubtedly needs reform to better live up to them. But achieving them is now a project that has to be completed internationally and the EU, warts and all, is the best medium we have in place at the moment.

The British Left seems finally to have settled on how its relationship with Europe should be defined - positive, engaged, reforming

With his announcement this morning, Jeremy Corbyn pretty much completed the alignment of Britain's progressive-wing behind the campaign to remain in the European Union (Stewart, 2016). The support of the Labour leader now sees Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the trade unions GMB (600k members), Unison (1.3m members) and Unite (1.4m members), all backing an In vote (Mason, 2016; Silveira, 2016; Unite, 2016).

But what it also represents is the British Left finally settling on a way to talk about its relationship with Europe. This was best seen in Corbyn's support for the EU coming with criticisms attached.

Corbyn argued that the EU had protected workers' rights, pushed for better environmental standards and introduced safeguards for consumers (BBC, 2016). Yet he also pointed to shortcomings, like the lack of sufficient of democratic accountability and an establishment commitment to deregulation and privatisation.

That view solidly aligns Labour with the stance adopted by Caroline Lucas, followed by the rest of the Greens, in backing Another Europe (Lucas, 2016) - a movement of activists and campaigners calling for "a Europe of democracy, human rights, and social justice" and moves towards a more hopeful, "social, citizen-led Europe".

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP, has argued that Europe is right now in the hands of conservatism because conservatives won successive elections across Europe and formed national governments (Lucas, 2016{2}). As a result they hold many seats on the European Council, which allows them to shape Europe with the policies of conservatism.

Simply losing elections is not good grounds for secession, Lucas argues. Instead we should stay, working with progressives in all of Europe's countries, to build a progressive consensus for reform that protects Europe's social chapter, its workers protections, its environmental protections - made possible by its shape as a continental, cross-border, that brings Europe together to deal with transnational issues.

So far the EU referendum campaign has, with both sides making almost identical claims, revealed that life in or out of the EU is unlikely to be much different on the surface, with even immigration is unlikely to be altered by an exit (Stewart, 2016{2}).

The exception is that leaving is acknowledged to come with the risk of an initial shock to the economy, which everyone seems to accept will happen and will be a bad thing, but no one is sure just how bad (Stewart & Watt, 2016) - with no guarantee that any subsequent growth benefit will be shared, while growth in the EU has been said to come with boosted living standards (Full Fact, 2016).

In a narrow debate, filled with nationalism and misinformation (Allegretti, 2016), the progressive view is a refreshing alternative. Acknowledging past and achievements, and talking about how to build a positive future - one that is open, and commits to cooperation, with people working together to achieve more for the common good.

It is about time that the British Left figured out and stated its position on Europe. The wavering, particularly of Labour's, commitment to the international ideal of Europe has helped to severely undermine public confidence in a bigger, more open world. Corbyn's speech has hopefully put that to rest.

Looking ahead to the local council elections on 5th May - what do councils do and who stands to lose or gain?

Manchester Town Hall, where the one third of council seats are up for election. Photograph: Manchester Town Hall by Mark Andrew (License) (Cropped)

The return of Members of Parliament to work after the Easter Recess, is a good time to take a look at what is ahead. For MPs, the impact of their efforts over the next month will be for the benefit of others in their party besides themselves.

On the 5th May there will be elections. Amongst them are the Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and London devolved assembly elections. But perhaps most pressing for the situation at Westminster will be the midterm local council elections.

Local government in the UK, in the form of elected councils and council workers in their employ, represents a confusingly multi-tiered system that provides or commissions local services (LGA, 2011) - some of which represent mandatory duties while others are discretionary and the council can charge not-for-profit fees for them.

The services councils provide include those for children, like schools; for adults with needs; social housing and housing benefit; scrutiny of local health services; museums, libraries, sports and recreation facilities; care for local roads and co-ordination of public transport; care for the local environment and management of waste collection and disposal or recycling; planning; collection of local taxes like business rates and council taxes; administration of elections; and the keeping of registers of births, deaths and marriages.

After six years of austerity, with as much as 40% of funding cut from their budgets, and likely cuts more to come, there has been substantial discontent on councils, and in party council associations, with the government (Sparrow, 2015) - not least in the Conservative association. That situation has not been eased by the transfer of further burdens not being matched by the transfer of sufficient means of funding, and central government decisions like the substantial cut to business rates included in Budget 2016 (BBC, 2016).

Governments usually struggle during midterms - especially after spending a long time in government. But after years of austerity, with frontline services slashed even, to his great discontent, in the Prime Minister's own council area (ITV, 2015), the Conservatives must be expecting considerable losses.

So for the Conservatives, this election is fairly simple. Lose as little as they can and hope that their opponents, particularly Labour, fall well short of their own targets - from the Conservative view, embarrassingly enough that it becomes an interesting news story.

What the Conservatives do not want is Jeremy Corbyn's Labour to show itself able to beat the Tories in the popular polls. Labour will almost certainly be under pressure to, at least, achieve results comparable with those of Ed Miliband from 2012, which means gaining a not insignificant number of council seats (Labour List, 2016).

However, possibly of greater importance from the view of the MPs returning to work today, is the national vote share. What MPs at Westminster will want to know is whether a Corbyn-led Labour can come first in the popular vote - because that would establish the party as a realistic option come 2020.

Labour's efforts at achieving gains in vote share and seats will be hampered by the array of parties scrapping with each other, as well as with the Conservatives, to make gains (Ford, 2016). In Scotland, the seemingly unstoppable SNP momentum will make life difficult for Labour, while in Wales Plaid Cymru tend to be much stronger when it is Welsh Assembly election time than in the national polls.

In England, UKIP will likely continue to plague Labour - as they have yet to go away completely despite the failure of their big push in May 2015 and the stats saying their vote share has fallen by a swing of around 8% nationally since then (Britain Elects, 2016), not least because of the European Union Referendum scheduled for June.

There may also be some pressure applied to Labour by the Liberal Democrats. It's one thing for the party to talk up its #LibDemFightback, but another for, over the same period from the May 2015 election, the party to see a positive swing of around 4% (Britain Elects, 2016{2}) - putting it well ahead of the other parties in England in terms of local momentum.

Not least do the Liberal Democrats have a reputation for campaigning at the local level, based on a committed and engaged approach to local government and community-based politics that is even acknowledged by their opponents (BBC, 2015; Labour List, 2016). If momentum swings back their way, they may have a positive showing that gives tangible substance to their fightback.

From Labour's perspective, they may help their own cause by establishing these things as limiting factors (Ford, 2016), allowing them to set their own, much more modest, targets. Yet they are unlikely to have that liberty and will probably be under pressure to make real terms gains.

For MPs at Westminster, the next few weeks and the bills that they will debate could have a substantive impact on the council elections. Policy at the national level will be seen through the lens of its impact on local government - at least a temporary boon for local government that can often feel sidelined from political debate and policy decisions that affect them being made centrally at Westminster.

It should be kept in mind, however, that midterm election results can only tell you so much. Local government elections from 2011 through 2014 all saw Labour under Ed Miliband top the polls - though sometimes only barely as the UKIP spectre ate away at the support of both the Conservatives and Labour.

From a country-wide perspective, what midterm local elections can be is a substantive base with which to demonstrate momentum, a fightback, and upon which to build a platform. For progressives from all parties, under a Conservative government and with council services under increasing strain, that will likely be the main hope with 2020 firmly in mind.

An Alternative Easter Round-up: Three political stories from around the world

With Parliament away on Easter Recess, politics in the UK has been reduced to the government hoping for quiet days with as few intermittent controversies as possible. So while politics takes a breather in the UK, here are some of the stories brewing elsewhere around the world.

An Individual's Scandal and Stability in Iceland

Faced with popular pressure following the Panama Papers leak, Iceland Prime Minister Gunnlaugsson has resigned. Photograph: Reykjavik from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

The story that has excited press reaction the most this Easter has of course been the leak of the Panama Papers. The leak has made life difficult for the leaders of a number of countries, from those affected more directly like Mauricio Macri in Argentina (TeleSur, 2016), to those more tangentially involved like David Cameron in the UK (Sparrow, 2016).

Not least affected was Iceland's Prime Minister Gunnlaugsson. Having been connected to millions in offshore accounts, he sought an election to, it would seem, seek the absolution of the people. However, his request was denied by the President - who pointed to the lack of Parliamentary support for new elections.

Backed into a corner, with no escape hatches left and protests being held against him, Gunnlaugsson resigned (Henley, 2016). It is both fascinating and deeply troubling that he seemed willing to throw a country's entire political sphere into upheaval and instability, just to save his own position and career.

He would not, by a long margin, be the first to seek out politics for such reasons and be prepared to use its powers and mechanisms in such a way. But in this case, at least, it seems that the constitutional structure of the government in Iceland was robust enough to fend off such efforts.

'Macri Gov't Claims President's Innocence in Panama Papers Leak'; on TeleSur; 5 April 2016.

Andrew Sparrow's 'What David Cameron did and didn't say about his father's offshore trust: The prime minister chose his response to reporter’s question about Blairmore Holdings very carefully – and he will probably get away with it'; in The Guardian; 5 April 2016.

Jon Henley's 'Iceland PM steps aside after protests over Panama Papers revelations: Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson steps aside amid widespread anger over allegations his family attempted to hide millions in offshore account'; in The Guardian; 5 April 2016.

Institutional Corruption and Hypocrisy in Brazil

Politics in Brazil is mired by the corruption investigation into its current and its former President. Photograph: National Congress of Brazil from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

The situation facing Brazil, where a corruption controversy threatens to pull apart an already divided country, there do not seem to be the same constitutional assurances to fall back on.

President Dima Rousseff, Vice President Temer and former President Lula all face impeachment over corruption charges (BBC, 2016). There is allegedly mounting evidence of kickbacks, deal-making and corruption in the billions and apparently trusted polls suggest two-thirds of the people support impeachment (Davies, 2016).

Yet the country is divided (Davies, 2016). Rousseff's party - the social democratic Workers Party, which under her and her predecessor's governance has introduced far reaching welfare programs to help the poorest - is largely supported by the working class, while the opposition protesters have been largely from the white middle classes.

Amongst the working class there seems to be genuine concern that the scandal is little more than an attempted coup (Weisbrot, 2016). That isn't helped by the fact that the opposition seem to have overstepped the mark, by politicising corruption probes with orders for police detentions and questioning, and the leaking of wire taps.

Middle class double standards have also been singled out (Davies, 2016). Less concern has been shown by Rousseff's opponents for the Swiss bank accounts and corruption allegations, shielded by the legal protections of Congressional office, that have been levelled at opposition politicians.

That hypocrisy exposes one of the most dangerous facets of widespread corruption. When everyone is dirty, within a system set up only to serve divisive interests, there can be nowhere to turn for help and little hope of bipartisan action that could both clean matters up and be a bridge to rebuild commonality and unity.

Wyre Davies' 'Brazil crisis: There may be bigger threats than Rousseff's removal'; on the BBC; 21 March 2016.

'Brazil Vice-President Michel Temer could face impeachment'; on the BBC; 5 April 2016.

Mark Weisbrot's 'Attempted Coup in Brazil Seeks to Reverse Election Results'; on TeleSur; 5 April 2016.

Barcelona Municipalism and the Cities of Europe

Barcelona En Comu's municipalism is getting an outing on the continental stage, as Europe's elected city administrations look for a voice in setting policy. Photograph: Barcelona from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Beneath the press coverage of the refugee crisis, there have been frantic discussions in Europe over how to address the large numbers of people fleeing to the continent. The primary mechanism has become a migrant-exchange deal with Turkey to facilitate deportation of migrants, out of Greece to Turkey (Connolly, 2016).

However, the refugees welcome campaign refuses to go away. On Tuesday, Mayors from a number of EU cities gathered to discuss ways of supporting refugees already in Europe. For Ada Colau, Mayor of Barcelona and face of the Podemos-affiliated and citizen-led Barcelona En Comu, the meeting represented a chance to show the merits of municipalism on the continental level and issue a call to action to shelter refugees.

And it would seem that the municipalist message is getting through. The EuroCities group, bringing together and giving a voice to the elected administrations of European cities, conducted a survey that suggested that, despite the role being played by cities in managing the refugee crisis, they distinctly lack a voice in setting policy (Bramley, 2016).

While there clearly wasn't unanimous agreement on the EU's refugee plan at the meeting, there was at least agreement that central governments were failing to allow enough discretion to cities over the control of funds that could be helping people now (Valero,2016).

Kate Connolly's 'EU-Turkey deal begins as Syrian refugees arrive in Germany and Finland: Three planes from Turkey, carrying a total of 43 people, land as part of migrant-exchange agreement'; in The Guardian; 4 April 2016.

Jorge Valero's 'Red Cross questions Turkey refugees deal'; on EurActiv; 5 April 2016.

Ellie Violet Bramley's 'Cities need more power to deal with refugee crisis: report - Refuge cities - Despite urban centres having to receive and integrate huge number of refugees, cities lack crucial input when it comes to policy, says a new European report'; in The Guardian, with the Rockefeller Foundation; 4 April 2016.

Citizen Government as a remedy for Corruption?

From individual to institutional corruption, it always poses a threat to good governance. And that is never more obvious than when poverty is spreading and budgets are tight - as less eyes are turned blind to those grafting something extra for themselves or their friends.

In the face of austerity and broad discontent with the political system, Spain's local governments have looked to the horizontal rather than the vertical for solutions - pooling resources, and working side by side, with other municipalities.

That message of devolution and citizen government, for municipalism, is a tonic for anyone needing to feel a reinvigorated belief in democratic government. Alone, it cannot do everything that is needed to chase out corruption. But what might municipalism achieve as a broad movement of democratic citizen-governments, in league, working together?

Leak of the Panama Papers is our regular reminder of the huge credibility problem politics in the UK still faces

New revelations, about new scandals, do little to reassure a public jaded with the political process when they aren't followed up with definitive, fair and progressive action. Photograph: Protesters outside the 2015 Conservative Party Conference in Manchester .

Politics in the UK has a credibility problem. It has existed for some time. Back in 2010, before the Liberal Democrats ran into their own credibility problems, their election campaign sparked interest by drawing critical attention to a political era of empty rhetoric, deceptive spin and broken promises (Clegg, 2010).

Long locked out of power by Labour and the Conservatives, the Lib Dems were well placed to capitalise on public discontent with a political system that had also locked out the public. The 2008 crash was recent history and the deception of the Iraq War was still fresh in people's minds.

The announcement of yet another leak filled with scandal, showing billions being hidden systematically in offshore accounts (Harding, 2016) - made possible through endless technicalities and loopholes - should cause outrage. Yet the story feels like it is falling somewhat flat (Sherriff, 2016).

After standing down as Liberal Democrat leader in 2006, the late Charles Kennedy wrote that:

"The danger in all of this is that if sufficient people conclude that there is nothing in the conventional political process for them then they may opt for more simplistic and extreme options on offer. I remain an optimist. But across the mainstream political spectrum there is a candid recognition of the danger."

The era of austerity has not repaired public trust. Scandals keep being unveiled - like the HSBC scandal or the Google Tax Deal - and they never seem to be resolved. Like the banks after the crash, there is some awkward shuffling before business as usual quietly resumes.

All the while, our political and economic systems are toppling out of balance (Garside, 2016). With rising inequality, even homelessness, everyday life has begun to feel precarious for those outside of the highest echelons, as the Conservative government strips back basic social security.

And yet, even though the Conservative Party overseeing all of this seems to be riven with insurmountable contradictions that should pull it apart (D'Ancona, 2016), there doesn't seem to be a definitive alternative ready to step up. Labour, the most obvious opponent, finds itself in much the same situation.

Revelations of hidden billions and loopholes, by journalists, really aught to make the viewing public hopeful. In its own way, it shows civic institutions holding the powerful to account. The trouble is that with each subsequent scandal, and each subsequent failure to follow through and reform on the part of the accused institutions, the public instead becomes more jaded - not least when the scandals are of the media's own making or they are implicated.

Transparency isn't about invasions of privacy. It is about a system with clear rules, without loopholes, based on fair principles. Officials with clear and accountable powers. Public and private bodies with clear and accountable responsibilities. Without these things, without transparency, the credibility of any system will quickly be lost.

Without credibility, people are driven away disaffected - believing that fairness will not be observed or that change is not possible. It calls into question why one individual should fulfil their responsibilities when others do not and remain unaccountable. Social participation, at that point, is reduced to little more than the result of fear and coercion - people coerced into participating in an unfair system to which there is no alternative, for fear of losing what little security they have.

Rebuilding trust, and credibility, begins with transparency. But revelations alone are not enough. They're just a moment in time. These moments must be turned into momentum. Progress is turning these moments into a permanent ongoing process. A process structured around vigilance, fairness and reform.