PMQs in Review: How have the government and opposition fared in Corbyn's first year?

The strike of Twelve on Wednesdays heralds the beginning of PMQs, a contest it is hard to say that progressives have been winning over the past six years.

Since Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader last autumn, PMQs has had an extra layer of attention paid to it. After Corbyn offered a new politics, kinder and more reasonable, commentators wondered at how that could be translated to the hostile cauldron of PMQs.

On the whole the answer has been a barrage of criticism of Corbyn's performances opposite David Cameron. At the top of the list has been his apparent lack of aggression and persistence, that has been accused of letting Cameron's ministry off lightly. It has also been said that there has been a simple lack of professional preparedness (Hazarika, 2016).

Part of Corbyn's problem, at least initially, was an unfocussed approach, where each question would press on a different subject. While that approach allowed for the covering of more ground, it also meant that ground was covered more thinly - or occasionally not at all in the face of a persistently aggressive Cameron, who frequently turned the format upside down by firing questions of his own back.

Others who stepped up to lead PMQs received a warmer response from critics. David Cameron is considered almost universally to have PMQs firmly in his grasp and to hold a position of confident control over the proceedings that makes life difficult for any opponent - Ed Miliband just as much as Jeremy Corbyn.

Cameron's and Corbyn's deputies George Osborne and Angela Eagle also had chances to take on PMQs. Osborne comes from the same PMQs school as Cameron, so his confidence comes with little surprise. But Angela Eagle's turn standing in for Corbyn had to be considered within the context of Labour MPs dissatisfaction with Corbyn.

Angela Eagle herself was a competent performer. Yet she also received much better support from her own benches than Corbyn is often afforded, which can only have made life easier. It also clearly suited the Commons that Eagle also went back to the old bantering approach.

While some of Corbyn's difficulties might be put down to his own flaws, there where early innovations. The use of letters from members of the public to add a new dimension to a question, which might force the PM to answer more straightly - something much needed within the format.

And that format itself aught to carry some of the blame. The Prime Minister is under no real obligation to give straight and clear answers to questions and there is no arbiter of the factual accuracy, relevance or suitability of an answer. It is left to the questioner to persist - a privilege that only two MPs are afforded.

Could changes to the format help? First Minister's Questions at Holyrood adopted a new longer format this year, giving more time to press for detail, and all of its opposition party leaders get a chance to ask a couple of questions. But whether adapting to that format or more likely remaining within the current format, co-operation between opposition MPs to coordinate questions alone - to hit a consistent tone and plant follow ups - would at least go some way, in the short term, to forcing the PM to give more specific answers.

September, when the recess ends, will see the new Conservative leader Theresa May return for her second appearance - and presumably further ones - but it isn't yet settled who her opponent will be. Whoever prevails in the Labour leadership election has to look back seriously and methodically at Corbyn's first year as opposition leader.

Regardless of whether it has been the fault of Corbyn or not, the opposition has struggled to get its message out and PMQs is one of the few opportunities for free, unfiltered, media coverage. The next leader of the Labour Party, as effective leader of the opposition to the government, needs to have a clear answer to the question: How can we make best use of those six questions and thirty minutes?

Labour Leadership Contest: Corbyn's year in charge has already changed Labour's policy debate, but will it be enough to heal the rift?

Corbyn speaking, just a month after his election, to a crowd of ten thousand people - inside and outside - at Manchester Cathedral, for a Communication Workers Union event.

The Labour leadership contest got under way in earnest on Thursday as Jeremy Corbyn launched his campaign. Evoking the memory of Beveridge, in his speech he promised to lead Labour towards ending the 'five greats evils' of our times (BBC, 2016): inequality, neglect, prejudice, insecurity and discrimination.

Having seen off Angela Eagle in the nominations race, Owen Smith has also stepped up his campaign (Asthana & Elgot, 2016). Unlike Corbyn, who has a - not really of his own making - hostile relationship with the media, Owen Smith is actively courting the media, making TV appearance after TV appearance to increase his exposure amongst audiences who probably don't know who he is.

Smith's key line through these appearances has been to try and present himself as able to be the intermediary between the radical membership and the more pragmatic party. He has promised to be as radical as Corbyn, but more competent at making the practical pitch to the wider country (BBC, 2016{2}).

Owen Smith, in the event of his campaign being victorious, has even pitched a job for Corbyn, offering him the position of Party President - though the proposition was rejected by Corbyn as being the equivalent to a 'Director of Football' (BBC, 2016{3}).

The launch of Corbyn's leadership defence had the appearance of an act of defiance (Sparrow, 2016). Affording no time to his detractors and opponents, he focussed instead on making a Beveridge-esque promise to combat the five great evils and called for Labour MPs to take the hand of friendship, get behind the party and work together.

In fact, the Labour leadership campaign may yet be beneficial for Corbyn. It might well give Corbyn the platform to calmly propose and discuss policy that his leadership so far failed to - conducted as it has been under a concessionless, constant barrage, of media negativity (Cammaert, 2016).

However, his support will be under strain, potentially squeezed by a candidate like Smith - if he can put his message across - with the polls showing trade union members have become less enthusiastic about Corbyn's leadership (MacAskill, 2016).

Smith has already made some promises. The set piece of which was a promise to boost public investment, with a £200bn New Deal for Britain (Edwards, 2016). The proposal has already enthused some Labour MPs, such as Louise Haigh who said she was excited to see anti-austerity turned into practical proposals.

There was a bit of oneupmanship to the campaign though, when a day later Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell announced a £500bn investment plan (Pope, 2016). McDonnell's plan included a National Investment Bank, to have regional sub-sects, for instance a Bank of the North, to manage investment to local needs.

Whatever the variations, both candidates are though confirming support for ending austerity with a big increase in public investment - a move that sits well with what the experts are arguing that the British economy sorely needs to move forward (Blanchflower, 2016; Elliott, 2016).

That alignment between Labour's Left and Right, with economists, is a good sign for the Left, signalling that thinking has shifted away from austerity - making conditions perhaps somewhat easier for those on the Left friendly to public spending.

It might also be a sign that Corbyn supporters, and those on the Left wing of the party that have long felt ignored, even an Owen Smith win in the leadership contest will be far from a defeat to the hated Blairites. Corbyn and his supporters have changed the party and Smith's approach has proved that - they can't ignore the Left anymore.

Contained within the pitch Owen Smith is making is an acknowledgement of the impact that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters, who put him into the leadership, have had on the party. Their values cannot be ignored.

And yet, tensions remain high. Claims of abuse have come from both sides, of which there is plenty, but those valid claims are undermined at times by claims of abuse by thin-skinned public figures who, earnestly or cynically, mistake criticism for something less legitimate (BBC, 2016{4}).

The question that provokes is whether the breach had already been widened too much. Though concessions are being made in terms of tone and policy, if Corbyn doesn't retain the leadership - and even if he does - the hostility of the party's establishment to the Left still really doesn't make it look, however, like the long term future of the Corbynistas, and their well wishers, is in the Labour Party.

Proportional representation cannot come soon enough.

Trident divides the parties and even the countries of the UK. Will today's vote do anything to settle the matter?

Poseidon, trident in hand, looks down on Glasgow from atop the Clydeport Building. Just twenty five miles away is the base for the UK's Trident nuclear submarine programme. Photograph: Clydeport Building by Skin-UBX (License) (Cropped)

In virtually his last public act as Prime Minister, David Cameron set today for a Commons debate on whether the government should renew the Trident nuclear submarine programme (BBC, 2016). For the Conservatives, now under Theresa May's leadership, this should be the ideal issue - the Tories are united in their position and Labour are fragmented (Smith, 2016).

Trident certainly underlines the fundamental problem facing Labour at the moment. Between the different wings of the party, there is little common ground. Today, Labour will approach that divide by giving its MPs a free vote, considering nuclear weapons a matter of conscience.

Yet what that also means is that while the Conservatives can rebuild unity after the EU referendum on issues such as this and the SNP is unanimous and clear in its opposition to the programme (BBC, 2016{2}), Labour will stumble through another issue without a clear consensus on a position.

There have been efforts at proposing a common approach. One proposal from Paul Mason, journalist and part of the pro-Corbyn camp, is to accept renewal as the strategic element of a shift away from disastrous expeditionary warfare (Mason, 2016). Mason argues that with the Nuclear deterrent, held with a clear posture, 'keeping the peace' strategically and conventional forces redeployed to the NATO mission to safeguard Eastern Europe against an erratic Russia, the party can bury the issue, ending that particular cause for internal strife, and focus on the issues that people really care about - like the NHS.

Yet, especially at a time of open internal warfare for Labour - aimed without reservation or equivocation at Jeremy Corbyn - it is unlikely that Corbyn would be willing to compromise on an issue such as this, so fundamental to his own political identity that saw him resoundingly elected just nine months ago.

Beyond the issues it exposes for the Labour Party, Trident raises other important questions.

In the aftermath of the EU referendum, Scotland was shown to be distinct from England in its attitude towards the European Union. While the Conservatives see safety in the unity of their party on the Trident issue, it is a safety on that ground alone. On her accession to Prime Minister, Theresa May stated that her highest priority is the Union (Hill, 2016), yet there are few issues that could help further provoke the break up of the United Kingdom than Trident.

Currently in its third consecutive term of government at Holyrood and holding almost all Westminster seats for Scotland, the SNP completely opposes nuclear weapons and is particularly offended that they are based in Scotland (BBC, 2016{3}). Though no serious effort has been made to actually move the base for Trident, options for prospective alternatives include moving the programme to Wales (Chakelian, 2015).

Thanks to England voting to leave the EU and the Tories inflaming that divide with Trident, the question of Scottish Independence is firmly back on the agenda. While the Tories might heal their own rifts, they do so only by opening other wounds further.

Then there is the question of fiscal priorities. A renewal for Trident is a £31bn investment (Morris, 2015), at least, at a time of long term austerity - which has seen devastating cuts to public services and desperately needed public investment - and the economy taking a clear hit from Brexit.

Theresa May has already seemingly rolled back on George Osborne's commitment to a government budget surplus and Labour's current and prospective leaderships are both pledging vast amounts of economy-kickstarting public investment (Pope, 2016; Edwards, 2016).

In that environment, any spending decision has to be weighed carefully. And amongst the matters to be considered is the fact that there are something like 15,000 jobs depend upon the maintenance of the nuclear defence industry, a matter no politician is going to put lightly aside.

Which brings us last, but absolutely not least, to the question of a nuclear deterrent itself. To make a spending decision about a weapon system requires knowing if it even has a purpose.

So does it have a role to play? On one level, a nuclear deterrent is a huge investment in a weapon that is, hopefully, by intention and design never to be used. Analysts have argued that deterrence still has a strategic role to play - with concern over the renewed aggression of Russia cited in most arguments (BBC, 2016{4}; Mason, 2016).

The fact that no sane leaders of a progressive movement could, in good conscience, commit the appalling war crime of condemning tens, evens hundreds, of thousands to a nuclear death, not even in retaliation, seems to be treated as beside the point. For his honesty on the matter, Corbyn was condemned. But ignoring the facts as inexpedient serves no one.

Whatever tactical political advantage today's vote offers the Conservatives, through a show of internal unity and exposing their opponent's divisions, it isn't going to settle this issue. It will only drive Scotland further away, wedging yet another point difference between Scotland and England, and prolong an argument that can, ultimately, only end in one way: nuclear disarmament.

Cameron Premiership in Review: In the end, there was no one left to hide behind

After six years as Prime Minister, David Cameron leaves office having lost the EU referendum argument not just in the country but within his own party. Photograph: Prime Minister David Cameron - official photograph by Number 10 (License) (Cropped)

David Cameron came into office at the head of Britain's first coalition government since the wartime National Government. The message, as he stood in the Rose Garden to begin his double act with Nick Clegg, was a promise of a different form of government (BBC, 2010). More open. Less overbearing.

Yet the laughs and relaxed atmosphere of the Rose Garden came to stand for other things over the course of Cameron's six years in office: a tendency to let others take the hits and an appearance of detachment from the painful realities of the recession and austerity programme that followed.

Cameron certainly rebuilt the Conservative Party as an electoral force and he made a stern effort to try and modernise it, often against much resistance (Hennessy, 2010; Grice, 2014). As PM, he clearly wanted to be remembered as a reformer (Hoskin, 2016).

But that ambition is likely to be overridden by the gap that has opened between Scotland and the rest of the UK - which with another referendum may result in a full division - and of course the EU referendum, that Cameron lost, and will have a long lasting and drastic impact on the future of the UK.

There have been positive reforms. The introduction of gay marriage is a stand out achievement, as Jeremy Corbyn stressed in David Cameron's last appearance at Prime Minister's Questions. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition was itself also a landmark moment for UK politics that until that point had been majoritarian and adversarial to a fault.

And yet even as the PM told the public that 'we're all in this together', part of a big society that government would support rather than direct from the centre, the twin impact of recession and austerity saw poverty deepen. The spread of food banks to help the homeless or those unable to afford food (Williams, 2015), the rise of welfare sanctions (Ashmore, 2015), and the continued rise in the cost of housing have made that promise seem hollow.

That attitude has been reinforced by policies like corporation tax being regularly slashed even as the welfare bill has been squeezed. It was also reinforced by his approach: 'flashman' as he was nicknamed, quick to dish out the put downs and ad hominem insults that made him appear arrogant and dismissive.

Cameron's time as PM was not short of scandals, from the appointment of Andy Coulson to his family being caught up in the Panama Papers revelations. But nothing ever seemed to stick to the now former Conservative leader. Not even NHS doctor's going out on dramatic strikes.

That is perhaps most starkly demonstrated by the way in which the Tories where the ones who benefited at the polls from all of the positives of the Coalition while their Liberal Democrat partners where electorally crushed, seemingly with blame for all of the negatives.

And there were always excuses. The previous Labour government received the main brunt of the Prime Minister's criticism, with economic problems usually prefaced with the work Conservatives were doing to make up for the 'mess' that Labour left (Watt, 2010).

Ultimately, Cameron's premiership comes to an end because he picked a fight on the EU referendum that he couldn't win and it is perhaps significant that it was a fight with the right-wing of his own party. As PM, Cameron's biggest challenge has always been wrestling with his own party rather than fending off the leaders of the other parties.

Even with the pain of austerity, the opposition has always been so divided that it is almost unsurprising that Cameron, with the help of his own party, had to be the orchestrator of his own downfall. Progressives will not to be too sad to see the end of his tenure. But the future after Cameron is uncertain.

Trying to moderate his party's position, Cameron rebuilt them as a political force. Without him at the helm, with the opposition divided, a question now hangs over what the new Tory leader will use that platform to pursue next.

Contests & Mergers: Is talk of a Labour-Tory merger just an effort to force party members to accept status quo candidates?

Manifesto tag lines from the Labour and Conservative parties at 2015 general election.

With two leadership elections under way for Britain's two biggest political parties, David Cameron's call for a new captain to steer the ship seems to have cast the country adrift. In such messy times, its not unusual to hear odd or interesting ideas for how to get back on course.

But in British politics it is certainly far from usual to hear talk of Conservative and Labour MPs possibly being willing to put aside their tribalism and merged with each other. The proposal seems to be that the so-called moderate members of each party will withdraw and together form a new Centre party should the more extreme nominee for each party's leadership emerge the victor.

Against the background of that threat, the memberships of both parties are being pressured to put aside their extreme candidates to maintain the status quo. For the Conservatives that meant pressure to reject Andrea Leadsom in favour of Theresa May, and for Labour the pressure is to back Angela Eagle's challenge to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

Tory Leadership

On the Conservative side, Brexit was the big divide between the nominees. Of the two, Andrea Leadsom was clearly the outsider, the challenger to Theresa May (Kuenssberg, 2016) - who is very much the candidate representing the present Cameroonian direction. May is also most clearly the one likely to be able to continue without a new election, by representing continuity with the manifesto and policies of the Cameron Ministry.

Leadsom garnered some attention during the referendum campaign as she stood alongside Boris Johnson and Gisella Stuart on the stage for the ITV and BBC debates, arguing for Britain to exit the European Union. So much so that, with Boris Johnson's withdrawal, she was easily able to beat the other Brexit nominees - including Michael Gove, who seems to have only hurt himself with his cloak & dagger antics.

In contrast, May remained largely aloof from the EU referendum campaign. However she nonetheless courted controversy when, despite offering some support for Cameron's pro-EU stance, she suggested that the British commitment to the European Convention of Human Rights should be dropped as an inconvenience (Asthana & Mason, 2016) - a stance many have felt is consistent with her hardline positions as Home Secretary.

As Home Secretary, May has been criticised for her stances on a number of contentious issues. From her handling of the subject of Islamist extremism in schools (Adams, 2014), to her continued efforts to push through the Snooper's Charter (Mason, Asthana & Travis, 2016), and of course for her stance on the ECHR, she has been criticised by progressives. She also, and of particular relevance to conservative voters, faced criticism for her management of the border agency when it was found not to conducting proper checks (BBC, 2011).

For her part, Leadsom managed to attract most of the controversy to herself in the course of the contest. She made some ill-judged and troubling comments, from allegedly criticising Theresa May for not being a mother (Pearson, 2016) to saying she opposed equal marriage because it was 'damaging' to Christians (Cowburn, 2016). In fact, the controversies have generated so much heat that this morning Leadsom in fact withdrew from contention - much as Chuka Umunna did from the Labour contest back in 2015.

That left Theresa May to take up the Conservative leadership unopposed. While May is likely to pick up threads from Cameron's ministry, there will likely also be a turn even deeper into social conservatism that will worry progressives.

Labour Leadership

Across the floor, the intrigue that has racked the Labour Party since the referendum has moved on to a new chapter with the breakdown of talks between Deputy Leader Tom Watson, representing the Parliamentary Labour Party, and party Leader Jeremy Corbyn - which were being mediated by trade union leader Len McCluskey (The Guardian, 2016).

This seemingly final inability to close the breach has led to Angela Eagle finally announcing her long touted challenge (BBC, 2016). Pitching herself as a practical socialist, using the long favoured New Labour line that its fine to have principles but you also need to speak to a broad audience, Eagle will stand ostensibly against Corbyn in what has all the making of being the memberships' candidate versus the PLP's candidate.

Complications and potential legal challenges aside, over whether or not Corbyn will be allowed on the ballot without nominations from MPs - his opponents seem very keen to block him - such a contest does not seem to be something likely to unify the already shattered party. Of course on the one hand,  as a gay woman it would certainly be a welcome step forward in representation for the Left to have Eagle in Labour's most senior political position at Westminster.

However, her policy stances have been deeply in line with those of New Labour: she supported the Iraq War and was against an investigation; she supported New Labour's authoritarian domestic policies, like ID cards, 90 day no-charge detentions and stricter terms for asylum; and she also abstained on the Welfare Bill that sought to cut tax credits (Sinclair, 2016).

Corbyn's election was as much, if not more, a rejection of New Labour - its methods, its language and its hybrid of social democracy and neoliberalism - as it was an endorsement of the Labour Left's brand of democratic socialism. If both face the membership, it seems hard to see Eagle winning over Corbyn's supporters, or reconciling them with the mainstream if she wins.

Is a Labour-Tory merger really possible?

In the shadows behind the leadership contests - whether simply a way to galvanise their respective partisan supporters into stopping their extreme wings from taking hold, or as a genuine possibility - a merger of the mainstream of the Conservative and Labour parties has been proposed (Boffey & Helm, 2016).

Historically, such a merger would seem to be impossible. For nearly a century Labour and the Conservatives have been locked in a polemic struggle, government versus opposition - two opposite, though undeniably converging, forces that have defined the British political landscape and formed the basic reference points for any discussion of politics.

However, it wouldn't be entirely without historical precedent. After former Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald was expelled by the party, his new National Labour worked closely with the Tories until being fundamentally consumed by them. During war time, the two parties also showed they were able to work alongside one another amicably.

The referendum has also changed things, even if only temporarily. At no time in recent memory have the mainstream of the two main parties been so closely aligned, with good will so clear between them. May's unopposed run to the Conservative leadership will probably scupper any plans before they could get off the ground, but Labour's crisis makes some sort of realignment seem inevitable.

When a progressive alliance looks closer to being assembled than it ever has, a plan to bring together the so-called centre would be a big setback. If an effort to bring the 'Centrists' together in one large party of Democrats was successful, it would surely suck in Liberal Democrats too. That would leave the UK with a single major political party that is successor to the only three that have governed in more than a century.

The formation of such a party, one massive, pro-establishment, state party would be pretty much the opposite of the pluralism that Britain sorely needs. After the chaos of the referendum, the Conservatives seem to be steadying their ship while the Left remains caught in a storm and likely to run aground.

The next move appears to be in the hands of Labour MPs. The choice ahead of them seems to be between a pluralist progressive alliance, even more pro-establishment centralisation and attempting to simply prop up the shattered husk of the Labour Party - a path favoured by at least one former leader (Aitkenhead, 2016). It would be a brave person who bets on what will happen next.

Response by Blair to the Chilcot report illustrates why we need a progressive alliance and the pluralism it is supports

Tony Blair in his final year as PM and leader of Labour, even as the US planned a troop surge in Iraq, four years after the initial invasion. Photograph: Blair in 2007 by Matthew Yglesias (License) (Cropped)

Last night's progressive alliance event, hosted by the Compass think tank, began with a call for progressives to take ownership of the concepts of love and hope. From all sides there was a sentiment that building a progressive future depends on reaching across boundaries and cooperating.

This could not be in starker contrast from Tony Blair's response to the release of the Chilcot Inquiry's report. Following John Chilcot's statement, introducing the report, former Prime Minister Tony Blair spent two hours giving a response and answering questions.

After apologising and accepting full responsibility, Blair sought to justify his actions. At the centre of Blair's explanation is the portrait he paints of a singular leader whose job it is to make the decisions. That is an attitude that underlines the Blair legacy.

Particularly in the Labour Party, that attitude has opened a drastic separation between the establishment and the people who support a candidate like Jeremy Corbyn. People, active political actors, feeling separated from the decision making reserved to an elite heavily embedded within the establishment and the media.

In his report Chilcot criticised the centralisation of decision making that alienated even the cabinet from the necessary information in a political system that is not, but has become increasingly, presidential. A singular leader was able to take a momentous decision, on his own authority, overruling rules and proper process on the way.

Beneath the idea of a progressive alliance is the principle of pluralism - that decisions should be made with broad consent. It is a poignant criticism of the direction of Blair and New Labour's thinking.

From John Harris - cautioning the audience that it is a priority to speak to those in the most desperate situations and address the inequalities resting upon them and feeding a hopeless view of the future - to Amina Gichinga - calling out politicians for not facing the people, not just for accountability but to build a vision of the future that includes them - the Compass event emphasised the way in which centralisation and majoritarian thinking had alienated people and left them feeling helpless.

Rebuilding trust in politics cannot be done from the top down, without reinforcing an idea of politics being something that is done by elites while the rest wait with ears pressed to the door. The progressive alliance event was adamant on that point - connecting working across party lines with the need for electoral reform and proportional representation.

What Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewis and Vince Cable accepted in their contributions is that the divisions, caused by the ambitions of singular parties to chase majorities, were damaging to the overall aims shared by progressives of all stripes.

As centralising power on the mythical decision-making leader alienates people, so might pluralism empower and energise them. If there are lessons to be learned from the Blair leadership, the Iraq War and Chilcot, it is that decisions must not be made in isolation within the corridors of power. Progressives have to expect a better, broader and more inclusive process and start living up to it.

Chancellor quietly drops yet another target, but Labour infighting means chance to pitch positive alternative case will be missed

Under Chancellor George Osborne's stewardship, the Treasury is going to miss another of its fiscal targets. Photograph: Pound Coins from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

On Friday, at the quiet end of the week and under the cover of the Labour and Conservative leadership wrangling, Chancellor George Osborne announced that he was relaxing the fiscal rules demanding that the government deliver a budget surplus by 2020 (Ahmed, 2016).

Paul Johnson of the Institute of Fiscal Studies immediately stressed that the measure, though it would allow for more borrowing and so less spending cuts or tax rises to cover the shortfall caused by the post-Brexit downturn, would not mean the end of austerity (BBC, 2016).

On Sunday that was confirmed when the Chancellor announced his intention to further accelerate the reduction of the Corporation Tax rate down to a new low of just 15% (Monaghan, 2016) -  a move entirely consistent with Chancellor's M.O. of managing the economy by creating seductive conditions for major firms.

With targets being quietly missed and dropped, and sweetened tax deals for major corporations being announced, it is disappointing that Labour MPs are too busy completely embroiled in their own mess to take the opportunity for a big public 'We Told You So'.

Labour are also in no position at present to step up the argument for seizing this opportunity to push for the much needed public investment plan that Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has argued the Chancellor's fiscal rule did not allow for (Treanor & Allen, 2016).

While the first announcement was buried beneath other news on a Friday, where missed targets are often hidden, it was a move that brought the policies of Osborne and Tory leadership candidate Theresa May into alignment - as May said in her campaign announcement that she would put aside the aim to get a surplus by 2020 so as to avoid disruptive tax rises (The Independent, 2016).

While suspending the fiscal rule aligns with May's position, the decision to cut Corporation Tax may have a more complicated effect on the Tory leadership contest. Brexiter candidates have been keen to downplay the negative economic impact of the vote to leave and will seize upon any sign that life goes on as usual.

The Chancellor using the new freedom for a tax cut rather than as the first in a package of measures that include the rise in taxes that he previously warned might follow a vote to leave, could play into the hands of the Brexiter candidates. The idea that Britain still has room to manoeuvre, to make a pitch to international businesses that it is still a place to invest, will likely embolden Brexiters who accused the Remain camp of 'Project Fear'.

However, the reality is that public revenue in the UK is already tight and suspending fiscal rule only confirms the fact. Public spending is still in deficit and key benefactors like the NHS still suffer from shortfalls. Abandoning the rule means an admission by the government that only by borrowing more can it now keep up with spending demands - for now.

The big question remains as to whether borrowing, for public investment, or limiting and even eliminating borrowing, cutting public outlays and seeking private investment to cover instead - ie austerity, represents the sounder fiscal policy. Which will help produce growth and revenue?

From the OECD to the IMF (Elliott, 2016; Summers, 2014), the argument that the UK needs to borrow and increase public investment, because boosting public investment can drive the growth that delivers the tax receipts (Stewart & Asthana, 2016), has strong support. The economists who have joined John McDonnell on his New Economics tour have also made broadly the same case.

The argument from the Left is that the Chancellor's focus is on entirely the wrong part of the economy with his tax cuts, benefiting the richest in the hope that they see past their short-termist to invest with a longer view (Sikka, 2016). They also warn against the short term focus of austerity, which looks for gains by selling off parts of the government to would be rentiers, as flawed and likely to only increase problems in the longer run (Mazzucato, 2016).

The alternative is to instead start directing investment into ordinary people - whether that be through education, in skills through apprenticeships and training, through jobs repairing roads and other transport infrastructure or building thousands of much needed new homes - with every penny spent multiplying in value as it boosts the economy.

These are all long term projects, aimed at providing a stable and prosperous future. A progressive economic alternative needs to do more - from reforming welfare towards a compassionate Basic Income and improving workers' say and stake in the work they do - but public investment is the starting point.

The Chancellor has taken a step back but the pressures of austerity are not yet relieved. Progressives have to overcome their divisions so they can start building the arguments for a more prosperous future with the common good at its heart.