The Alternative Year: It's the little victories that keep us moving forward

Twenty Seventeen was... a year. While 2016 was always going to be tough act to follow, 2017 really did it's darnedest - and it was certainly eventful. Sequels are always difficult, but last year had turned many people numb.

But a lot that happened in 2017 that was important - and some of it was even positive. So here's our breakdown of four of the big political themes in Britain, Europe and around the world this year as The Alternative covered them - and a fifth point, in spirit of the season, looking forward.

I. Election of Opportunity

Theresa May wanted to cement seven years of Tory government with the certainty of five more years with a majority and saw an opening when polls put her a long way out front. Luckily for anyone sick to their teeth with the Tories, the election didn't go the way she thought it would.

The unnecessary election backfired. Theresa May survived the blow but it very nearly knocked her out of 10 Downing Street. Over the campaign, Corbyn's Labour made up a staggering amount of ground and proved it could win. The rhetoric had been wrong, the Corbyn brand was electable.

Theresa May, now without a majority, clung on to power with a coalition deal with the DUP - the Democratic Unionist Party, of Northern Ireland. Gone were the frills of the manifesto and in was a billion in extra funding for Northern Ireland.

Facing her in May and June was a resurgent Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn who was found to be more at home on the campaign trail than under the spotlights. But May also faced a patched up, locally-led, progressive alliance.

It wasn't the scale of cooperation that some hoped for (The Alternative, for instance), but it was a remarkable step that made a difference in a few of close battles. As a trial run, it showed promise for what alliance might achieve in the future.

Between Corbyn and the Progressive Alliance, it showed that the left had found how to win. But it was a beginning that needs an end. It's a job that needs finishing.

'General Election 2017: The Alternative guide to a critical general election for Britain'; in The Alternative; 8 May 2017.

'Election 2017: Is this the Progressive Alliance moment? It's up to you'; in The Alternative; 19 April 2017.

'General Election 2017 - A hopeful night for progressives: It's time to do opposition right'; in The Alternative; 9 June 2017.

'Queen's Speech: Theresa May has her DUP pact. What comes next for the Progressive Alliance in opposition?'; in The Alternative; 26 June 2017.

II. The Far Right Returns

Photograph: Bundestag by Hernán Piñera in 2011 (License)

And the left learning how to win again could not come at a better time, because the far right is back. It had been creeping up for years. UKIP. Brexit. That President. Cracks were appearing and the far right was beginning to slip itself through them. The presence of a far right party in the German Bundestag was only the latest warning.

In 2017, the far right began to win seats in European parliaments in earnest. And yet, everywhere they fell short of power. The far right failed to make the breakthroughs it was hoping for - despite apparently hefty backing from Russia, which was finally called out by leaders in Berlin and in Westminster.

In the Netherlands, in France, in Germany and in Britain, far right parties have not been able to breach a barrier at around 13% of the vote. For all the rhetoric of a 'far right surge', they're a long way from convincing the people of Europe to turn back the clock.

In these defeats of the far right, centrists and progressives were left with feelings of relief - and often proclaimed them loudly. But there is no future in that feeling. Progressives need real reasons for optimism, based on good ideas that take hold in the public imagination.

'Relief as Far Right falls short in Dutch election, but there's no future in that feeling: Progressives need reasons for optimism'; in The Alternative; 20 March 2017.

'French Legislative Elections: Macron's ascent asks a tough question of social democrats and social liberals'; in The Alternative; 20 June 2017.

'What next for Merkel and Germany?'; in The Alternative; 25 September 2017.

III. Neoliberalism Hanging On

Photograph: Emmanuel Macron campaign poster 'Macron President' in Paris by Lorie Shaull (License) (Cropped)

So far, the fact that far right has fallen short of power has been claimed as a victory for a certain kind of centrism and it's neoliberal hegemony - particularly in the case of President of France Emmanuel Macron.

But the yellow tide is not what it seems. Neoliberals are still winning the way they did in the 90s - by lethargy. With no better option, neoliberalism will continues to be the bitter pill that is accepted.

Neoliberalism is getting and staying in power aided by abstention as disinterest prevails and because the far right remains just repulsive enough that people are not persuaded by populist nationalism.

If neoliberal leaders are a bulwark, then they're a mossen edifice - an wooden post stood amid turbulent seas, sheltering a small pool of stagnant waters. It is the job of progressives to use the, relative, calm that this to come up with better ideas.

'The Yellow Tide isn't what it seems: The neoliberal centre has depended upon abstention and prevails amid disinterest'; in The Alternative; 10 July 2017.

'Macron and Popularity: The President of France has yet to win a sceptical public back over to the political process'; in The Alternative; 4 September 2017.

'German Elections: Angela Merkel will be the stern, bleak but sturdy breakwater people accept amidst interminable turmoil'; in The Alternative; 21 September 2017.

'Argentina midterms raise the question: What's so funny about compassionate realism?'; in The Alternative; 13 November 2017.

'Italian Left: Upheavals reveal progressive cross-section - struggle between pro-European current and rejection of neoliberalism. Can they be reconciled?'; in The Alternative; 11 December 2017.

IV. Seven Years of Tory Government

Photograph: Theresa May in Estonia in September 2017, by Arno Mikkor/EU2017EE (License)

It seemed that when Theresa May took over, she was at least willing to acknowledge that raw austerity thinking was hurting rather than helping. She voiced her belief in the Unionism of Joseph Chamberlain and promised a shared society - social harmony with a square deal for those who mucked in.

There has been little evidence of it in policy and the facts tell a sorry story about the state of Britain. While the government scapegoats anyone it can find, lives are becoming precarious and uncertain. Vulnerable people are squeezed of their benefits and poverty, including child poverty, is rising.

Poverty, real despair and destitution, has returned to visibility on the streets of the Britain. Only this week, in the run up to Christmas, are exposes being run on just how widespread poverty is - even among the working people Tories call the 'deserving'.

A fundamental component of the social contract has been broken by the Conservatives. Even with their heinous rhetoric towards the poor, that tries to draw lines between the deserving and undeserving, they at least maintain the semblance of offering a square deal in return for work. So where is it?

Work is precarious and poorly paid. Homes are expensive and even renting is getting out of reach. Prices of even basic goods are rising faster than wages. Personal debts are getting higher. The poor - those considered by Tories deserving and undeserving alike - are paying a heavy toll for realisation of the Conservative vision. Where is the fair deal?

'Unionism: What is Mrs May pitching?'; in The Alternative; 16 January 2017.

'Conservative's callous attitude to disability benefits underlines the reasons to embrace principles behind universal welfare'; in The Alternative; 27 February 2017.

'Asylum distribution scandal less about immigration and more about inequality'; in The Alternative; 10 April 2017.

'Pay Cap: Hammond focus on 'overpaid' public sector workers is just a distraction from Tories failing those in private sector'; in The Alternative; 17 July 2017.

'The reality of austerity Britain: work and life are now poor, precarious and uncertain'; in The Alternative; 23 October 2017.

'Affordable Housing: That seven years of government was nearly reduced to a bitter meme reflects disappointment with Conservative broken promises'; in The Alternative; 27 November 2017.

'The government social mobility commission resigns in protest at lack of progress on 75th anniversary of the Beveridge Report'; in The Alternative; 4 December 2017.

V. Little Victories

Changing things for the better, in the long run will not be the result of grandstanding. It will be hard fought and hard won, by thousands of people on a thousand issues, little victories that add up to a much bigger sense of momentum.

At times, the forces arrayed against progress can seem overwhelming. But for progressives, it's how things have always been. All we can do is pitch in. Start small. Begin by making the little differences that are within our reach.

There have been small victories in 2017. For instance, in Barcelona the municipal government began fining energy companies for cutting off the supply to vulnerable households. It's a small change. But it could make a practical difference and in communities across Europe, there will be stories like this. Little actions that, together, can build into a bigger change of the tide.

At the end of our "The Alternative Year" for 2016, we said that the lesson for 2017 was that social progressives remain the majority, their ideas can win, can engage and can empower. 2017 was a step forward on that road. Let's hope 2018 sees these truths lead to breakthroughs and, as ever, The Alternative be back in the New Year doing the best we can.

'Little Victories: Tackling energy costs would be a small win with big consequences'; in The Alternative; 21 August 2017.

'World on Fire: This week just shows how important empowered local government and international cooperation really are'; in The Alternative; 14 August 2017.

Italian Left: Upheavals reveal progressive cross-section - struggle between pro-European current and rejection of neoliberalism. Can they be reconciled?

Matteo Renzi speaks in a university in October 2015. Photograph: Matteo Renzi a San Giobbe by the Università Ca' Foscari Venezia (License) (Cropped)

The Italian left is going through another of its upheavals, a common feature of politics in Italy over the last quarter century. There have been regular clashes and breakups over details and personalities. But this time, there may be a deeper root that can tell us something about the wider experience of progressive politics.

The Democrats as a Broad Front

Since the collapse of the centrist, statist, pentarchy - the five party system - in the 1990s, following the Mani Pulite investigation into political corruption that blew up into an engulfing scandal, the Italian left and centre has struggled to organise stable parties and coalitions.

At the centre of most efforts build a stable organisation of left and centre parties and supporters was Romano Prodi. He was a central figure in the movements La Margherita (The Daisy), L'Ulivo (The Olive Tree), and L'Unione. Prodi also played a central role in getting the broad and varied parties to agree to form the Partito Democratico.

The Democratic Party, the culmination of longstanding efforts to get the left to work together, eventually united most of those who might label themselves democrats - from democratic socialists to christian democrats, along with republicans, socialists, greens and progressive liberals.

But it seems to it wasn't to last. The present discord began with the leadership of Pier Luigi Bersani. From the old left of the movement, Bersani is a former member of the preceding Communist Party and the Democrats of the Left. When Bersani won the party leadership in 2009, it created a rift with centrist, liberal and christian democratic members of the party. They felt it confirmed the Democrats' drift leftwards and some decided to split away, to form new centrist parties.

Bersani, however, still won the primary for the Democrats' electoral coalition, 'Italia. Bene Comune' - which united both the mainstream Democrats and the green-socialist Sinistra Ecologia Liberta, 'Left Ecology Freedom'. Despite promising early polling numbers, the electoral list slipped back over the course of the campaign.

In the 2013 election, thanks to the electoral system, Bersani's Democrats took a narrow majority in the Chamber of Deputies, but the fell short in the Senate. The centre-right of Silvio Berlusconi regained ground and the anti-establishment, libertarian-right, Movimento 5 Stelle (Five Star Movement) showed surprising strength. In fact, the Democrats only achieved second-most votes among individual parties, behind Grillo's M5S

A tense period followed in which Bersani tried to find common ground with this new presence in the Italian Parliament - refusing to engage with Berlusconi and the right. However, Bersani's efforts failed. When a President failed to be elected, thanks in part to his own movement failing to agree on a candidate - with even Romano Prodi unable to gain general support - Bersani resigned his leadership.

Rise, Fall and Rise of the Renziani

Since 2013, the Democrats have been through several leaders and Prime Ministers. The resignation of Bersani had cleared the way for the centrist candidate of choice, Mayor of Florence Matteo Renzi - who had been compared to Tony Blair. Renzi's leadership, and Premiership, lasted three years.

During that time it was the turn of the left of the party to drift away, as Renzi held to the course of an unrepentant social democrat of the new style, embracing neoliberalism and adapting to it. That meant implementing measures to meet European Union and Eurozone conditions, in particular 'labour reforms' - the relaxing of employment laws to make hiring and firing easier, that have been deeply unpopular on the left, across Europe.

However, Renzi brought about his own, as it would turn out temporary, downfall with the constitutional referendum held last winter. Seeking to change the electoral system to reflect that of Germany, Renzi staked his leadership on the referendum. This was a gamble that Matteo Renzi lost.

With defeat, Renzi resigned the Premiership. He also resigned the party leadership, but announced his intention to run again. This announcement drove many on the left - socialists, democratic socialists, and even social democrats of strong feeling and other progressives who wish to reject the neoliberal system - to break away from the Democrats. That included party grandees like Bersani and Massimo D'Alema.

Renzi took back the party leadership with a resounding victory. But that has just created a new problem. While Renzi now had control of the Democrats - with a clear Renziani politics that is pro-European, liberal and centrist - he has few external allies.

The leftist groups that broke away formed a series of parties - Movimento Democratico e Progressista (MDP, social democratic), Possibile (progressive), and Campo Progressista (CP, democratic socialist) - that have refused to form an electoral alliance with the Renziani Democrats for the election next year. Instead, along with Sinistra Italiana (SI, democratic socialist), these new parties are organising a new alliance called Liberi e Uguali (LeU/LE), or 'Free and Equal', with the intention to stand against the Democrats as a left alternative option next year.

With left cooperation rejected, Renzi is pursuing the path of Emmanuel Macron, driving the Democrats in the direction of pro-European liberals and will have to pitch for new allies among centre parties - like Piu Europa (+Europa, PE), 'More Europe', that includes Emma Bonino's Italian Radicals.

Cross-section of the Left

This fragmentation, this new unwillingness, exposes a cross-section of the Left that is becoming apparent - and not just in Italy. On the one hand, there is a growing call to ditch neoliberalism. On the other, a strong pro-European sentiment - particularly among young people.

The search for unity and success for the left in Italy led to the assembly of a party out of a great many movements, with a great many ideological commitments. A way was found to find peace between social democrats, social liberals, democratic socialists, greens and even christian democrats.

That has now come apart over a split in priorities between rejecting neoliberalism and supporting the European Union.

Progressives need to wake up to the reality that these are not mutually opposed. They can be reconciled. But to do so means finding a way to reform Europe - to rebuild and renew the Social Europe, in line with democratic principles.

We need to reform Europe, to pursue a continent with a strong social chapter at it's heart. But the first step is learning to cooperate anew. Progressives of different strands in Italy found ways to work together. They, and progressives everywhere, need to do the same now.

The government social mobility commission resigns in protest at lack of progress on 75th anniversary of the Beveridge Report

Photograph: Steps to Success from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

The government's Social Mobility Commission has chosen, whether by coincidence or for significance, the 75th anniversary of the Beveridge Report to stand down in protest against a failure to make the promised progress towards a 'fairer Britain'.

Chaired by Alan Milburn, a former Labour minister, the Social Mobility Commission was set up under David Cameron and Nick Clegg and the Coalition. It's remit was to monitor government progress in tackling child poverty and ensuring opportunity.

However, 75 years after William Beveridge published his report on the welfare of Britain, this is still an unequal country. Over time, government's Labour and Conservative have struggled to match Beveridge's aims.

Milburn and the commission felt that progress had come to a halt altogether. At the heart of the problem, for all of these governments over time, is that the problems, identified in the Beveridge report, have been moved around rather than solved.

Greater wealth, generated in the particular since the 1970s, has not been shared. Rather it has been concentrated on a narrow few. The appearance of greater affluence has come largely courtesy of greater debt - the roots of further crises to come.

Public health has been improved by the National Health Service, but that institution has become a teetering colossus in need of a fresh new commitment, even as a crisis of mental illness is only beginning to be understood.

A new commitment is also needed to education. Britain is still short of the level of literacy needed to match its social mediums - in this case, the need is for broad computer literacy in an age of escalating technological developments.

As Beveridge struggled to find a housing solution in his day, so it remains a source of massive exploitation today. Homes are expensive to buy, and expensive and insecure to rent. Homebuilding has come close to a grinding halt, particularly homes for social rent.

That is the first four of Beveridge's five 'Great Evils': Want, Disease, Ignorance and Squalor - for which precarity has become the word of the day. But what of Idleness?

Unemployment remains. The target for Beveridge was below 3%, but it remains over 4% despite the highest number of people in employment ever

- suggesting the underlying proportions are not changing. Welfare and debt traps are inescapable for the poorest as jobs pay too little and are too insecure, leaving even households with two people in employment struggling and working poverty a very real problem.

And today, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation released a report detailing an increase in the overall number of children (up 400,000) and pensioners (up 300,000) in poverty - just in the last four years.

Beveridge's word, Idleness, covers a more painful reality where social mobility is hard to attain - where the poor are poor because they began their lives poor; because every step on the path that work provides out of poverty offers only a precarious footing.

Milburn has announced an intention to set up a new and independent social mobility institute. An independent perspective is important and all parties must be held to account.

But many of these post-Beveridge Great Evils are problems we have already known about. The next step for progressives is to start investing in the solutions, rather than continuing to play partisan games and moving them about.

What ideas are out there? On housing, the Scottish Government have just brought into force a new law that improves security of tenure for renters, and basic income is being given a trial in a number of cities and countries around the world.

There are ideas out there. Progressives need to back them and start fighting precarity, that has become the by-word on all fronts.

Affordable Housing: That seven years of government was nearly reduced to a bitter meme reflects disappointment with Conservative broken promises

Conservative flagship housing policies have yet to deliver anything even resembling an affordable housing market where young people can get their foot on the ladder.

When the phrase "No Deposit Required" started trending on social media on Sunday, there was a rumble of excitment. Unfortunately, it was not trending for the reason that people, momentarily, thought it was (it was actually a gambling promotion).

The mistaken belief was that it was a brave new housing policy announcement, with an level of ambition that might make a real dent in the housing crisis. A policy that might really help make home ownership affordable.

The trend quickly became filled with the same joke - "I thought this was a housing policy, but..." - and, for a moment, seven years of government teetered on the brink of being reduced to a single bitter meme.

That disappointment is dangerous for such a weak government and, that it spread so easily in a free form moment, is a big threat to a party that relies so heavily on well practised, old media control over the message and tone of politics.

The Conservatives rely on controlling public discourse and their grip is slipping. That is a sign of Conservative failure, symbolised by Philip Hammond's Autumn Budget in which he promised help to young people toward owning homes.

The breakdown of his signature offer of cutting stamp duty for first time buyers, however, is a narrow policy whose benefit will mostly be helpful to those who are already home owners - a key Conservative audience - and beyond a narrow group, may actually lead to homes being more expensive.

While Hammond put his faith in tinkering around the edges, with some subtle shifts in regulation, it's clear that out there in the public imagination tackling the growing crisis of affordable housing is going to take bigger ideas.

The fact that there was excitment about a policy of no deposits when buying a house - a policy that would come at an extraordinary cost, even for renters - shows just how far the May-Hammond government is from the scale of response the public is expecting.

For Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, that will be music to their ears - perhaps a sign that their message is getting through or has a receptive audience. However, Labour is not free from singeing by the burn of this particular trending topic.

Housing is an issue that no party has adequately dealt with - not even William Beveridge, when he drew his ideas for the welfare system, had an answer for housing.

Homes are too expensive and the growth and security of incomes is low and sliding. Land and property remain archaic, rentier dominated, sectors - cartels like great spiders sat in webs in the midst our economy, catching our resources, extracting and hoarding them.

Conservative failures and broken promises have fed disappointment that risks turning bitter. Progressives must take seriously the need to unravel these webs, and push out the fat lazy spiders, on which so much of our economic potential is snagged.

Budget 2017: Cautious Hammond has salves not solutions, as Budget falls short of action

Chancellor Philip Hammond was in bombastic mood for delivering his second Budget of 2017, making jokes despite the Office of Budget Responsibility's projections that listed productivity as down and growth falling. He brushed past those figures with lots of Brexiter-placating language and an opening salvo of £3bn put aside to get the country Brexit ready.

In the build-up to the Budget, Sarah Ann Harris in The Huffington Post UK posted an article listing those measures that charities said would be needed to address Britain's varied crises. Together, they would have required at least £10bn of new funding.

In the Budget, Hammond acknowledged the pressures and hardships and said that he was prepared to invest. But when the announcements came, they ultimately offered no more than half of the requested amounts to alleivate hardships.

On the disastrous impact of Universal Credit, Hammond went halfway towards the requests, even of MPs on his own benches, of reducing restraints on claimants - taking one week rather than two out of the waiting time to receive funds. With other easing measures, Hammond called this a £1.5bn package of support. Yet this was step didn't even reach the minimum requests for alleviation.

On the NHS, the Chancellor offered up some large numbers. These break down to smaller numbers, though. The figure of £10bn, for capital spending - infrastructure, buildings, etc - is spread across the five years of the Parliament, meaning no more than £2mn-£3mn a year. Another £2.8bn will be spread over three years, with just £350mn front-loaded to avert crisis this winter.

There was an olive branch to nurses in the form of a commitment to fund a pay rise for nurse, but this was conditional on negotiating a new contract settlement with the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

To address the housing crisis, and in particular affordability, the Chancellor announced a £44bn fund. This was, however, then broken down. This fund would be only partly public funding, with the other parts being loans and guarantees, and was intended to run through to the middle of the 2020s.

That could stretch that £44bn over eight years, or even more, meaning the yearly amount would actually be much lower, at around £5bn-£6bn - of which only a part would be a public funding rise.

At most this overall package, to tackle a range of social crises in Britain, will come to £2.4mn/year, plus only a part of the around £6bn/year package being invested in the housing market. That looks like being a long way short of the £10bn minimum requested.

The Chancellor found some money to invest, with £500m for various areas of tech, a few billion more to extend the Nation Productivity Fund, and a new £2.5bn fund to support new innovative, knowledge intensive, companies. Another £1.7bn was found for cities and city regions for various local infrastructure projects. The reality though, is that most of that will be spread over several years.

The Conservative Chancellor framed this as rejecting extra borrowing and instead using some of the headroom within his fiscal rules. However, there are still questions over how the Chancellor is going to fund these and the reality is there will still be lots more borrowing, with the process of eliminating the  debt and deficit extended over a longer period.

The headline offer made by Hammond was to end Stamp Duty for first time home buyers on homes up to £300,000. While this was trailed as a boon to young people, the reality is that it will serve current homeowners best - likely helping and subsidising current people who are, on the face of it, more likely to already be Tory voters.

The cautious Chancellor had hedged his bets with this Budget. He has tried to appeal to all sides, to make everyone feel like they came out of this Budget with a little something. The reality is that no one has gotten what they wanted, although Brexiters may have been midly appeased by £3bn and adopting their rhetoric.

Social pressures in Britain demand a response, but the Chancellor has decided not to act. Hammond has stuck with cheap salves rather than paying for the solutions. To make real progress, we need more from the Exchequer.

Budget 2017: Hammond gets a second attempt at Budget 2017, but will he act?

Photograph: NATO Summit Wales 2014 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (License) (Cropped)

On Wednesday, Chancellor Philip Hammond will present his second Budget of 2017. It has been trailed with promises of doing more. But the big question is whether any of the measures will be enough.

Between the growth of wages being anaemic, price rises eating away at households and the private sector not stimulating any positive movement by holding back from investment, it's being argued that Hammond has cornered himself against his own fiscal rules.

The government has made big promises - or at least big announcements, with little that is tangible behind them. The governing reality has frequently been the denial of the existence of a crisis, making excuses or tinkering around the edges.

Consider the big pledges Hammond has made on housing. The Chancellor has refused much needed additional funding, so tinkering measures - such as adjusting stamp duty or loosening restrictions on councils borrowing to build homes - are expected to carry the burden of getting the government to 300,000 new homes a year.

That will mean achieving the completion of around 100,000 extra homes, each year, to reach the target. Which makes it relevant to note that this is, of course, the same pledge that hasn't been met over the last seven years - at times struggling to reach 100,000 at all, never mind an extra 100,000.

These kind of promises, made over and again only to be missed, serve to undermine future pledges to do more. So too, do gaffes like Philip Hammond's Mitt Romney -esque announcement on Sunday that there are no unemployed people (there are).

It hurts the government too, that funding is denied where it is asked for by services, but is magically pulled out of thin air to solve the latest Conservative political crisis - a billion to secure a DUP-Con deal, for example.

The denials, excuses and tinkering extend to other areas. The NHS is expected to be denied the £4 billion in extra funding it's chief has demanded and the existence of a healthcare crisis has been refused.

These attitudes, these tinkering measures, point towards Hammond's approach to the last Budget, which responded to big challenges with a 'steady as she goes' attitude, spending in the millions not the billions.

There are questions still ahead, however, and people who remain vulnerable. What tinkering will help those women, particularly young women, suffering from period poverty? How will tinkering, with cautious suggestions of reducing waiting times, deal with welfare debt traps?

Universal Credit, in the midst of a disastrous rollout, is exacerbating problems - like mounting rental arrears and the simple fact of more than a month without a means on which to live - that are entangled with all areas of life for the most vulnerable.

While the government may be more focused on avoiding any further embarrassments, of which it has had a string lately, by avoiding any backtracks and climbdowns - such as the major reversal on self-employed National Insurance changes back in the spring.

But now is not the time for 'little c' conservatism. Change will perhaps undermine the Conservative position, ever talking of the chaos Labour will unleash by deviating from their fiscal restrictions.

But the Tories failure to match their rhetoric with reality is a party affair. The wellbeing of the people has to come before the wellbeing of the party. It is time to act.

Argentina midterms raise the question: What's so funny about compassionate realism?

Mauricio Macri's hold on La Casa Rosada lightly reinforced by small gains at the Argentina legislative midterms. Photograph: La Casa Rosada from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

The midterm elections in Argentina did little to settle the future of Argentina. President Mauricio Macri's movement gained a few seats, just enough to keep his project rolling forward.

That Macri's project is essentially austerity in a more extreme context is important for progressives to consider. It presents the epitome of what the Centre-Right consider the justification for strong dose of 'realism', but raises the question of why that has to be delivered in the form of harsh measures?

The Midterms elections covered a third of the Senate and half of the lower House. It would have been hoped by Cambiemos to be an opportunity to reinforce Macri's presidency with a stronger legislative contingent - just 16 of 72 in the Senate, with just 86 Deputies out of 257 in the Chamber, to around 46 and 105 for various Justicialist groups combined, respectively.

The four biggest parties each had about half of seats their Chamber seats up for reelection, while most of the Senate seats were being defended by Justicialists (Peronists).

As it happened Cambiemos made gains, though they were few. The coalition took 19 seats, not enough reach a majority, while those were offset by the 25 seats gained by former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, rallying voters from various populist parties to her particular faction.

Even if this result is more than Macri and Cambiemos might have feared, it is still less than they will have hoped. Part of the reason why may be that, after two years in office, Macri has yet to deliver a deep sea shift in the country's economic condition.

That shouldn't really be a massive surprise, because two years is nothing. But the public are restless and what Macri has asked for is a huge change in approach from the Kirchnerist-Peronist years.

Not least are the cuts to subsidies that help with the cost of living for low income families. This is the austerity programme familiar to many progressives around the world.

In Argentina this has particular significance. In reason years, at the least, the Kirchnerist-Peronist populists - especially under the presidency of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner - have tended to offer up big promises, comfortable lies to package harder truths and deeper crises.

Of relevance to all of those resisting austerity is the response of Centre-Right, Argentina as elsewhere: to serve up cold reality and a cold shoulder.

The Cambiemos coalition, that Macri has serving up a meagre helping, includes most of Argentina's Centre and Soft Left - social democrats and social liberals - and you have to wonder have these partners feel about their direction.

Macri has bet the house on austerity, in the meantime putting the poorest in some jeopardy, gambling that foreign private investors will step in and take a chance on Argentina. But it's yet to pan out that way.

The midterms buy Macri some space. Over that past year he has poured the blame for the present situation on the Kirchner "K" movement - calling it the "K Inheritance", probably fairly. But that approach will only work for so long.

Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is already building for a comeback, taking seats at the midterms while Macri's approval ratings hover dangerously low at 41%/46% (approve/disapprove).

Macri has offered some consolation to his Cambiemos partners. Last year he announced what he called a 'Marshall Plan' - a reference to the huge public investment made by the US government in it's allies after World War II.

In reality, it was a public-private investment initiative foucsed on lowering the cost of business - in that conservative vein of reduced costs hopefully leading to reduced prices and reduced cost of living.

But these pledges are coming alongside efforts to force Trade Unions and dockworkers to accept pro-competition measures - and while cornered, they are far from convinced.

All of this leads back to the central question. Populists offer an unrealistic view smothered in giveaways and the Right demand a reaction steeped in a cold austere reality. The question is, why can't we address reality with warmth?

Why is it so difficult to imagine a compassionate realism? To pursue a course that does not abandon the most vulnerable to the mercy of corporate interests and charity, when righting a sinking ship.

Politics in Argentina is raising this question. Progressives and their allies the world over need to find a way to respond.

While the government will want to clear up its messy year of Finance Bills with an orderly status quo Budget, it needs to be bolder and start investing

Next month is Chancellor Philip Hammond's first Autumn Budget. Yet the pomp for the event might be diminished by the fact that the previous finance bill will only just reach it's third reading this Tuesday.

The Chancellor's Spring Budget had been one for pluggling holes. There were Reliefs for those affected by business rate changes. A tax rise for the self-employed (on which he later u-turned). And there was spending - in the millions rather than billions - across key areas like health and social care, construction and education.

All of these came as the clearance of the debt and deficit, and restoration of growth - the long term promises of the Conservatives - remained a long way from being a achieved.

With the truncated Parliamentary session, the Finance Bill reappeared in the Summer once the new MPs took their seats. It has a been a messy and confusing year that will have left many in confusion as to what is and isn't in the Treasury's plans.

The first obstacle the government must navigate is the amendments to the Finance Bill. Labour and Cooperative backbencher Stella Creasy put forward a series of amendments that press the government to action on tax evasion and the exploitative gains made by those corporations who engaged in PFI, private-public investment schemes under Blair and Brown.

These are yet more subjects on which the Tories are divided. And Labour pressure, with Conservative backbench support has ensured that changes will need to be made to the Universal Credit rollout come the Autumn Budget. 

That will have to mean another government U-turn - a term that is coming to be the lasting testament to how ineffective Conservative government has been. They promised stability and only produce confusion.

To that end, the instincts of Hammond and the government will surely be for this messy year of Finance Bills to be tied off with a clean, efficient budget that gets everyone on the same page. To resist change. Status quo may well be the order of the day.

And yet, action is needed. Globalisation continues to reek havoc on communities, as outside of the rich bubbles were technology and advantage and money clusters, investment is dire.

As Mariana Mazzucato stresses, the big private players do not take risks and will not redress this balance themselves. The state needs to invest and create markets, to be the pioneer that the private sector simply isn't.

The 2017 budget has to tackle the lack of opportunities, the need for innovative new industry with the training to staff them, and the cost of living that suppresses and excludes so many. Government can only achieve these things if the public sector steps out in front and takes the lead.

The reality of austerity Britain: work and life are now poor, precarious and uncertain

People gather in Manchester to march against austerity past the Conservative Party Conference 2017.

The reality of the Tories' austerity Britain was exposed in the figures released last week. Those figures revealed that wage growth remains poor at 2.2%, barely above pre-crash levels and falling behind consumer prices rises, with inflation now at 2.9%.

But what do these figures tell us about the big picture of austerity Britain?

Consider Theresa May's response when confronted on issues like poor wages - unemployment is falling. Whenever the PM is confronted, she turns to the unemployment/employment figures. The trouble is, you can't just say that employment is in itself a fix.

Especially when it evidentially isn't the case. Britain might have it's highest recorded employment and lowest unemployment, but what do we know about the quality of life that is providing? What we know, is that working poverty is now very high.

There is no essential truth that employment fixes people's problems or empowers them. Work can only bring liberty under certain conditions.

And austerity Britain is a land of precarity, where social security has been replaced with - or perhaps, outsourced to - uncertain and scarce low paid work. All of which is now threatened by automation, and pits ordinary people against each other in long applicant lists.

This is only heightened by the flaming wreckage of the welfare system. People in need are left without support, and in mounting arrears, for a month and a half when claim out of work support - a situation the government are struggling to even convince there own party to support.

Inevitably, Brexit comes into this. It is important that the ideological case behind leaving the European Union was never made clear. But it's argument for 'freer trade' and less regulation, is a pitch to go further down the road on which we currently travel - to a place of permanently less surety or stability.

But why would those who have campaigned so hard for Brexit want this?

Pete North, Editor of LeaveHQ, blogged how - what he himself described as - the long, painful years of austerity still to come, will in fact be a price worth paying (by ordinary people whose lives would be left in tatters) to accomplish a kind of vague social change, that displayed for more ignorance about young people than any comprehensive thought on the subject.

The governments of David Cameron and Theresa May have pledged a more compassionate conservatism, that takes care of those most in need, while being responsible with the public finances. They have been failures on both fronts.

None of their measures have delivered on even one of these aims. The debt continues to climb. Meeting deficit targets is still delayed. All the pain of austerity and ordinary lives dropped in uncertainty, and the government has nothing to show for it - neither in the public finances or in producing a compassionate society.

Seven years of Conservative government has been a diastrous experiment. It's time to get off this road and find a new way forward.

Labour and the Basic Income: To make automation work for people, first the relationships between people and society, work and welfare, must be reframed

To tackle the problems of the future, first we need to rethink our approach to work and welfare. Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

In the passed few weeks, the Labour Party has been talking up it's determination to make technological advances work for ordinary people, rather than disenfranchise them.

For the party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the focus has been on the workplace. Corbyn has raised the question of how to use cooperative collective ownership of businesses by workers to put automation in the hands of people - rather than let automation be their replacement in the hands of their bosses.

Meanwhile, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has focused on the state role. McDonnell, talking at a Manchester anti-austerity event, spoke of a renewed drive for public investment as the first step to anchoring technology to people and their interests.

It was left to the Labour National Youth Conference to contribute the third integral component, with the future of the Labour Party backing a motion in support of the universal basic income.

The motion acknowledged both the problems with Britain's welfare system and the concerns for the future being raised by the rise of automation. To answer these, the LNYC motion presented the basic income.

The basic income is a universal form of welfare, a payment received - with very little bureaucracy - by all citizens. It is designed to cover the basic essentials of life, so as to end poverty and it's coercive power over how people choose to live.

Labour usually falls in with the same basic conceit, shared by most right wing liberal groups, social democrats and worker's parties: that life begins and ends with work - or rather, with wage labour. That work of this sort is a fundamental component and an axiom in the building of any social model.

Work, to 'earn' the right to live in exchange, is treated as a value. As a moral component essential to any social contract. But for progressives, this cannot be the last word.

If we are to have true social progress, we must start first with a base of no poverty and no homelessness. We must begin with the right to live. If we care about choice, about liberty and justice, we must not let coercion remain the starting point for engaging with society.

For the Labour Party in particular, embrace of that wage labour conceit verges on hypocrisy - the party of workers buying into the 'moral value' of 'working for a living'.

There has not been nearly enough scepticism of it, or recognition that it is a value of limited scope. Restricted to the specific benefits it delivers within a specific social system. A system in which even certain forms of work are prioritised above others, and were these forms of work are made nearly mandatory.

Right now there is a crisis in welfare - but not the way the Conservatives think. The crisis in welfare is one of dignity. Conservative cuts have strangled Britain's social security safety net.

That has left vulnerable people at the hands of an exploitative market and put through probing, demoralising, assessments by organisations with weak ethical codes and goals that run counter to the wellbeing of people who desperately need support.

If Labour are really going to reform this country, to tackle these kinds of injustice, they first need to get the foundations right. By no means is basic income a panacea. But it is a fairer and less coercive starting point for a society.

As more and more work becomes automated, as paid work becomes more scarce, we need that fairer starting point as a basis upon which to build a new kind of relationship between people and society - one that acknowledges, from the start, their basic right to live.

Government, Parliament and the Centralisation of Power: If stability is what you want, you must resist the Government's attempts to strip power from Parliament

Parliament is back in session this week and the neverending turmoil inside the Conservative Party continues. In doing so, it exposes one of the primary weaknesses of a presidential system - and one of the reasons why the UK doesn't have one.

Or rather, why the UK doesn't have a presidential system in theory, at least. During the Tory conference, Theresa May's disastrous speech contained an apology for running too presidential an election campaign. But the grounds for such a campaign have been long in the preparing and only exposes the dramatic shift towards the centralising of decision-making at westminster.

This is a trend stretching back decades and is one of those trends for which New Labour were particularly criticised for not reversing. Even while some powers have been devolved, the Cabinet has continued to accumulate power at the expense of Parliament.

Theresa May's Government has threatened the most drastic veer into excluding Parliament in recent times, with parts of the Brexit Bill. The bill sparked controversy for potentially allowing the Government, embodied in the Cabinet, to make major changes to the law - even to the constitution - without first submitting them to Parliament for scrutiny and vote.

There defense amounted to 'we'll be responsible with that power', but that isn't enough. This is just the latest step in a long term trend. Parliament has been getting weaker for decades and with it has come a, perhaps unintended, consequence: instability.

In the strictest terms, the constitutional and governmental powers of the United Kingdom are vested in Parliament. It is the supreme authority in state. Collectively, the power of the state is embodied by - primarily - the Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

Theresa May promised a state that was strong and stable centred on her personal rule. So did David Cameron. And neither on them has been able to deliver. In the late twentieth century and the early part of the new millenium, there were brief periods when the winds were just right, or the two party system rigid and exclusive enough, that singular leaders could stick around for a while.

But betting on stability rooted in the personal longevity of a single person would get you long odds and for good reason. Power embodied in a single person or a single party is inherently unstable, because their power base is fundamentally just a fraction of the people of a country.

That the power of state is, in theory, vested in Parliament is above all a reflection of the futility minority rule. Theresa May can never offer stability if power is not rooted in inclusive, democratic assemblies.

As her speech showed, power hangs on a thread. A persistent cough can weaken the power of one person. And if that person must embody the state and all it's people and power, you start down a dark road that leads nowhere good.

When the Brexit Bill returns, MPs - especially Tories - must be brave enough to resist to flagrant concentration of power. If for nothing else, to put an end to a trend that has guaranteed a near permanent condition of instability that affects everyone.

The Opposition: The progressive parties have begun to look outwards again, but cooperation is still far away

The opening fortnight of Britain's political conference season was all about the opposition. First the Liberal Democrats and then the Labour Party took their turns to gather, talk policy and present their priorities to the country.

There were two notable currents: the first was a focus on calling out others for their failings, rather than presenting plans that can fix those problems; the second was the lack of some common progressive goodwill.

The Liberal Democrat conference came first. The most prominent product was the acceptance by leader Vince Cable, on behalf of the party, that they must do right by students, with a plan now in the works to back a graduate tax to replace tuition fees.

That aside, the Lib Dem conference was policy light. The focus turned instead to establishing who the party opposes, which it turns out is a long list - and included Jeremy Corbyn and the supposed 'hard left' that surround him.

What Cable did however do, was put forward an outline of a government committed to the fair taxation of wealth, to public & private sector cooperation, and a government prepared to intervene to correct market failures - laying out a centre-left stance for the Lib Dems that leaves plenty of room for progressive cooperation.

The Labour conference provided a little more in the way of policy. However, the announcements didn't stretch far beyond the limits of the 2017 manifesto. John McDonnell said that Labour intend to tackle PFI and end it's siphoning of public sector resources.

There was also a plan announced to tackle credit card debt, along the same lines as pay day loans - by capping the maximum interest that can be accrued on debts owed.

In his leader's speech, Jeremy Corbyn followed Cable's lead and had criticism for many - including the right-wing press and the US President. He said that the country had become more brutal and less caring under this Conservative 'regime'.

Corbyn too stated values on which progressives can work together. On froeign policy, Corbyn argued that rhetoric must be wound down, that dialogue must be opened, that peace must be pursued and cooperation must be at the heart. He argued that the British values of democracy and human rights could be deployed selectively.

However, the leader speeches of both Corbyn and Cable focused on laundry lists of people deserving criticism. Cable even took shots at Corbyn and his leadership, criticising the 'hard left' drift of the Labour Party under the long time Islington North MP.

Corbyn didn't bother to mention the Lib Dems, but - from Labour's point of view - that's hardly a surprise. Labour still see the Lib Dems as rivals and, at present, vanquished rivals that are beneath their notice.

The continued lack of some sort of common goodwill between progressive parties is disappointing, though not surprising. No one ever said that building a progressive alliance would be easy. But taking shots at each other is a waste of breath.

It is also doubly negative. On the one hand it serves to divide opposition to the Tories. While on the other it also ignores how close on policy the two largest (historical) progressive parties are to one another.

The division between their manifestos in 2017 was as just thin as it has been since the 1920s. The Liberal Democrats and Labour pursue similar goals and even take a similar economic approach, rooted in Keynesian thinking.

Herein lies the fundamental problem of the left: the inability to prioritise what we have in common, over what would be a cause for division - a failure to develop a dialogue that allows for dissent to live alongside cooperation.

It is good to see the opposition parties looking outward again, rather than turning in on themselves. The narrative around Corbyn has already begun to shift, to morph into something that accepts him, and crafts a place for the movement in the conventional order.

However, the long term future of the left, of progressive politics, lies in building dialogue. And, hopefully, upon that foundation then cooperation and ultimately an alliance between progressives.

What next for Merkel and Germany?

Photograph: Bundestag by Hernán Piñera in 2011 (License)

When the exit poll for yesterday's German Federal Election was released, it provided a lot of expected answers. Angela Merkel will be Chancellor for a fourth time and the far-right has managed to be elected to the Bundestag for the first time since the war.

The numbers where not quite as expected though. Merkel's CDU and their traditional opponents, the social democratic SPD, both managed to underperform polls that had already suggested losses were to be expected. The CDU fell nearly 9%, the SPD 5%.

There were gains though for the Left and Centre parties. Die Grune and Die Linke, the Greens and the Left, both gained half a percent, while the market liberal FDP did better than expected to reach around 11% and will return from losing all their seats in 2013.

The far-right also made larger gains than expected, though they failed to breach what seems to be the West European threshold of 13% - in Britain, Netherlands, France and now Germany no far-right party has managed to get beyond that number.

What Next?

Once the calculations of seat numbers are completed, the next step will be to form a government. The most likely combination at the present time will be a Black-Gold-Green combination: CDU-FDP-Grune.

It has been said that the great difficulty there is in pinning down what Markel and the CDU actually stand for has played largely to their benefit. It will help them again in trying to form a government uniting conservatives, liberals and greens.

While the CDU and FDP have previously formed coalition governments with distinctly pro-market, pro-business, centre-right leanings, the presence of Die Grune in government would likely force the parties to at least stick in the Centre ground that the SPD and CDU grand coalition had navigated.

What that opens up if the possibility of progress on social issues. Both the FDP and the Grune care about sustainability, about human rights & civil liberties, and about Europe (though not without some Eurosceptics in the FDP fold).

With the social democrats and the radical democrats of SPD and Die Linke in opposition, socially progressive parties will have strong presence in government and hold a narrow majority in the Bundestag - not counting those numbered among the CDU.

Things will be unlikely to be that simple. The FDP has been somewhat erratic on policy in recent years - likely a result of their collapse after coalition with Merkel's CDU - and have been trying to find a distinct voice.

As far-right success in the UK - in the polls and at the ballot box though not in terms of seats - spooked the harder right of the Conservative Party, the predominantly conservative CDU may have the same struggle ahead of it.

Die Grune will also face a difficult few weeks ahead. Presented with the opportunity to push, a possibly very strong, environmental and sustainability agenda from government will be weighed up against the damage that an alliance with conservatives and pro-business liberals may do to their image in the long term.

Resist the Far-Right

As for the far-right, the narrative of a rising tide has failed to produce the sweeping victories predicted. The return of the far-right in Germany is significant, but it fits better with a broader Western European context than with an historical German context.

And that can be seen in where their support came from. Mirroring patterns elsewhere, three quarters of the far-right's voters came from other parties or where previously non-voters: disaffection, disillusionment and lost trust that follows a broader pattern.

It is also unlikely that the full 24% of those who are not first time voters for the far-right (approximately 1.5m) will be racists, fascists or otherwise broadly intolerant. As elsewhere, the far-right in Germany is visciously, bitterly, internally divided.

In the Bundestag they will be frozen out and they will face protests and public outcry everywhere they go. The far-right remains a long, long way from power and influence.

There is a chance in Germany to make progress in the next four yearsand a chance to repair the hurts born of a decade of crisis. Getting on with salving those wounds will sap the far-right's appeal. Greater exposure and scrutiny may do the rest.

References

'German election: Merkel wins fourth term, AfD nationalists rise'; on the BBC; 25 September 2017.

Alberto Nardelli's 'Germany – #BTW17 election – ARD exit poll'; from Twitter; 24 September 2017.

'German elections 2017: full results - Angela Merkel has secured a fourth term as German chancellor after Sunday’s election for a new Bundestag, the federal parliament. However, her authority has been diminished. Meanwhile, the radical rightwing AfD has entered parliament as the third-largest party. We analyse the official results'; in The Guardian; 24 September 2017.

Jefferson Chase's 'What you need to know about Germany's liberals, the Free Democratic Party: After four years without representation in the Bundestag, the FDP is back. Here's what you need to know about the small party that could hold the keys to power'; from DW; 24 September 2017.

'Also for context: far-right in WEur take votes from most parties & mix it with (usually) non-voters. Disaffection/lost trust factors. #BTW17'; from The Alternative on Twitter; 24 September 2017.

German Elections: Angela Merkel will be the stern, bleak but sturdy breakwater people accept amidst interminable turmoil

Photograph: Angela Merkel in 2012 from the European People's Party (License) (Cropped)

On Sunday, Angela Merkel leads her party to the polls looking to secure a fourth term as Chancellor of Germany. The polls suggest that she is on course to do it.

Despite her SPD rivals taking a poll lead for the first time in six years in February, Merkel's CDU now hold a fifteen point lead. But for all the hype, she is a problematic figure for progressives.

This certainly hasn't stopped her ascent. Merkel has arguably reached the apex of her political career, in the eyes of many even taking up the mantle of the leader of the free world (courtesy in part to the abdication of that role by a certain President of the United States).

Yet if Angela Merkel's way is the medicine for instability in Europe, then it is a bitter pill for progressives. Reform has been slow under CDU governments.

Merkel was late, and reluctant, to support a vote on equal marriage. While she conceded in allowing a vote to take place, she still voted against equality - a contest that she did however lose.

And though fiscal rectitude at home has steered away from slashing taxes in pursuit of debt reduction, for pro-European progressives Merkel's way is a doubled-edged sword.

While she is held as a key pillar in keeping the European Union standing, the rise of Merkel has coincided with the decline of Social Europe - in fact wolfgang schauble, her finance minister, has been the arch-enforcer of the austerity agenda that has Greece locked in a debt-spiral and the stern opponent of leniency.

The decline of a Social Europe, with a tendency toward long-termism and cooperation, has run opposite to growing instability, growing disatisfaction with globalisation and a wedge being driven between Northern and Southern Europe - typified in Greece.

Much of that decline and these growing problems have happened under the influence of conservative parties like the CDU hiding behind the symbols and offices of the EU to project their agendas.

Yet Merkel remains above these potential controversies. Caution leads her to an inoffensive and vague centre, where easy platitudes reign and moves are made only gradually - and only when the wind is firmly seen to be blowing in a decisive direction.

That tendency can be seen in the dramatic transition for Merkel in the last few years from a cold response to a frightened young child whose family faced deportation, to the embrace of refugees - opening the doors to relieve the pressure on Southern Europe.

A turn that, with substantial political consequence, has garnered fresh respect among younger voters. Through such means have Merkel and the CDU, conservative Christian Democrats, kept just ahead of the curve.

The Election

After seven years of government by the SPD and Gerhard Schroeder came to an end in 2002, there began a widening of the groups that won representation in the Bundestag, with the share of the vote for the biggest parties falling.

The 2013 election seemed to break that trend. The falling vote share of the big two reversed and party representation dropped from to four. The CDU established for themselves a commanding place - largely at the expense of their former coalition partners, the FDP.

However, 2017 seems likely to render 2013 just a blip in a larger trend. Polling suggests the two main parties will lose ground again and as many as six parties will win seats in the Bundestag for the first time since the 1950s.

The remarkable thing is that the CDU has over time proved itself far more resilient than the SPD to this fragmentation of the vote. More remarkable still is that in this election it will be young people who keep Merkel's conservative party in power. Their support has been critical in several recent regional elections.

The Oppostion

At the head of Merkel's opposition is Sigmar Gabriel and the SPD, the Social Democrats who have for the passed four years been her coalition partners in a grand coalition between the two main parties of German politics.

At times in the last few years, particularly back in February, Gabriel and the SPD would have been forgiven for thinking their opportunity had come to return to office as the senior party. Yet the lull in support for the CDU in February did not last.

Once again, the SPD will instead enter an election looking to stem the flow of support away to third parties - a pattern seen not just in Germany but across Europe where Social Democrats have struggled to find a narrative for the times.

This election will also likely see the return to the Bundestag of Merkel's former coalition partners the FDP - her free market liberal allies whose decline prompted her to warn the Coalition partners in Britain of the likely affect of such an arrangement on the Liberal Democrats' fortunes.

The FDP have slowly recovered across regional elections since they fell below the seat threshold in 2013 and are back up to 9% in the polls. Under Germany's proportional system that could deliver around 60 seats and could mean the return of a CDU-FDP government.

For the Left, influence in the next legislative term will depend on polls translating to seats for Die Linke (The Left) and Die Grune (The Greens), one democratic socialist, the other environmentally conscious and concerned about finding a sustainable future.

The strength of the big two, and especially their grand coalition of the passed four years, tends to freeze them out of federal politics. But both parties put pressure of the SPD to move Leftwards and away from the CDU and the far-right AfD - who threaten the SPD base in much the same way as UKIP have threatened Labour in Britain.

It is perhaps testament to the centrist positioning that Merkel pursues, that there is talk that her administration may even turn to the Greens as a possible coalition partner after Sunday - with her decision to begin a nuclear phase out as a statement of credentials.

A Bitter Pill

Amidst the turmoil - the returned spectre of nuclear war, regional wars and the resultant refugee crisis, fundamentalist terrorism, the slide into authoritarianism in Eastern Europe, the return of Nationalism to the West - Angela Merkel is, understandably, seen as a fixed point.

A stable, constant, and reassuring presence. There will not be many voices that cry out loudly against the result, if she is reelected to office. It will be seen as inevitable. But there is something bitter in the triumph of conservatism amidst neverending crisis.

What the progressive heart cries out for is something, for Germany and for Europe, that can roll back the darkness. What they will accept for now is the stern, bleak but sturdy breakwater.