Pay Cap: Hammond focus on 'overpaid' public sector workers is just a distraction from Tories failing those in private sector

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

After a month of being pummelled over the issue, the Chancellor Philip Hammond tried to reframe the issue of public sector pay cap debate. The core of Hammond's approach was to draw a comparison.

That comparison says that workers in the public sector have it good compared to what those in the private sector were dealing with. Don't be fooled. The Tory angle on public sector pay is a distraction. One that covers for the party's failure to deliver for private sector workers.

In the private sector, low pay and precarity prevail. Working poverty is a reality in 2017.

And the Tories response is to using poor conditions in the private sector to justify undermining conditions in the public sector. And, in time, be sure that pitting workers against one another in envy will be turned back to the further diminishing of the conditions of those in the private sector.

The Conservatives do continue to speak of these restraints on pay, and low pay, as if they are temporary. A part of a restructuring process. But their intended solutions stink of permanence or a lack of vision that narrows their view to piecemeal policy solutions.

For instance, when Justine Greening, the Education Minister, addressed a social mobility conference. She told them that the government's plan was to tailor education towards giving people the high-level skills they needed to achieve their own advancement.

She promised a meritocracy. A system that rewarded hard work with advancement.

But that pledge is belied by the economy under the Tories. Yes, unemployment is down according to statistics (with some glaring flaws). But it isn't a coincidence that unemployment is down while self-employment, second jobs and precarity are all on the rise.

It is something that can be seen clearest in those places where Thatcher's dismantlement of the public sector industries hit hardest. Having skills and the will to work hard isn't enough. Social mobility begins with money. With huge, long term investment.

It isn't enough to pursue personal empowerment, expanding knowledge and skills, if they're are rendered impotent by their environment. Putting achievement down to personal work ethic is an evasion. An excuse not to reform. There can be no piecemeal solutions.

Only holistic, joined up approaches will make a difference. Only coordinating trade unions and worker's rights, a universal welfare settlement that counters precarity, and tackling the cost of living - and many other aspects - will address the deep problems in Britain.

And the Conservatives that have shown this is not, and will not, be their approach. To them, it appears, the struggle - held at bay by 'dependence creating' community support - carries a moral worth.

The world of work is changing. Perhaps even making towards its end. For progressives, an ideology that praises an anxious, desperate struggle for being a test of moral character is not a safe framework for ushering in that future.

It is even less so in the hands of a party that excuses how it has failed private sector workers by stirring up discontent with public sector workers - and who wish to further deconstruct safety nets even as working poverty spreads still in 2017.

Hammond's distraction just papers over the cracks. Punitive action against public sector workers does nothing to improve the conditions in the private sector. The problems of the day call for progressive solutions, with long term investment backing efforts to fight anxiety and build far more life security into working life.

Liberal Democrat Leadership: A chance to breathe progressive energy into a party sorely in need of a fresh start

Last month Tim Farron chose to resign as leader of the Liberal Democrats. This article won't focus on that, other than where it affects the way forward. However, his resignation does present the party with an opportunity.

The party has been on a rollercoaster, from their first experience of government in decades to a catastrophic loss of public trust that resulted in an electoral collapse that lost the party all but eight seats in the Commons.

Under Farron, who had no part in the Coalition, it appeared that things were turning around. Recoveries in council elections, and the remarkable by-election upset in Richmond Park, suggested that the pro-European party would do well at a general election.

The results were, by most measures, disappointing. Yes there were gains, with some of the party's bigger names returning - even as others departed. But the party went hard on one issue and it didn't land. And there were also unhelpful distractions.

With yet another election unlikely to be far away, the party is at an impasse. There was no election surge and the party has no resonating message. It now has no leader either.

Contenders

The next leader has to grasp these challenge quickly and get on top of them. There can be no room for looking inwards. When nominations close in a week's time, the contenders putting themselves forward must give the party moving forward.

At the outset, it seemed like there would be an a list of experienced contenders to debate just how to do that. The favourites included the experienced former ministers Norman Lamb, Ed Davey and Vince Cable.

But the strong favourite was Jo Swinson. Not only would she have have been the party's first female leader - an important statement in itself - the party would have had in Swinson a liberal feminist at the helm outspoken and capable.

The biggest difficulty barrier ahead of her candidacy, it had seemed, was her time as a minister in the Coalition. Yet her early Parliamentary career was so tangled up with Cabinet collective responsibility, that her voting could only really be seen as representative of the Coalition as a whole.

That gives Swinson, in her return to the Commons, something near to a fresh start. A chance to establish her own agenda and to define herself, and her party, anew.

However, despite being labelled the favourite (by a wide margin), Swinson chose not to stand. She was promptly elected Deputy Leader, however, so her voice will not be missed at the head of the party.

Her choice not to stand would become a trend. Soon after, Ed Davey and Norman Lamb both announced they would not stand either. With no challenger yet coming forward, Vince Cable is at present the only candidate to become the next leader.

Renewal

Over the years, the liberal parties in Britain have found themselves caught between two movements. The free marketers have been pulled rightward by the Conservatives and the social liberals have been pulled leftward by Labour.

And yet, the Liberal Democrats seemed to be making inroads as an alternative progressive party to Labour until the 2010 general election. In longstanding liberal tradition, the party announced it would respect pluralism and go into coalition with the party with most seats and most votes.

That decision, that led to Cameron and Clegg announcing the Coalition in the Rose Garden, ultimately proved wildly unpopular. It hangs over the party two years on. As the presumptive next leader, Vince Cable needs to address weaknesses like these.

To his credit, Cable has already taken steps to head off those concerns that more collaboration with the Tories awaits in the future. Cable described working with the Tories was like mating with a praying mantis - not something you're likely to survive twice.

It helps that the party has been clear that it won't be making any deals and in the election campaign, even Nick Clegg spoke of the need to work constructively with Labour in the aftermath to oppose the Tories - a clear sign that there is no going back.

The break from the past could bring with a fresh start on policy too. At the centre of the their 2017 campaign was the call for a second referendum. But it didn't really get traction. It was a policy that seemed to have missed a change in the public mood.

There is a growing sense that people have accepted that Brexit is going to happen and are focussing now on the future - a mood that makes the Lib Dems position seem nostalgic, or even conservative.

There is, perhaps, a need to draw a line under staying in - following what might be considered two defeats - and to realign thinking toward the future. Not to stop being pro-Europe or even pro-Remain, but to think about what these mean going forward rather than trying to undo the past. Three points to consider would be:

• to scrutinise and campaign for the least damaging Brexit,
• to support the right for individuals to retain their EU citizenship,
• and, to start talking about pathways back to European cooperation in the future.

The key is to start taking the initiative and look forwards, not backwards. To get back to basics, like questions of individual's rights. That idea doesn't just extend to policy on Europe.

Perception

At the heart of being forward-looking in developing policy and taking stances is public perception. For smaller parties it is a difficult, and sometimes perilous, tightrope to walk. But at it's heart, there are practical limitations these parties face and they must tailor their message to that reality.

When he resigned, Tim Farron drew a link between his decision and questions that arose in the election campaign suggesting a conflict between faith and politics. Farron portrayed the conflict as only the perception of an intolerant illiberal secularism.

Now, it certainly isn't incompatible for someone to be personally conservative and yet politically liberal, open and tolerant of others, and respecting their right to live their own lives.

But it is a hard stance to hold as the leader, as the figurehead, of a liberal movement. When asked to assuage doubts about his stance on LGBT and abortion rights, Farron failed to offer reassurance - focusing instead on himself.

Politics is a game played in soundbites and shorthands. The grand rhetoric and inspiring thought absolutely matters, so very much, but it isn't the gateway - the access point. Image and perceptions matter.

For the smaller third parties - for whom taking symbolic stands are one the few opportunities they get to show the public who they are - the leadership has to be a beacon of the values of that party, without equivocation.

The Coalition interfered with the Liberal Democrats' ability to make themselves distinct. The comedown from the personality politics that grew up around Nick Clegg has tarnished their image, along with the links to the Tories.

The party's long held commitments to plurality, to compromise, to democratic cooperation and serving the national interest above the party interests are all worthy. But little of it ever makes it to the public eye and is rarely interpreted as intended.

The party also seems to have struggled to establish what it is for, pitching a stance of 'equidistance' under Clegg that didn't really change under Farron. While there is nothing wrong with Centrism, it shouldn't be confused with just splitting the difference.

As a small party, the Lib Dems can't afford those confusions. It needs a clear message. For a good example, consider the party's 1997 manifesto. It called for active government that would strengthen liberty, promote prosperity and widen opportunity. There is what liberalism is supposed to stand for, summarised in three words: Liberty - Prosperity - Opportunity. Hopeful words that focus on the future, not just management of the mediocre present.

Foundation

The 2017 general election established a Liberal Democrat baseline and perhaps new foundations. Even with just a dozen MPs, the party still have the ability to put forward a capable frontbench team, with recognisable names associated with positive progressive campaigns.

From Vince Cable, with a long history as a treasury spokesperson and minister, and an economics expert; to Ed Davey, who was minister for energy and the environment; to Norman Lamb, who was a minister in the Department of Health, is an outspoken advocate of parity of esteem for mental health and now also chair of the Science and Technology select committee; there are strong credentials. In addition, both the returning Jo Swinson and the brand new Layla Moran are MPs who look like future party leaders.

There Lib Dems survived their mistakes and have decent foundations to build upon. But there are decisions to be made if the party wants to make it back from the brink - for the second time in it's history. But do so, the party needs to be much more self-aware and it needs to be clear.

There is still a place for liberalism under a broader progressive banner, but it has to commit. Even standing as centrist, with its cherished value of inclusivity, can be progressive. But the centre is not to be found halfway between Labour and the Tories.

Vince Cable, increasingly likely to be the next leader, has made positive steps in that direction. He has affirmed the "no deals" stance, with particular venom towards the Tories, supported the Compass campaign for a Progressive Alliance over the past few years and received cross-party backing in his own seat of Twickenham.

The last liberal recovery was founded in localism, campaigning and standing as a progressive party. The 2017 manifesto showed that the core of those ideas remains unchanged. What the party have lost their identity. It must be the new leader's priority to get it back.

The Yellow Tide isn't what it seems: The neoliberal centre has depended upon abstention and prevails amid disinterest

Macron's landslide was not quite what it appeared, exposing how neoliberal Centrism depends upon disinterest and abstention. Photograph: Emmanuel Macron campaign poster 'Macron President' in Paris by Lorie Shaull (License) (Cropped)

The rise of Macron was met with a chorus of celebration from some corners for the resurgence of the 'Centre'. In France, we are to believe, the neoliberal Centre has recovered. But has the centre really found a new revitalising note?

In the presidential election, Macron prevailed as the neoliberal Centrist candidate thanks to a number of factors: the collapse of social democracy, repeated Centre-Right scandals, and because the Far-Right was sufficiently repulsive.

Now, even with the Left non-committal, Macron did secure the support of around 45% of registered voters in the head-to-head with the Far Right. But was the high water mark.

At the legislative elections Macron's party, La Republic En Marche, took a landslide majority. Yet it came amid a low turnout. While his party took 49% of second round votes, just 43% of voters turned out - giving them the support of only about 20% of eligible voters.

The neoliberal Centre is holding on to power, but it doesn't seem to be the result of its own arguments. If anything, it seems as if the Centrists are standing still as the turbulent waters wash around them. As protest votes and popular dissensions of the Left and the Right ebb and flow, the stagnant Centre appears to rise or fall.

Just look at Italy. Despite losing a crucial referendum in December and resigning as Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi won back the leadership of the Partito Democratico in a landslide. And judging from the polls, he will likely return as Premier at the next election.

If he does, it would be explicitly at the head of a party of Renziani Centrists and neoliberals, looking to replicate Macron's success. That comes thanks to the Left-wing of the party going through with its threat to leave if Renzi won back the leadership.

Under former party leaders Pierluigi Bersani and Massimo D'Alema, the Centre-Left walked away to work towards concentrating all of the many Left factions - including their own Democratici e Progressisti vehicle - under a single progressive banner.

This move leaves Renzi as the undisputed leader of a definitively Centrist party. Matteo Renzi again proves himself to be - in the years of turmoil created by Berlusconi finally, if only partially, falling from grace - pretty much the last man standing.

But what else does Renzi have? Other that his political skill that earned him the nickname 'il Rottamore' - the scrapper. He lost the constitutional referendum on which he staked his Premiership and the Renziani approach has alienated the Centre-Left and driven them out of the party - much as the Hollande governments did and Macron risks doing with his programme.

Furthermore, it was his political skill - not electoral success - that saw him rise to the position of Premier, after a succession of resignations when the Democrats under Bersani failed to gain enough support to govern with it's Centre-Left platform in 2013.

While the Democrats had consistently polled well under Renzi, up on 2013, their lead has slipped and the recent turmoil has seen them fall into a neck and neck race with the populist anti-establishment party Movimento 5 Stella (M5S).

The sum of this is that in Italy, the 'third way' Centrism - blending social democracy and neoliberalism - may return to power with Renzi, but it's unlikely to do so with sweeping triumph. Again, the waters are moving and the Centrists are not the ones moving them.

In the Netherlands, Prime Minister Mark Rutte celebrated his party remaining the largest and the halting of the Far-Right advance. But the figures tell a different story. Between the coalition partners - the Centre-Right liberal-conservative VVD and the Dutch Labour Party PdvA - they lost 37 seats and 24% of the vote.

For Rutte's VVD, it was the failure of an alternative to muster sufficient support from a fractured and plural political landscape that has kept him in power: they remained the largest party with just 21% of the vote.

It will take an across the spectrum alliance of at least four parties to keep Rutte's VVD in office. While that kind of pluralism is a positive thing, it's not exactly evidence of a great Centre revival.

In Britain, the failure of the Liberal Democrats to increase their share of the vote reinforced the point.

By succeeding in getting people to engage with politics, to turnout and vote, Jeremy Corbyn shut down what appears to be the main avenue along which the neoliberal Centre has travelled: abstention.

If this is the case, it makes the pitch made by the Lib Dems over the last few elections and the New Labourite obsession misguided. Pitching to be the party of faceless bureaucrats, the party of government, the party of business, only seems to work if people have lost interest.

Could a new British party of the centre have done better than the Lib Dems? A party of economically neoliberal social democrats, uniting Labour MPs with some liberals and even some Tories, and pitching to as broad a base as possible, under a leader like Yvette Cooper?

The numbers don't really support it. Even with the Tories and Labour getting their largest vote share for some time, abstention was still the largest block. The reality is that Centrism doesn't seem to have a convincing story to tell and so stands still as events move around it.

Macron was the rallying point to see off a threat. And while Justin Trudeau did indeed lead the Liberals to a huge comeback and landslide majority in Canada in 2015, he did so with the support of just a quarter of eligible voters - the gift of an electoral system - against the waning power of an ever more rightward leaning government.

If Renzi wins back to the Premiership in Italy with effective power, it will also be likely thanks to an electoral system. And, in the Netherlands, Rutte held on thanks to support being fractured across the plural options.

While the Right rallies an angry minority around a crude nationalism that makes wild promises and the Left assembles behind a hopeful interventionism, the Centre mostly benefits from disengagement. The the relative recovery of the Centre comes to look more like a holding pattern.

This isn't the sign of a recovery - it's the absence of one.

The Centre remains with a hand on power because disengagement remains a real issue and neither a Left Alternative nor the angry Far Right have, so far, won over enough support with the broader public.

While this does seem to toll the bell for neoliberalism, Centrism need not necessarily follow it. There is a place for Centrism, but right now it seems like the Centre is struggling to understand itself.

The Centre is supposed to be about balance. About inclusion. That is not the same thing as 'equidistance'. And the occupation of the centre ground by neoliberalism is more about 'received wisdom', the present consensus, than the ideals of the Centre.

In a pluralist society, Centrism has an important role to play. It pursues a stake in society for people on all sides and tries to maximise the utility of the society - to ensure the maximum number of people enjoy the benefits.

What that can't mean is accepting conservative narratives on the economy, the trap that the heirs of New Labour have frequently fallen into. That centrism, of neoliberalism, has become like a technical government, a bureaucratic caretaker while we await something better.

Those that values the ideal of the Centre - inclusion - need to wake up. The revival of the Centre is not what it appears. The politics of management is offering nothing and standing still. People are ready to move. Centrists need an answer as to where.

Opposition is Back: Progressives must consider each opportunity with care - do they want to defeat the Government or make policy into a reality?

In our preview for the election, we stated the modest goal for progressives of winning enough seats to mount an effective opposition. Last week confirmed that goal had been achieved.

The Government managed to pass it's Queen's Speech, though barely and with no room for dissension. But it was also forced to back down, or face defeat, on a key backbench amendment.

Theresa May's ministry also U-turned several times over it's enforcement of the public sector pay cap, eventually voting against lifting it. But that question is rumbling on.

Meanwhile, Stella Creasy's amendment to secure free at the point of use access to abortion for women from Northern Ireland using services in England, scored a definitive success.

In exchange for Creasy withdrawing the amendment, allowing the Government to avoid being voted down, the Government announced that it would support and implement the policy change.

Opposition is back and Parliament, and it's backbench MPs, now have real power to influence and even change Government policy. The question is: how to use that influence?

At the 2017 election, Jeremy Corbyn led Labour to a result far better than anyone dared to hope. He and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell have used their surge in public support to put their agenda front and centre.

But opposition cannot be all about Corbyn. Contrast the way the Government narrowly avoided defeat on Corbyn's public sector pay amendment, and the success of Stella Creasy's efforts from the backbenches and with across the floor support.

Corbyn has undoubtedly set the political weather with the public sector pay issue - and the government's positions is crumbling around them as these words are typed - but a more emphatic policy win might have been possible.

On the day, the Conservatives wavered. There where hints and announcements that the Government had changed it's stance on the pay cap - a clear sign of sensing defeat and laying the ground to avoid damaging dissension in their own ranks.

But they later squashed claims of a turn about. The U-turn was cancelled. The Government had, perhaps, overestimated internal opposition, or had found a way to private soothe concerns.

One obstacle to Conservative dissenters voting for the amendment may have been it's content. It condemned cuts to emergency services, committed to more recruitment and pay rises, in addition to ending the pay cap.

This dynamic is going to be a feature of this Parliament. In it's wording, the Corbyn amendment was a direct condemnation of Government policy, that if passed would have severely weakened it's position.

On the other hand, the Creasy amendment focused very closely on policy and the ethical dimensions. It was an amendment designed to pass, rather than to defeat the government.

As this Parliament goes forward, those along the Opposition benches will have to think carefully on how they fight each battle. There are chances ahead for big progressive wins on policy.

Consider the Umunna amendment. It sought to place a lot of restrictions on the Government over Brexit - against both the broader Labour position and perhaps even the public mood.

Judging the mood will also need careful attention. On Brexit, there seems to be a sense of acceptance, not necessarily happy, and people are now just looking to salvage what they can - for instance, a way to retain EU citizenship as individuals.

Chuka Umunna misjudged the stances of MPs, or their sense of the feeling out in the country, and simply divided Labour at a moment when momentum was in their favour. This kind of misjudgement needs to be minimised. Progressives have they will stand and vote together. Careful decision need to be made over how to use that newfound power.

The Tories are now on a narrow ledge and they're wobbling. As Labour's internal contradictions were exposed when they lost power, so too now is the Tories mask slipping. The different factions - moderates, reactionaries and opportunists - are casting around for someone to blame.

The opposition must press where there are cracks. The public sector pay cap continues to cause tremors, but it won't be the only issue. Human Rights has also been a divisive issue for the Conservatives and it's defence a point of unity on the progressive benches.

The Government has a slim numerical advantage, propped up by a deal that moderate Conservative backbenchers are very uncomfortable with. There is a chance to do some good. If the opposition want to make policy, all they need to do is make it as easy as possible for those backbenchers to rebel.

That makes the choice ahead strategic: do you find allies were they're available to achieve policy gains for the common good now, or play to weaken and topple the Government in the long run? Opposition is back and it is empowered.