The Alternative Debunk: Far-right populism, privilege and coming to terms with change

Britain, as a country, is depicted around the world as the very personification of privilege. We are tea-supping, tradition-adhering, aristocracy-adoring, wearers of bowler hats. There are people in this country who are proud of that depiction.

That isn't really a recognisable image of Britain today. Except for the privilege. At the core of British concept of liberty is privilege: middle class affluence, home ownership, private schools, inherited wealth, the older sort of social networks.

This privileged middle sort have done well out of globalism - well prepared and adapted for the rising demand for high skill, education and flexibility. But in Britain, globalisation has seen both winners and losers.

As the cushioned middle class have gained, the fragile lives of the working class have been threatened. The old dependable industries have gone, deemed to costly. With them has gone job security, in the name of chasing efficiency.

Pressure to be productive has risen, even as security and stability has declined. It shouldn't be a major surprise that since the 1990s a new era of civil rights movements has sprung up, working to unite people and push back.

There is a point of view that it has also forced working class people to be seduced by the hate-filled, divisive, rhetoric of the far right - to get on board with populist movements that scapegoat refugees and immigrants and minorities.

However, the facts don't support it.

The reality: the far right isn't a working class movement. It never has been. In fact, populism tends to be better supported by the petit bourgeosie and the rich - with the backing only of a violent minority of working class people. Far-right populism is, at it's core, reactionary politics. It is the establishment pushing back against reform. It is about the fear of losing status amidst crisis - it is the moderately well off frightened of losing their privilege.

Something held up against this view are the voters who backed the latest President of the United States into office. Their lack of a college education was presented as a fait accompli of poor, white, racist and ignorant, working class men. But the facts paint a more complex picture. It is true that 70% of Fourtyfive's supporters didn't have college degrees - but then 71% of Americans don't have college degrees. And most of his supporters earn over the median income $50,000 a year.

Now, the middle class base of far right populism doesn't mean appeals are not made for support from ordinary working people. In times of crisis, the populist narrative finds fertile soil among people whose interests it does less to serve. It must be tweaked to include the working class in a narrative of privilege, but it remains simple, emotive and effective.

For the far right, and the privileged few who drive it, the impact of neoliberalism must have been a dream come true: post-industrial Britain, Wales and The North, Labour and left-wing heartlands, excluded from the benefits of globalisation - even as it dismantled the basis for prosperity under the old order.

Huge numbers of people left without job security, sometimes even social security. Communities stripped of their resources, their high streets becoming abandoned. All that was left was to exploit their fears and give them scapegoats.

The story is not an original one: of a majority that are going to lose their status and money to a minority, or minorities, courtesy of a discredited establishment - itself painted as a minority that no longer represent this fearful majority. Legitimacy is questioned. Mandates undermined. A web of emotive propaganda aimed at dividing society, turning the affluent in fear against it's fringes, to the benefit of a reactionary few.

This is the core of the narrative that divided and felled the Second Spanish Republic, used to justify a military coup. The toppling of the Weimar Republic. The upholding of first slavery and then segregation in the Deep South by Dixiecrats.

There have been few places, even in these times of a 'far-right populist wave', where populists have secured a broad base of public support - broad enough to make a claim of significant support from working class people. The barrier that seemed to have some significance was 13% - the level of popular support the far-right in Western Europe have struggled to break through. But the rise of authoritarian governments in Eastern Europe, threaten to make the West less an anti-populist bloc than an enclave.

There are more exceptions. The Fortyfifth President in the United States, Jair Bolsonaro as President in Brazil, and the FPO in government in Austria, the electoral success of Lega and M5S in Italy - these are among the few to have made major electoral breakthroughs in the West. But we know Fortyfive's supporters were mostly affluent and middle class. Are the supporters of Bolsonaro, Heinz-Christian Strache, Salvini and Grillo, much different?

In Britain, rising inequality has started to bite even the privileged middle class. Fears about pensions and wellbeing in old age, stress and pressure at work - core fears of the working class - are worrying Middle England. That made them the dominant supporters of Brexit, some 60% of all Brexit voters - to just 17% of Brexiters who were working class. Populism succeeded, with Brexit, in pulling the middle class apart from the working class, and turning them against the liberal democratic political establishment.

Under pressure and fearful of change, it is the middle class who are the movers of the times. The statistics tell us that when the working class face these crises, they don't vote - their feelings of disenfranchisment become inaction.

Yet there is hope in this analysis. There is common cause to be found between the middle class and the working class. They have the same fears and face the same pressures - though one is far more insulated from them than the other, and felt them later. There is a common platform to be found. One that can unite people on what they have in common: a desire for social security, for wellbeing at work and in old age, for a functioning local community - and a desire for opportunity.

The question left for progressives is, what party or alliance will be the vehicle for such a programme? Whoever they are, they need to get to grips with a simple fact: change scares people. Our answer needs to be bring them together in solidarity.

The Alternative Debunk: Trade, sovereignty and the World Trade Organisation

There is a line of thinking that runs, 'the real obstacles to trade in the twentyfirst century are no longer tariffs, but non-tariff barriers'.

It is a view that has been expressed by Jacob Rees-Mogg, Brexiter and Tory backbencher, as part of his reasoning for Britain leaving the EU. Breaking these non-tariff barriers, as luck would have it, was also the founding mission of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

If non-tariff barriers are an obstacle to the UK economy and trading on WTO terms would put us at the heart of an organisation working to undo them, it seems like a simple enough equation. It would appear to be a marriage of supreme convenience.

That view is, however, put to us by Britain's conservative and far-right establishment. That means it requires scepticism and further examination. So what are we missing?

Well, the first thing to note is that there is nothing simple about trade. Trade branches out into all aspects of international relations, domestic lawmaking and standards regulation, and as such encroaches on national sovereignty. And negotiations can take years.

The second, is that the 'non-tariff barriers' being referred to here are domestic laws and standards, created by sovereign parliaments and assemblies to regulate how things are made and sold in their jurisdictions - as well as subsidies favoured sectors.

Going blindly down the road that leads to the untrammelled trade that would-be barrier-breakers like Mogg would like, could lead to a place no one pursuing greater sovereignty had ever considered ending up. So let's be clear about where that road leads.

Background: Barriers to Trade

Historically, the old barriers were taxes - known as tariffs - put on imports. They would produce revenue for the national coffers and protect domestic production. Economics is never simple though, and tariffs were deeply entwined with foreign wars and domestic unrest.

Competition between nations over resources - resulting a mad scramble to occupy and to exploit, to invade and to seize valuable territory, even from neighbours - was the driving force behind war, colonialism and imperialism.

In Britain, the old barriers of tariffs mixed in a toxic brew with aristocratic landownership. The result was landlords with collosal power to inflate prices at the cost of middle class merchants and the working class who could barely afford the cost of bread.

That led to the Anti-Corn Law League, of which liberal free traders Richard Cobden and John Bright were leading activists, which in the 1860s fought to undo taxes on corn imports that poured subsidies into the pockets of landlords and starved ordinary people.

The Anti-Corn Law League eventually won out, but their campaign didn't bring a permanent change of mindset. Rather they influenced the Liberal Party, who continued to vie for power with the Conservatives who supported the system of tariffs.

While Britain went back and forth, other countries such as Germany and the United States used tariffs to protect their domestic industries from foreign competition - trying to catch up and compete with the British Empire, whose colonies allowed for the casting of a far wider net in which to find resources.

The international ramifications of this inward-looking national-oriented system were disastrous. On the foreign front, war between countries as they scrapped for resources. On the domestic front, poverty and civil unrest. It took two world wars, and the rise of democracy for that message to sink in.

Bretton Woods: Peace Through Interdependence

After the Second World War, delegates and economists from around the world gathered in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to figure out how to achieve a lasting peace. What they struck upon was the core of what the free traders had been arguing for a century: interdependence.

The result was the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), unprecedented international cooperation and the largest surge in world economic growth in history as the Western economies recovered, interwined in peace.

From the 1940s through the 1970s, tariffs were cut and cross-border movement and free access to resources flourished. The predecessors to the European Union were founded on ending the French and German fight over access to, and control of, the Rhine Valley's resources.

Government intervention went hand in hand with this system. It was necessary to ensure tight regulation internationally and to correct market imperfections domestically - most recognisably in the form of the welfare state, aimed at ensuring citizens' economic wellbeing.

There were consequences, good and bad. International cooperation was joined by deep domestic links between states, industries and unions that played it's part in a prosperity that was more widely shared than ever before. Inequality was lower. The wealth gap narrower. Opportunity for social mobility was tangible.

And yet the deep corporate-state links meant that collusion was substantial, while international cooperation gave rise to multinational corporations - businesses with a power that reaches beyond the limitations of national jurisdictions.

WTO: Drive for Efficiency

At the end of the 1970s, stagflation brought to an end the soaring economic growth of the era. Global growth hit a wall that capitalism has been trying to find a way around ever since.

The next phase for trade would be driven by the overthrow of the careful system of controls and regulations. The Bretton-Woods system had fostered within it the huge multinational corporations that now, as growth stagnated, threw their weight behind the Reagan-Thatcher system and the deregulation boom.

It was struck upon that, even with tariffs world wide brought down to historic lows, there were yet other barriers to doing business that might be limiting growth. Beginning with the Uruguay Round of negotiations, the drive was now achieve maximum global efficiency through the elimination of non-tariff barriers.

The GATT was superseded at this point by an organisation founded on and dedicated to achieving these goals - these new underlying principles. This was the World Trade Organisation, the WTO.

If Bretton-Woods and the GATT was about achieving peace through interdependence, achieved by a gradual reduction in tariffs, then the purpose of the Uruguay Round and the WTO was to take that interdependence and use it as leverage to eliminate non-tariff barriers and pursue market efficiency.

As with the Bretton-Woods model, there were consequences. One of the most obvious impacts has been the global stagnation in wages for low-skilled workers in the new era - with labour embattled, their hard won rights being undermined and squeezed.

Not all of this is the result of globalism. But the benefits were not widely enough shared, technology undermining rather than enhancing workers' security, and gains were often made through doors being opened to exploitation. Income inequality accelerated.

In the now

The body known as the World Trade Organisation is the arch-mover of globalism. A forum for diplomats and lobbyists, it is where the negotiations are done for deals that break down not only borders, but the so-called non-tariff barriers - in reality, domestic laws and standards that protect the quality of products.

The groups of elite Brexiters, most of them very wealthy, who are selling the idea of leaving the EU on WTO terms, have hitched onto the back of the campaign for national sovereignty. But leaving on WTO will do nothing to enhance sovereignty in terms that most people would recognise.

Within the EU, the UK has a say alongside other members on how it interacts with each of them and how it's domestic standards and regulations are set, while also having a say on how the whole EU bloc interacts with trading partners around the world.

Exiting the EU will downgrade the trading relationship between the EU and the UK. And if the UK reduces it's standards to attract new trade with other non-EU countries, it will make it harder to trade with the EU - as most of the EU's trade barriers depend on products meeting their high internal standards.

Any change of policy will require long term negotiations with the more than one hundred and fifty WTO members - all of whom will want their say to prevent their own trade being adversely affected. And let's not forget the WTO mission to reduce non-tariff barriers.

The drive to align standards within the EU has been one of getting countries to agree and enforce the highest common denominator. On the outside, the only 'advantage' to be gained is through the pursuit of the lowest common denominator on standards.

Whether it's the banning of plastic packaging to regulations about what chemicals can be used in the production of food, from the regulation of working conditions to the terms upon which businesses can receive subsidies or support - there is money to be made by opening the doors and lowering regulations.

But the reality of trade on WTO terms means few countries actually negotiate on their own. Most have spent decades building mutually beneficial deals and blocs - like EU - to increase their influence and reinforce their position to protect domestic conditions.

Switzerland and Canada have spent the better part of twenty years trying to negotiate their trading relationships with Europe. And the North American countries - USA, Canada and Mexico - have been back and forth over how to organise their trade for mutual benefit.

Even at present in America, their far-right President upset and forced a renegotiation with the countries neighbours by trying to reestablished protective tariffs to favour domestic production - a move that hurts trade partners and pours money into the pockets of the wealthy domestic business and land owners.

In such a complex web of negotiations, the confrontational approach of Brexiters and their supporting organisations - like the IEA - who have argued for ligitigation at the WTO to force the EU to lower it's standards, is unlikely to win the UK any allies.

In the future

The WTO was established in 1995 as the product of the Uruguay Round as the forum for negotiating global trade and as an arbiter for settling trade disputes. It has been the forum where successive agreements have been negotiated to reduce countries' tariffs and pursue deregulation of domestic standards.

In pursuing those goals the WTO has been accused of undermining the sovereignty of member nations with it's rules - much like Brexiters have loudly and virulently alleged of the EU project.

People who supported Brexit have hoped the UK might use it's historic influence protect some domestic sectors, but any such provisions would immediately irk other WTO members whose export opportunities would be limited.

The reality is that a No Deal Brexit, exiting onto WTO terms, does nothing to improve Britain's sovereignty. It means trading much as we do now, but without our open access to the Single Market - and the investment boost that gives us - and any EU specific deals through which we had previously enjoyed trading access to third party countries.

The main possible benefit would be, as Rees-Mogg himself has claimed, would be in slashing trading tariffs - ostensibly, it would seem, with the US, India and China. But the only way that would have any impact would be if our non-tariff barriers - our food standards, for instance - where lowered substantially as well.

And allowing our domestic policy to be driven, slashed, by the demands of overseas corporations who want to pour lower standard goods into the UK - likely undermining domestic businesses - is unlikely to be seen as an increase to national sovereignty.

If Britain could even manage to unilaterally start slashing it's tariffs and standards to attract America and Chinese suppliers - over likely objections and litigation in the WTO - the cheaper supplies would be of much lower quality, taken on at the cost of major damage done to domestic supply chains.

The post-war world has achieved interdependence on an historic scale. It cannot now be undone. Our predecessors choose to give up total sovereignty for that interdependence and the peace it brought. No one should be under any illusions: an exit from the European Union on WTO terms is another aggressive step into, not away from, globalisation, which does not restore sovereignty.

As we stand our sovereignty is pooled. We take part in building a consensus in Europe that affects our domestic laws. The future under a WTO/Hard Brexit will not restore sovereignty, and may even instead undermine it as domestic laws are driven by what opportunity it sells to our trade partners. These are the extremes of what is on offer when discussing Brexit. Neither will turn back the clock.

The Alternative Debunk: Populism, democracy and where it ends

In refusing to rule out further votes on her Brexit Deal - should it be defeated in the Commons - Prime Minister Theresa May has doubled down on a stubborn stance. Adamant that she has a Brexit mandate, May won't countenance a challenge to it.

Whether she likes it or not, that puts the Prime Minister in the same camp has the hardcore Brexiters, who argue that the first referendum was the final say - however flatly untrue that stance may be when it comes to UK constitutional conventions.

In a time when interest and participation in democracy has been slipping, when democracy has been increasingly under assault from fake news and far right populism, it is unhelpful when the Prime Minister coopts their arguments.

Populism and democracy

Populism is a word that gets thrown around in the media, being used to refer to popular movements of left as well as right. But it's not accurate to equate the two.

On the left, popular movements are increasingly horizontal, cooperative and reflective of a belief not in a single struggle, but in the commonality between different struggles to shake off inequalities that affect people based on their identities - ethnicity, sexuality, gender - and stand together in solidarity.

On the right, popular movements are emotional, exclusionary and 'competitive' - highlighting difference between groups of people and pitting them against each other, even against good sense. These are the so-called 'populist' movements. It is a populist idea that one vote is enough to settle something in a democracy.

Like he idea that the referendum ended the conversation, that the will of the people was crystalised in one popular vote - which is clearly undermined by the fact that any political party could stand at a future election on a manifesto to stop Brexit, and upon winning a majority have the right to implement it.

The populist sentiment is a trap that Theresa May fell into the moment she tried to claim the referendum mandate for her own government. It was aggravated by the fact that she hasn't been able to covert the referendum result into a Parliamentary majority - functionally necessary to delivering any change.

With the referendum vote in her pocket, Theresa May triggered a snap election and stood on a party manifesto that promised to deliver Brexit. But she failed to win a majority. And in that failure was exposed the problem with the referendum in the first place: there wasn't, and still isn't, a party of Brexit with a Parliamentry mandate to deliver it.

Lincoln and the Union

In a democracy, the ideal is that even those who lose out most in the result of a poll will be able to appreciate the importance of respecting the will of the majority - it's a key aspect of democracy. Populists have been quick to label their Remainer opponents as undemocratic sore losers.

However, with the Brexit referendum, the populist Brexiter side has exploited their temporary majority and failed to respect the fact that majoritarianism is two sided: yes, the will of the majority needs to be respected. But democracy also means that the will of the majority can change. There is no final say.

The trouble with that fact is that it doesn't quite have the emotional reasonance of 'one vote and done' - it doesn't feel as good. It doesn't feel as cathartic. Yet it's at the core of why a minority should respect the will of the majority. Some day, you may change their minds. You may be the majority.

In an old biography of Abraham Lincoln, there is a discussion of his view of the importance of the political union and disavowal of secession. He had questioned the right to secession, asking, "Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain itself?"

Following Lincoln's stance against secession as undermining a democratic political union, his biographer asks:

"...if by democratic government is meant the rule of the majority, may there not be occasions when the majority is tyrannical or where the division of opinion between majority and minority is so acute, that the minority is entitled to leave?"

Lincoln had argued that adhering to majority rule, properly held in restraint by constitutional checks and balances, was not only a good, but a safeguard against the severed consequences of undermining majority rule - chaos, disorder, the threat of war.

As Lincoln said, "that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets." To Lincoln, elections and majority rule held out always the possibility that the majority might be persuaded and would change it's mind at a subsequent election.

That while a minority must adapt and integrate to the majority conditions - and could, perhaps should, be helped along to do so - it would still be able to seek to peacefully win over the majority. Laid plain, that democracy, that majority rule, was never to be seen as final.

May and the Union

Theresa May has her own Unionism. For her part, it has driven her to pursue a particularly single-minded path. One that does not really account for, especially, the divergent path upon which Scotland is travelling compared to the rest of the UK.

Theresa May has caught herself in a difficult position, of jealously holding one union while dissolving another - in opposing one secession while enacting another, a confusing circumstance of competing sovereignties.

Arguing against dissolving the British Union, while also arguing for the permanence of the referendum vote, May finds herself caught in an inconsistent position - that the Union cannot be dissolved, but it also will not allow for the changing of minds.

That position undermines the point of democratic majority rule. As Lincoln argued, the preservation of the Union is in large part achieved by acknowledging that there is no end point to a debate - that there is no definitive, inalienable vote.

Theresa May has pulled out all stops to protect her position, the mandate she claims and the policies she pursues, especially Brexit. The result has been that she has turned to the arguments populist right for justification of her actions - the Brexit was a final vote, there can be no change of position.

Legitimising the positions of the populist right is a very dangerous game to play, but as Conservative leader Theresa May inherited a legacy of taking advantage of the over loud and amplified grumbling and scapegoating of the far right.

The Conservatives have spent a long time courting the rise of the far right, feeding off the populist energy to attack Labour and the Liberals. But it's a source of energy that comes with a high cost, giving light and air to emotive scapegoating.

From the beginning, the Conservative plan for a referendum - spawned of a need to satisfy the right-wing energy it was exploiting - didn't really factor in the possibility that the Leave campaign would win the public vote.

Conservative leader David Cameron resigned, having backed Remain as the Prime Minister in a deeply pro-Remain Parliament. With no Parliamentary majority for Brexit, the country was thrown into political turmoil - which May has tried to navigate.

Her failing was to try and do so without a proper constitutional mandate, gained in the form of a Parliamentary majority from an election with an explicit Brexit manifesto commitmnt. She waited too long to pursue that, trusting instead to exluding Parliament in favour of using executive power to forge ahead.

Democracy never ends

When the question is settled, the post-Brexit Union will be defined by this period in time. Disrespect for democratic process, political division, ignoring or exploiting well-established constitutional conventions - all of these things will feed into the new shape of the British Union, whether it remains European for the long haul or ultimately pulls away.

Theresa May has allowed the far-right populist view of democracy - as a competition not a compromise, pitting ideas against each other for mastery - to infect the mainstream and take route in the public consciousness. These represent lasting damages inflicted in pursuit of short term political goals. May will have to reflect on that.

The reality is that the referendum vote could never have been binding, but the view it expressed needed to be respected. That has never really happened. Theresa May and the Conservatives didn't go to the electorate for a Brexit mandate until a long time after the fact. By then, moods had begun to shift.

Brexit was always undermined by the absense of a mandate to deliver it - a party, or parties, explicitly elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver it, awarded the power by the electorate to do so in the form of a Parliamentary majority.

Now, with the deal an unsupportable mess, public opinion is polling as even less inclined. And Parliament remains ill-disposed towards Brexit. Saying that there is no justification for further votes undemocratically protects the power of a majority that may now have become the minority.

Is a second referendum, the People's Vote, the answer?

The first referendum resolved little, as it didn't produce the political conditions within the constitutional framework to deliver on the 'Brexit mandate'. Can another referendum do anything more than simply affirm one of the positions?

Another referendum will still need the explicit mandate from an election to deliver on the public will, if it is to have the legitimate power to implement the decision. In the end, the only way out of this mess is to return to democracy.

Populism sees an end to democracy in the satisfaction of it's own will - the realisation of it's own supremacy. But democracy, to be a valid basis for political union, has no end point. There is no definitive say. Only limited mandates that expire.

The Brexit mandate is close to expiration - largely thanks to the failures of the Conservative party, who brought forward the first referendum and failed to empower it. What comes next must be instructed and empowered by the people.

May calls on MPs to get on with Brexit and move on - but it's her government's own doing that it's consumed all political space

This afternoon, Theresa May addressed the Commons to present the terms she has negotiated for Britain's exit from the European Union. As may well have been expected at this point, it did not get a warm reception. All the big hitters were queued up to get in their licks.

After yet another hostile session, the Prime Minister may very well have been feeling like the constituents she has now taken to quoting: ready to just get on with Brexit and move on. But it's the PM's own approach that has brought us to this Parliamentary impasse.

A referendum, a snap election and two years of legislative time have been poured into Brexit - along with billions from the treasury and repeated knocks taken by the economy with the instability caused by each new jarring announcement.

In that time, domestic policy has taken the backseat. That has been a disaster both in terms of scrutiny and delivery.

The government's flagship welfare 'reform' the Universal Credit has rolled from one crisis to another. Supposed to be the consolidation of a number of different welfare programmes into a more efficient and affordable system, it has faced ever mounting problems.

The minister who had been the driving force behind it quit when he was severely undercut on funding. The attached fitness assessments have been derided as cruel. Even a rapporteur for the United Nations has deeply criticised the misery inflicted upon the most vulnerable by a government pursuing ideological ends.

The government has claimed that Universal Credit has driven people into work, but this welfare system - underfunded, misadministered, and leaving vulnerable people at the mercy of growing debts - can only have motivated people in the worst way, with employment statistics covering an explosion in working poverty.

And those are just the headlines. The government has not done enough on housing. It has not done enough to meet environmental and energy targets. It has not done enough to encourage an economic system that can lift ordinary people out of poverty - on welfare or in work.

When Theresa May talks of constituents telling her to get on with Brexit, she may be reframing disgruntlement. It's May's government that has turned politics in Britain into nothing but Brexit - and in the process has managed to deeply divide the country.

With so many domestic issues in need of attention, Brexit needs to be settled. But what Parliamentarians can't do is make a hasty decision under pressure - for which the Prime Minister is pushing.

May's government has put us here and shouldn't be allowed to use it to sneak out from under their own mess.moving towards resolving the deeply important and long term domestic issues that have gone unattended under May's watch.

US Midterms 2018: How will voters respond to sorry state of disunion at the midterm congressional elections?

It's a crucial time in the first term of the self-declared nationalist 45th President of the United States. His administration has done nothing but divide America. He goads and baits his progressive and even moderate opponents, while egging on the worst of his own supporters.

In Congress, the Republic Party (GOP) is in control, but still somehow presides over stagnation. So far, the most active use of their dominance in Congress has been to use it to back the President and his decisions - against even reasonable criticism - largely by inaction.

While the GOP is held in destructive unity, the Democrats are busily undergoing an internal struggle. The progressive wing of the party - symbolically represented by the Sanders Presidential campaign - is striving for a bigger part in the wider party, still controlled by pro-business moderates.

Midterm Congressional Elections

The midterm elections give voters a chance to take stock of this sorry state of disunion.

On 6th November, voters will go to the polls to vote on members of Congress - one third of seats in the Senate are up for grabs and all of the House of Representatives. In the Senate, there are two seats per state. In the House of Representatives, seats represent districts on the basis of state population.

This won't be a vote on the President directly, but it will shape the balance of power in Congress - through which any new bill he wishes to pass must navigate. Right now it is run by Republicans, but as things are at present that could well change tomorrow with a strong result for the Democrats.

So the Democrats will be pleased that so far news seems to be positive for them. It's good news for them that turnouts for early voting have been high. Low turnout tends to favour the GOP, because it is older, whiter, more affluent voters - conservative bread and butter - that are a reliable turnout.

On other fronts, there's good news for the Democrats too. Small donations tot he Democrats have come in at double of those to the GOP. Presidential approval, sitting at a twelve year midterms low of 40% - the lowest since, and second only too, George W Bush who sat on 37% at the 2006 midterms.

Democrats are also polling well. They sit at a 49% to 41% margin, wide enough to tip the election towards a landslide and rebalance Congress towards the Democrats. There are even indications that youth turnout, which as elsewhere leans heavily progressive, may also be high this time around.

But general polling can't tell us all we need to know about the individual races. In the House of Representatives there are plenty of Republcian seats up for grabs. However, in the House of Representatives there are just 35 seats up for re-election, of which just 9 are Republican - limiting how deeply inroads can be made. But taking five of those seats would be enough to tilt the balance towards the Democrats.

High water mark in Texas: Ted Cruz and Beto O'Rourke

So which seats are the ones to watch to see if Congress will swing heavily to the Democrats?

To look at one example: the most high profile Senate seat being defended is that of Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz in Texas. A deeply controversial figure who has wielded the backing of the Evangelical Christian movement.

He is facing a surprisingly tough race against the Democrat challenger Beto O'Rourke, who has served three terms in Congress as a Representative for El Paso. In stark contrast to Ted Cruz, O'Rourke is pro-LGBT rights, supports efforts to tackle climate change, women's right to an abortion and a meaningful reform of healthcare in America.

Contrasting the big money PAC support that Ted Cruz enjoys, O'Rourke focused on raising money from small donations from individuals - a stance that makes him stand out against a backdrop of big money lobbying in politics and appears to have served him well with impressive campign funding.

Even with an impressively run campaign and the signs of a strong turnout, it has to be said that it will be a major upset if Beto O'Rourke wins this seat.

But it is an important benchmark for Democrats across the country - in fact, likely to be the high water mark of a Democrat 'wave' (landslide electoral victory). If O'Rourke looks like getting even close to taking this Senate seat for Texas from Cruz, that could herald a strong night for the Democrats.

Restore a little hope

For two years, this President - a self-proclaimed nationalist and obvious narcissist with a hardcore following of white nationalists - has had nearly free rein in Washington thanks to Republican control of Congress enabling him. It's time to restore some of the checks and balances. It is time that he faced some meaningful opposition - faced some possibility of being held to account.

For that role, the Democrats will do. They're far from the progressive ideal, but right now they represent a better, more inclusive vision of America - and they are engaged in internal reform that is pushing them to be something more. In that, there is hope. America could do with a little of that right now. All progressives, everywhere, could do with a little of that right now.

Budget 2018: Chancellor does the minimum to avoid austerity deepening, but this was no windfall budget to undo the hurt

By the end of the next five year period, the government will be spending £30 billion more a year - the largest rise in public spending since 2010. That's the headline that the government will want to see rolling out.

But that is only the surface appearance. The reality is - as Institute of Fiscal Studies Director Paul Johnson said - £30 billion was the minimum to stave off deeper cuts. And the benefit of that spending goes squarely to the NHS.

While no one is going to dispute the NHS feeling the benefit of increased public spending, in this budget the increased spending on healthcare disguises the reality underneath of public spending stagnating - the cuts of the past decade are not being undone and departments may face more cuts ahead.

Measures in this budget were plentiful, but it was money spread thin. Just £800 million for local government, £1.0bn for Defence, £160 million for counter-terrorism policing, £400 million one-off emergency fund for schools, £420 million for highway repairs.

There was a range of handwaved increases for tech and infrastructure to the tune of £1.6bn plus. A mixed bag of measures for apprenticeships worth £650 million. A package of complex investment incentives made up of reliefs and loans.

A 'co-funded' £650 million to renovate high streets. The headline Business Rates cut (said to cost £900 million) - a policy where it is still unclear who will bear the burden, the Treasury or local councils, as the Chancellor has already announced the intention to let councils keep larger percentages of the rates. There was a few hundred million to speed up housing developments and around £4bn for the city regions and the devolved administrations.

For households, there was a £200 million a year increase to 'transition support' for those moving over to Universal Credit and the work allowances were to be relaxed to, at a cost of £1.7bn, to mitigate the impact of the new welfare system on the poorest for which the government had been criticised - but only once the roll out is completed, which could be deferred for a long time at this rate.

There is also the cost to be calculated of tax cuts, including the freezes to a series of duties and the further increase in the personal income tax thresholds - up to £12,500 for earnings before tax applies and a higher rate threshold increased to £50,000.

In total, there was about £7bn spread over the next few years, plus the cost of tax cuts, with perhaps less than £4bn in new one-off spending - and a little under £2bn deferred until the rollout of Universal Credit has been completed. It appears the NHS will get an amount reaching more than £20bn a year by 2023.

The economic forecasts, and tax receipts, gave the Philip Hammond what he wanted: the ability to achieve a surplus and completely wipe out the deficit, so the debt could begin to come down at a faster rate. However, the needs of the NHS in crisis seem to have pressed the Chancellor to action.

Otherwise, Hammond stayed true to form. He preferred to use his room for new measures on tax cuts - to 'keep money in pockets' - than funding public services in plight. In fact, to keep in track, how the Chancellor used his headroom means that there will probably be more department funding cuts to come.

Austerity is not over. At best, the Chancellor Philip Hammond has stumped up the bare minimum cash to stop austerity further deepening. Even then it is a temporary measure, as the Spending Review he announced for next year will likely reveal that there are still more cuts to come.

Budget 2018 Preview: Chancellor Philip Hammond will try to patch together competing demands to present a positive vision - which must be closely scrutinised

So, Prime Minister Theresa May announced austerity will come to an end. The Chancellor Philip Hammond told Conservative members they must not surrender the 'party of change' label. Their right-wing colleagues want a bold, positive statement with Brexit just around the corner.

Where does that leave the government ahead of the Budget?

When the Chancellor stands at the dispatch box on Monday, he will have meet a number of commitments and all of them will require him to open the public purse and spend money - something anathema to Hammond's own favoured fiscally conservative approach.

So beware of the narrative. Whatever the Tories in the Treasury have cooked up, take careful notice of how it is being framed. Hammond needs to carefully wrap up his policy announcements in a positive vision, promising a bright future that brings money to spend.

To spend 'sensibly', of course - the note of fiscal responsibility won't be going away. It's how the Conservatives like to paint themselves (despite the way the national debt has ballooned) and they have spent a decade marking it as separating them from Labour.

But something will have to change if the Conservatives are to find £20 billion for the NHS. To find the more than £8 billion a year needed to keep the various taxes and duties from rising. To at least bring a halt to cuts for long enough for it to seem like austerity has stopped - if not been reversed. Is there any room for movement to find this money?

Well there is pressure to bring the tech giants to heel with a tax - though it's not a move without complications. And the Chancellor has already set out his stall, with a brand new narrative, to increase National Insurance contributions from the self-employed - a policy that went down in flames less than a week after last year's Budget.

The other targets for more taxes are only the rich - the main constituents of the Conservatives. From Pensions to private school fees, there are reliefs and loopholes aplenty. But will the Chancellor be willing to close them?

Far more troubling for almost everyone else is that local councils fear even further cuts to their funding are on the way. That would be devastating for essential frontline services, that are already under pressure - as the government forces local communities to raise money in their own neighbourhoods, even those with few resources.

If the Chancellor decides to hold off on these further cuts, it will likely depend more upon halting or deferring various tax cuts, rather than raising taxes in a more direct or conventional sense. But even then, it trimming one advantage for ordinary workers to protect those same people for a new disadvantage. Hardly a progressive pitch.

Hammond will try to dress up these trade offs as the hard-won rewards of decades of hard times and the promise of better to come. Progressives can't let him present that narrative unchallenged, because these measures will be little more than a government that imposed austerity trying to ride the wave of discontent their policies have stirred up.

Conference round-up: What are the main takeaways from party conference season?

The time of austerity is coming to an end. Or at least that is the overaching message of party conference season. It invites the bigger question of whether the Conservatives would actually be willing and able to deliver it's end.

Last year's election showed the Tories that even a coordinated media bashing of Corbyn wasn't enough to dampen enthusiasm for the content of the Labour manifesto and their call for a step change away from the time of austerity.

The Conservatives know they have to adapt. But they will start only by changing their message, rather than reinforcing that with any particularly drastic change in funding - hence Theresa May telling Prime Ministers Questions that austerity was going to end, but not 'fiscal responsibility'.

The Chancellor Philip Hammond used his conference speech to hint at a change of message, telling party members the Conservatives couldn't afford to be a party of 'no change'. The Prime Minister followed that up by saying austerity was coming to an end.

Opposition scepticism is entirely appropriate.

The Tories will be reluctant converts to the anti-austerity cause (except, perhaps those in local government), and the move was probably forced Labour's unabashed commitments to higher taxes, more spending and a definitive end to austerity.

In fact, Paul Johnson at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) called the Labour proposals the most radical in a long time, capable of deeply affecting the UK economy, and transforming expectations and assumptions about how the economy will work.

The other main lesson of conference season was, obviously, Brexit. As it has taken over every other aspect of politics in Britain, so it has taken over party conference season.

The Tories were, as usual, mired in their three way factional splits - hard right Brexiters, moderate Remainers and Theresa May's split the difference

However, Labour took a step towards laying out in more certain terms their position - with the party more or less all onboard. The party's red lines, particularly a customs union agreement, were supplemented by a commitment to a People's Vote second referendum in the event that final deal fails to pass muster.

The party's preference remains to force an election on Brexit, but the concession Labour's Remainers, to support a People's Vote to ensure the public get a say, is a step towards bringing the party to a (mostly) united position.

Meanwhile, as would be expected, the Liberal Democrats lambasted all who would oppose a People's Vote second referendum. But beneath the business as usual, it was good to see the party's radical liberal factions put some progressive ideas on the table - such as a sovereign wealth fund and more support for cooperatives.

The Greens had the same mix of Brexit and domestic policy at their conference. On the domestic front, they pushed for wellbeing - particularly relating to free time - to get a higher place in our measurement of the UK's economic and living standards.

Finally, the SNP joined their push for a second referendum on Scottish Independence with opening the way for their MPs to support a second referendum on Brexit. While it isn't a straightforward piece of arithmetic, opposing Brexit is consistent with how people in Scotland have voted and may prepare better ground for their own ambitions.

The onrolling Brexit steamroller aside, the end of austerity was the biggest headline. It would seem that Theresa May is right, that austerity coming to an end - but in spite of them, not because of them. The Tories seem to sense the mood is shifting.

There is a big opportunity ahead for the progressive parties, to undermine the case for austerity and drag out into the light the ideological choices that enforced it and the consequences of the Conservative choice to impose it.

Universal Credit: Labour say no to universal credit, leaving the future of welfare uncertain

Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has let it be known that Universal Credit, the government's controversial revamp of welfare, faces being scrapped. McDonnell called the system unsustainable, as he finally appeared to move the party off the fence on welfare.

Universal Credit was the flagship Conservative policy and was intended to merge a range of benefits into one, simpler, payment - with better tapering and stricter limits - in theory to 'make work pay'. However, the rollout of the policy has been a disaster.

The policy rollout has gone over budget; it has created delays in processing applications and making payments, leading to individuals running up debts and turning to foodbanks; and with the full rollout, even single parents could be over £2000 worse off.

For the government, welfare reform has been a constant hazard. It's approach, dubbed 'workfare', has been picked apart at every step. Scandals like welfare claimants finding themselves farmed out for unpaid labour - a practice that was challenged and criticised through the courts, though continues - has undermined reforms.

So has the Tories' handling of disability welfare claims. Causes ranging from maladministration to deeply flawed fitness to work assessments have left many claimants with disabilities thousands of pounds out of pocket and denied crucial support.

The government has done itself no favours with revelations that officials were given targets to reject 4 out of 5 applications, and through spending tens of millions in legal action to avoid having to meet denied disability welfare payments.

Funding issues have undermined the policy too. The policy's architect, and former Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith eventually quit as the Minister responsible with a flurry of criticism - at the core, furious that funding was not were he wanted it to be for the reforms to work.

It is unsurprising that Labour doesn't want to handle this shambles.

However, for Labour this marks a significant change in their stance. In their 2017 manifesto, the Labour Party barely touched the subject of welfare. The limits of their interest had seemed to be in getting the Conservative system working - not even committing to more funding.

Labour have not proposed a replacement system. For that, it may be necessary to wait for a new manifesto. But it seems unlikely that either the old system nor Universal Credit will now remain in place under a Labour government.

Without tacit opposition support, the policy's days are numbered. The questions now is what comes next? Where does Britain go next in search of a fair and sustainable social security safety net?

Chancellor Hammond begins constructing the Tories framing for their budget

Chancellor Philip Hammond took to the stage at the Conservative Party conference to tell his party that they had to make the case of capitalism - and must first and foremost always be the party of business.

On the one hand, this was the latest barrage in a war of words within the Conservative ranks - torn by Brexit and the deep reservations of the business community. On the other, it's also laying the groundwork for the budget.

Hammond told the conference that the party couldn't afford to be seen as the party of the status quo. The Chancellor trailed the possibility of some tax rises to increase spending, but warned against trying to match Labour penny-for-penny.

We've heard this before.

The budget is coming up and the party delivering it are positioning their pitch, delivering up framing devices for the media to use in the coming weeks. For the Tories, they cannot afford to lose control of the message.

In recent months, even senior ministers have been defying the government with a whole barrage of comments to the media. It's making PMQs a whole lot easier for Corbyn and forcing No 10 and No 11 to waste their time running around putting out fires.

For instance, when the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) felt the need to express it's dismay about Brexit - and the danger of leaving the EU without a deal - a former government Brexit minister labelled them a 'grave menace' to the UK's prospects.

That's not a good look for a party that sees itself as the true representative of business. No wonder the Chancellor is calling for the party to get back on message. But there's more.

The Chancellor is also dropping little hints that there might be some tax rises - though these aren't yet more than hints - with an eye to some slight increases in spending.

Hammond finally loosened some of the purse strings this year, with a slight relaxing of public sector pay restrictions. But they were only very slightly relaxed and spending measures in the last budget were far below the kind of intervention for which the UK economy is crying out.

The consensus on the economy - and on Brexit - seems to be moving away from the Conservatives. Conceding the possibility of a spending increase lays the groundwork for framing the measures Hammond will announce on budget day.

In previous budgets, Hammond has talked up restricted spending and paying down the deficit only to deliver up, at times uncosted, spending increases - even if only small ones. The order of the day was austerity, but spending was needed.

Now, the consensus is shifting towards much larger public investment than Conservatives are prepared to meet. And so the Chancellor is preparing the ground to present the next budget as one that will deliver responsible spending.

Yet behind the narrative, there is little reason to expect anything but more of the same from the Treasury. Brexit is a hinderance and while the deficit has been reined in, the debt has ballooned under the Conservatives.

And who is going to be happy with Tories raising taxes? The last time Hammond tried to make a major tax adjustment, he had to withdraw his self-employed National Insurance fix within a week of presenting it.

In politics, the next best thing to delivering policies in line with the consensus is to get every believing that you're doing just that - without having to go to the trouble of spending the money. Expect this narrative to build through October.

Labour and the Lib Dems are close on policy, but they have a caustic relationship that hinders shared progressive aims

Party conference season is well under way and with it the pointless partisan finger pointing. Holding authority to account is never pointless, but progressive parties taking pot shots at each other is - with no real meaningful returns.

That has been a particularly lamentable feature of relations between Labour and the Liberal Democrats over the past decade, and a sad situation when the two parties have for a long time been very close in terms of policy.

The Liberal Democrat conference had some predictable elements, like the focus on resisting Brexit. But there were a number of policies that made it onto the table at the conference that tell an interesting story of the party's internal dynamics.

Although their leadership, through a few iterations now, have been committed to a centrist, split-the-difference, approach to how they present their policies to the public - placing them half way between Labour and the Tories - that stance doesn't reflect the wider scope of Lib Dem policy.

In our breakdown of party policies for the 2017 elections, it was clear there a not only a distinctly centre left theme, but that the gap between the Lib Dems and Labour was far narrower than you would think from either side's rhetoric.

Both parties had a positive economic outlook, aiming to increase long term public investment by hundreds of billions. Both sought to reverse tax cuts for corporations and raise taxes on the wealthiest. While the Lib Dems proposed loosening the Tories restrictions on welfare, Labour called for more democratic power for workers in their workplaces - whether through coops or through more locally owned utilities.

That same closeness can be seen in the ideas that the radical liberal factions of the Liberal Democrats put on the agenda at their conference. Policies like a redistributive sovereign wealth fund, taxing wealth to reinvest; pushing for better support for cooperatives, social enterprises and for stakeholders over shareholders; and support for a basic income trial in Wales.

Yet their leaders, elected representatives and talking heads, still feel the need to attack each other. For progressives, these caustic relationships are of no use, serving only to drive allies apart and make progressive goals harder to achieve.

Criticism is necessary. Dissent is necessary. While progressive parties have plenty in common, they often differ when it comes to priorities and methods. But being drawn into the politics-to-media-to-politics cycle of personal attacks achieves nothing.

Dissent shouldn't be a barrier to cooperation, nor should it be a cause to resort to crude attacks. It is the basis of rational debate, that holds to us to a higher standard. Progress is built on that foundation. Progressive leaders need to remember that.

Church and State: Archbishop leads Church of England into newly interventionist stance

In the past fortnight, the Archbishop Justin Welby has adopted a particularly outspoken stance. Unusually for the Church of England in recent times, Welby has taken a series of - very public - interventions in mainstream politics.

The trend was kicked off with the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report on economic justice, which called for greater public intervention and higher taxes on the rich, of which Welby was both a signatory and public advocate.

Next the Archbishop took the stage during the Trade Union Congress 150th anniversary conference, to give a speech in which he compared Jesus to trade unionists, favourably, and likened the mission of trade unions and Christians.

And then, finally, Welby announced that the Church was looking to financially intervene - the Church holding numerous major financial investment in a considerable portfolio - in the collapse of Wonga, a major pay day lender, in order to protect those with debts from being preyed upon.

As might be expected, these interventions have raised eyebrows and annoyed people on all sides of the political spectrum - from the The Guardian to The Telegraph. On the one hand a line was drawn between addressing spiritual need and addressing economic hardship, and which the Church of England should be concerning itself with. On the other hand it was felt that Welby had waded in with too crude and analysis. And there were, of course, the criticisms of the Church's own stake in Amazon - itself accused of workers rights violations and poor working conditions.

So what kind of active role can the Church play?

For secularists in Europe, there was a long fight to get the institutional powers, including the churches, out of the public business. In Britain, however, that was more muted struggle, as the Church largely stepped back in time with the Crown.

But the Anglican Church remains a State Church which still has a stake in political power and seats in the House of Lords - and an undemocratic say in political decisions. Then there is the issue of public funding for the Church's listed buildings.

In all, that makes for a complicated position from which to intervene in public life. As a kind of independent social enterprise, there is absolutely a role the Church could play - much as any other charity or civic body should have the right, and perhaps the responsibility, to speak up and contribute to the public discourse.

But the Church is not independent and that does need to be carefully weighed and considered.

For progressives, there is a dilemma when progressive ideas receive the support of a big establishment body. It is nice to hear that alternative ideas have made their way into the halls of power. But the establishment remains an impediment.

Achieving progressive change, pushing for an alternative, means at some point winning over the establishment. But eventually even the reformed establishment will need to be overhauled as well - and the State Church is about as establishment as you can get.

What would politics in Britain look like with the break up of the old power blocks?

What might party splits do to alignment of political parties in England? There would be six parties with Parliamentary seats in England, but how long would that last before mergers began?

The threat of 'splitting the party' has rarely been thrown around in British politics more than it is these days. The rumours of a Labour split rumble on and now the threat of a split in the Conservatve party has returned - issued by the disgruntled Brexiter right wing.

Could we be on the cusp of some major realignment of politics? It's unlikely to be that easy.

The power of the status quo in British politics can not be overstated. While there have been major splits and political realignments before, they have still, ultimately, kept to a two-party form - with one broadly conservative and the other broadly progressive.

Historical Realignment

The biggest shift took a little over thirty years to achieve the new alignment. The beginning was the split of the Liberal Unionists from the Liberal Party in the 1890s, under the leadership of Joseph Chamberlain. The group banged a particularly patriotic and jingoistic drum, supporting Empire and colonialism and opposing Home Rule for Ireland.

Chamberlain's Unionists very quickly aligned with the Conservatives - forming a decade long government. But it was not enough to break the Liberals, who afterward led Britain up to the Great War. But as the Liberals did so, they helped laid the foundations for their own ousting from the two-party supremacy.

In the early days of the Labour movement, trade unionist candidates stood with Liberal backing. When the movement resolved to form a party, the Liberals supported it with an electoral pact that supported Labour into winning it's own seats and building a Parliamentary presence.

Following the Great War, the National Government that had led the country through the war - a coalition of Conservatives, Unionists and Liberals - finally broke up.

Having absorbed the Unionists prior to the war, the Conservatives were now the dominant force - especially as progressive voters being divided between two Liberals factions and the newer Labour Party.

There were a glut of elections in the subsequent interwar period. In them, the Conservatives remained the usually largest party. But the Labour party would win it's first governments as a minority during this time under Ramsay MacDonald as they became the second largest party ahead of the Liberals - even after the Liberals reunited.

However, the onset of the Great Depression split the Labour party as it split others and ushered in another period of Conservative dominance - which would complete a political realignment thirty years in the making.

Members of both the Liberals and Labour would support the Conservatives under a National Government banner that would last until the Second World War - splitting from their parties to become known as Liberal National and National Labour respectively - and led by the expelled Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald and his National Labour for four years.

The whittling away of the Liberals and the continued use of First-past-the-post (Fptp) voting ensured that, as the Consevratives absorbed their National allies, a new two-party system would emerge from the war years. A two-party, Conservative-Labour domination that has persisted since.

Contemporary Realignment

The splits threatened in contemporary politics, if they could actually break out of a mould that has lasted for more than seventy years, would split the Big Two parties into at least four parties.

These would be: a right-wing Brexiter party, the continuing and nominally centre-right Conservative Party, a centrist Pro-European party, and the continuing centre-left Labour Party - splits that would lean British politics rightwards.

Including the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, politics in Britain would have six parties, just in England, with seats in Parliament. The obvious reaction would be for these new groups to try and form alliances under the present Fptp voting system. But if those efforts were frustrated, a move to some form of Proportional Representation might finally be contemplated.

Big questions remain, however. How many MPs would be prepared to actually make the leap to a new party? Brexiter Tories claim to have 80 MPs willing to rebel. And it is easy to imagine, from MP resistance to Corbyn, that a fair number might join a breakaway from Labour - if it were popular.

How many of the Pro-European moderate Tories would be willing to leave to join a new centrist party formed by Labour breakaways? And would the Liberal Democrats merge with such a party to form one big 'Democratic' party?

This last option is the one that, if it worked, might most drastically change the political landscape. But it feels like the moment for such a move has past - a chance not taken by Tony Blair when he had the power and popularity before the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More likely is a standoff between four factions as they try not to trip over each other and figure out who their allies might be in an election. The winner, perhaps, may be the party that manages not to split apart. As ever, the safety of the status quo is a powerful draw - even when it is ineffectual and mired by factional infighting.

For progressives, the desire is for plurality. For several parties that work constructively together for broader goals, even when they don't agree on priorities. If a split on the centre-left helps stop the bickering and sniping, it will be welcomed. If not, it could be a long time before we see a truly progressive government.

A deficit of leadership in Britain, where compromise is a dirty word

May and Corbyn, two leaders trapped by their unwillingness to compromise.

Parliament returns to sitting this week after the Summer Recess. Barely is the week underway and the sheer lack of effective political leadership is again on display. In her latest attempt at stamping some authority on proceedings, this weekend Prime Minister Theresa May announced that she was taking a stance of "No Compromise" with the European Union on Brexit.

This is an extraordinary thing for a Prime Minister to say about a negotiation - not least a negotiation with an ally, to work out a positive future relationship. Where is the leadership is no existent vetos? Theresa May's "We shall not budge" attitude serves no purpose in a two-way negotiation - especially not when the 'No Deal' outcome is so filled with uncertainty and tipped towards unfavourable outcomes.

Yes, leaders need to stand up for the wellbeing of their communities. To represent their views and their wants. But that also means sitting down with the representatives of other communities to find common ground. How can that be done without compromise?

This isn't the first time that Conservative leaders have waded into these waters. David Cameron tried to veto a European Union decision during his tenure and they simply carried on the conversation without the UK. Yet it speaks to the deficit of effective leadership in politics in Britain that Theresa May's Premiership goes on without effective challenge - a deficit both within her party and across on the opposition benches.

Which brings us to Jeremy Corbyn. It's hard to write a long hard sigh into an article.

The anti-semitism scandal is drawing some stark lines, producing some very divisive responses. Leaving aside the questions over the validity and seriousness, and the origin, of the accusations - which range in people's perceptions from legitimate outrage by nervous communities, to opportunistic misrepresentation by disgruntled factions - there has been no redress.

What is unarguable is that Corbyn has not handled the accusations and the barrage of press. Neither well, nor poorly. He just hasn't handled it. He has an ongoing approach to the media of non-engagement. That is a part of his leadership - a rejection of a mistrusted mass media. But all the Corbyn leadership has done is vacate the space. They haven't sidelined it.

Labour has distinct internal divisions and opponents of Corbyn's leadership keep finding mud to sling - or, perhaps, stories that look enough like mud. And every media space the Labour leadership leaves vacant,  is another waiting to be filled by those driving a wedge into the party.

It is a game they don't want to play, and it is possible to appreciate why, but politics isn't just about what you believe - in some raw statement of ideology. It is also about what you are seen to believe. And this second one is that which people frequently remember, and shapes the headlines they read - the breaking news that hits their feeds, which they see but don't read.

On both sides there is an unwillingness to compromise. An unwillingness to take a seat at the table and play the game. Yes the game is treacherous and probably rigged. But refusing to engage does nothing. Refusal just leaves the game just as it is. Refusal to lose prevents any chance of winning.

In isolation lies only ruin and hollow honour.