Theresa May has fatally undermined any Conservative claims to moral authority

Theresa May decisions as a leader, to do deals with the DUP and keep out of the public eye after he Grenfell fire, have severely undermined any Conservative claim to moral authority

When talking about British politics, there is a note of caution to keep in mind about the Westminster system: the rules are more like traditions that can be interpreted to suit the situation and that this happens mostly to protect the status quo.

It's that favouring of the status quo that Theresa May will be clinging to right now. Even though May won the most seats and votes, she staked the house on winning a majority and she failed. That result hurt her hopes of remaining leader, but it shouldn't have fatally undermined the party.

Yet the Tories are teetering. Theresa May's leadership has taken the party from dominance amidst struggling opposition, and it has been the result of poor decisions and poor leadership.

There were the absurd decisions on the campaign like avoiding the public and staying away from debates. But her failures have been most stark in the past ten days since the election.

The decision to seek a coalition for the DUP has antagonised, divided and provoked - even putting the Good Friday Agreement at risk. In fact it has done everything except what the forming a coalition is supposed to do: bring stability. It's also a choice in stark contrast to her own, and her supporters', rhetoric.

Then came the Grenfell fire, symbolising everything wrong with the austerity creed that May has continued. The working class left in unsafe homes by profiteering landlords protected by Tory deregulation. And her response, in this moment that cried out for leadership? Absence.

Theresa May's administration has form when it comes to disappearing. When the Right-wing press launched an attack campaign on the entire principal of judicial independence, the government went quiet. It would be days before a small, quiet statement of support for the judiciary would emerge.

As the working class died or were left homeless, Theresa May was working on a working on a reponse, undoubtedly. But she was invisible. Moving about under the shelter of police protection. Hidden behind closed doors. Hidden from the people suffering through the tragedy.

As the poor response of the Bush Administration to the disaster left in the wake of Hurricane Katrina undermined confidence in the GOP, Theresa May has damaged public confidence in the Conservative & Unionist Party with her very public absence during a time of crisis.

Combine that with the divisive decision to try and go into government with an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, morally extreme party with historic connections to paramilitaries, and you have a toxic brew.

As hard as it is now for May to lead, she has been left little other choice. The Tories made their election campaign one dimensional. It was all about the leadership qualities of Theresa May. That may well continue to backfire well beyond the present crisis.

May campaigned for a personal show of support. The largest number of votes and seats in Parliament was won, not under the brand of the "Conservative & Unionist Party", but under the brand of "Team May". As difficult as May's position is now, it's hard to see anyone else from the Conservative benches having an easier time. They could not even claim to represent the mandate, however limited it may be, won on 8th June.

If the Conservatives see sense and listen to concern about the DUP deal, and if Theresa May stands down, the most votes and seats may not be enough to keep them in government. Their poor response to the Grenfell fire has done more than hurt public confidence - it has fatally undermined their claim to hold moral authority.

Without it, no ministry can hope to govern for long.

Theresa May's leadership has weakened the Tories profoundly, but her personal mandate and her negotiations with the DUP is all that's keeping them in office. They still need her - and as long as they do, the Westminster preference for the status quo may yet save her and her party.

However, from the morning of 9th June, Labour have told anyone who would listen that they were ready to run a minority government. They may soon have to.

General Election 2017 - Green Manifesto: Openness, compassion and cooperation

The Greens' manifesto must be read as what MPs will stand up for, rather than expect to implement.

At a modest launch, the Green Party put forward its manifesto for General Election 2017. The low-key event aligns well with the party's realistically focused, targeted election campaign.

The party's co-leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jon Bartley, have been at the forefront of calls for a Progressive Alliance and local Greens have worked to unite support behind the best placed anti-Tory candidates across the country.

Their own efforts will focus on a few constituencies, to concentrate on re-electing Lucas in Brighton Pavillion and putting some new Green MPs alongside her - such as Natalie Bennett in Sheffield Central, Molly Scott Cato in Bristol West and Vix Lowthion in the Isle of Wight.

So this manifesto must be understood in that context: these are the things that Greens will put on the agenda, that they will speak up for, fight for and vote in Parliament to defend. Openness and cooperation will be key to that effort.

Openness and cooperation appeared in Caroline Lucas' introductory speech, along with compassion, as the values that the Greens will protect. That theme runs through the pledges the party makes in its manifesto.

The headline pledges for the Greens are their commitment to a basic income trial scheme, a shorter working week and a £10 minimum wage. At the core, there is a lot of crossover with Labour: the living wage, higher tax for the wealthy and support for "small businesses, co-operatives and mutuals".

The party, of course, ranks addressing the environment among its highest priorities. There are commitments to fund a public work programme of home insulation to make energy use more efficient, to end fossil fuel subsidies and replace them with investment in renewables and community owned energy, and to protect green spaces.

There is also crossover with Labour here - who, in particular, have called for local public energy companies, with a focus on renewable energy, to compete with the big energy corporations to drive down energy prices.

The Liberal Democrats also share commitments here, to rolling out insulation, to invest in green energy and, with Labour also, to tackle air pollution and support new energy companies coming in and take on the "Big 6" - with a focus on how these efforts could all boost the economy and be the start of a job-creating clean industry in Britain.

These stand in stark contrast to the Conservatives, whose almost only reference to the environment was to offer its support to energy derived from shale gas - otherwise known by its more controversial name of fracking.

On health, the Greens continue their commitment to fighting against privatisation in, and of, healthcare services. They renew their commitment to passing their NHS Reinstatement Bill that would even restore dental services to public funding.

Their focus on support for matching the status of mental health to physical health matches with the Lib Dems and Labour, along with calling for increasing funding for the NHS and social care.

On other public services, the Greens go further than Labour, calling for energy, water, rail, bus and mail services to all be brought back into public ownership - and for an increase to local government funding to help authorities provide good quality services.

There are crossovers on education as well. Scrapping tuition fees has been committed to by the Greens and Labour - and still has support among Lib Dems. Restoring student grants is a Green and Lib Dem priority.

Restoring young people's benefits is a shared goal across the progressive parties. The Greens stand out on welfare, however, for their headline commitment to the basic income and to rolling out a trial scheme.

The Green Party commitments on house building align with all of the progressive parties and specifically matches Labour's commitment to 500,000 new social rent homes over the next five years. Along with the Lib Dems there are commitments to take action on empty homes and to scrap the Bedroom Tax.

Long shared with the Liberal Democrats, and being newly considered by the Labour Party, there is support for the much needed switch to proportional representation - to make votes matter, by making the votes people cast more clearly represented in how the seats in Parliament are distributed.

And not least there are commitments to the Human Rights Act and to the UK's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights - the Tory attitude to which has made this a high priority concern for liberals and human rights and civil liberties groups.

The Greens have only modest electoral ambitions for themselves. But in the face of the threat of a landslide Tory majority they have stressed the need for a Progressive Alliance - for progressive parties to come together to defend their shared values.

While they may be the most humble of mainstream progressive parties, their approach is grasping best the bigger picture. A Tory landslide would be a disaster - for the poorest, for transparency and accountability, for the values of openness, compassion and co-operation.

Whether a supporter of Labour or the Liberal Democrats, if the Greens are the best placed to defeat the Tories in a constituency, there is plenty of crossover to make voting Green tactically an easy decision.

The same extends in the other direction - Greens can find plenty of policies that align with their priorities in the manifestos of the Lib Dems and Labour. There is a real progressive consensus on many issues.

But it is only through cooperation and working together, by voting tactically and campaigning positively in collaboration with the best placed candidates, that progressives can fend off the latest round of Tory assaults on the rights, liberties and wellbeing of the most vulnerable people in Britain.

General Election 2017 - Tory Manifesto: Demanding unity, making no promises

Theresa May has called for unity and social harmony, but she offers little to ordinary people in return.

This manifesto is Theresa May's belated opportunity to stamp her identity of the Conservative Party. In what became her very short campaign for the role of Conservative leader, she chose to emphasise the Unionist element of the fully titled Conservative and Unionist Party.

At the 2017 manifesto launch, "Forward Together" was written on the front of May's podium as she strained to come across as a 'compassionate conservative' and the word "Unionist" was restored to the party's name on the front of the manifesto.

Inside the document, there was an effort to rewrite what it means to be conservative. It called for "commitment to country and community", "belief in national institutions", and obligations to one another stronger than individual rights as community and nation demand.

That definition is unionist to its core. In her first major speech as leader, she listed her hero as the Unionist Joseph Chamberlain. As Mayor of Birmingham, he led the modernisation of the city through public-private initiatives and the establishment of public utilities, in decisive acts of intervention.

There are some among the Tories who are perturbed by what they see as a similar interventionist streak. May's first manifesto and her launch speech seem to have been shaped to confirm that impression. But there is a real contrast between the tone and the content.

The headlines that the Conservatives drip fed to the media over night, before the launch, were all focused on what the party would do to address the dire state of social care - which critics say has seen a funding cut of over £4 billion on their watch.

Theresa May pitched a long term plan. The first step appears to be to launch a raid on the middle class: from their assets on one hand - those with holdings over £100,000 will pay more - to their winter fuel allowance, which will be means-tested to raise £1 billion.

The belt-tightening Tory plan extends down the income brackets. Pensions will again see cuts. With £8 billion already shaved across the Parliament (2015-2020) with the flat-rate pension, ending the triple-lock will be further hurt for the low paid on just the state pension.

While an argument might justifiably be made that the triple-lock has proven very expensive - pensioner incomes have risen 10% above inflation - not enough is being done to lower the cost of living, particularly in old age, to ease such a 'rebalancing'.

It is perhaps this that has motivated an intervention in the energy sector with an unspecified "safeguard tariff cap" on prices and a commission and independent review into how to ensure energy costs stay low, with a promise to ensure fair markets.

But let's be clear: social care changes brought in by raising the means-tested level to £100,000 does nothing to change the conditions for the poorest. These measures raise maybe £2 billion per year, at best, in additional funding to aid an ailing system.

That means the poorest will continue to rely on strained and underfunded care services, while the homeowning middle class will be paying far more for privatised care - and still won't be able to pass on their family homes to their children.

In fact, when you take into account hinted Tory plans to give workers the right to unpaid carers leave, it paints a picture of Conservatives intending to wean people off of state care.

Perhaps learning from the Cameron years, hard targets seem to have been replaced by lots of vague promises: to simplify tax laws, to stop tax evasion, to protect gig economy workers and to put more money in the NHS (despite having yet to meet their previous targets) - though the promises to control immigration continue to be more clearly specified.

But what does not seem to have changed is their attitude to the fiscal role of the government.

Current spending stands this year at around £720 billion to £740 billion in revenue, while Capital spending sits at around £80 billion. As the Tories combine Current and Capital spending to calculate the deficit, it stands at about £59 billion.

With further commitments to eliminate the deficit, across both Current and Capital spending, a National Productivity Investment Fund of £23 billion - even if it turns out to be rebranded rather than new money - heralds more austerity cuts to come, either from other infrastructure spending or from departmental budgets.

And that matters. Britain has already been hard hit by austerity. Yet despite in her manifesto disavowing the liberal conservative legacy of Cameron and Osborne and claiming that the state has a role, May is continuing their squeeze on public services.

Note here, that what can be interpreted about how the Tories will manage the economy has no help from the manifesto, which has no costings whatsoever. Just vague promises and vague numbers with no explanation of where money will be found, or taken.

The reality is that easing the social care strain by having the middle class pay more and by restraining the pensions of the least well off does nothing to increase the stake of ordinary people in their country. May is preaching a new Union, but it's still the same old unredeemed and hard to believe Tory slogan: "We're all in this together".

This is not an inclusive manifesto. It is not progressive. It is social harmony Unionism, putting the vague notion of a 'country' before the needs of the actual people. Theresa May demands unity, but doesn't offer ordinary people a real stake in the country.

Progressives and reformers will also be particularly unhappy to see Theresa May doubling-down on retaining power, with specific commitments to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, preserve First Past the Post and to require voter ID - all measures empowering the government of the day to stay there.

The path ahead, under the Conservatives, will continue to see the burdens fall on the poorest. Nothing in this document changes that. It is imperative that there be a progressive alliance to resist and oppose, because we need a strong opposition.

General Election 2017 - Housing: There is a progressive consensus that Britain needs more homes and more protection for renters

The future of housing in Britain is a key issue, for which the main parties rarely have a convincing answer.

It is not an overstatement to say that housing is in crisis in Britain. The housing and homelessness charity Shelter are stern in their assessment of a Britain that is short on affordable housing and facing the rise in precariousness and powerlessness that follows.

The Conservative approach to the crisis has been half-measures and pointed fingers. Despite the facts not agreeing with them, the Tory government has insisted it has built more houses than Labour - placing the present problems at their opponents feet.

Meanwhile their own response has amounted to mostly shoring up their own supporters. Disproportionately to the disadvantage of the least well off, the Tories have raided the public sector- councils and housing association - for more homes to prop up a housing market reluctant to build.

The Conservatives continue to make promises. In the Autumn, as they acknowledged they have failed to meet targets, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Sajid Javid announced plans for a mix of funds and loans to get back on target.

Theresa May has announced, during the current campaign, that new land will be made available for Councils to build social housing - though, they'll still be sold off after ten to fifteen years. And the plan isn't new, just a re-announcement of previous spending commitments.

It is painfully unclear that Conservative plans will not do much of anything to affect the fundamental problems.

What is clear is that there is a progressive consensus to be found on housing. Across the Left and Centre, there is a realisation that - at the raw heart of the matter - more homes need to be built. There is no escaping from that reality.

The Labour response has been to pledge a million new homes over five years. The plan accounts for half of those to be council and housing association homes, to be made available for affordable rents. The pledge was accompanied by a commitment to ensuring more secure tenancies and end bad letting practices.

The Liberal Democrats by comparison have pitched for 300,000 new homes a year across the next parliament. As is becoming more common, they have combined this with a plan to allow councils to levy penalty fees on absentee landlords with empty homes - up to 200% of council tax.

This theme of building homes, tackling bad landlording and taking on the problem of empty homes is also present in the Green Party's policy announcements. Their proposals pretty much match Labour's step for step and include the Lib Dems focus on bringing empty homes back into use.

However, what no party has offered is a concrete means of dealing with the fundamental problem: a 259% rise in house prices over just twenty years. The standard response has been simply to increase the sheer number of houses - hoping that increasing market supply alone will drive down prices.

Certainly, making rental more secure, longer termed and protected from bad practices - like hiked rents or exorbitant fees - more widely available will go some way to providing viable alternatives to home ownership, that will increase competitive pressure.

But at some point, some party or movement will have to address the fundamental roadblock to housing reform in Britain: the interests of homeowners, landlords, developers and the government being so closely aligned and deeply invested in the continued increase in property values as to form a cartel.

This problem goes deep into the heart of Britain's economic system and find there problems that are supposed to be extinct.

The rentier - the magnate who makes their unearned income from rent - is seen as an issue of the early twentieth and even nineteenth century, but remains a problem in modern Britain.

It was one of the things that originally led liberals to coalesce into a party to fight: the power of aristocratic landlords who maintained their wealth and privilege on the back of the work of others. Their answer was to fight for earned income to replace rent income.

Yet conservatism adapted and capitalism has kept alive at its core a rentier class, that finds disproportionate advantage. The continued prevalence of inherited wealth and the huge privilege afforded to wealth, allows a class to virtually exclude others from access to one of the most basic needs: shelter.

Addressing the grip of this cartel just simply isn't in the interest of a government - not least conservatives. In Britain, so much has been staked on 'financialisation' and that investment speculation is deeply entwined with property.

But what is the answer? The strong or expansive economies of countries like Germany and Singapore both have huge public ownership of land and housing and in the last twenty years have not seen prices rise like they have amidst Britain's private finance and privatisation boom.

The progressive parties are all putting forward plans that will be an improvement upon Conservative policy and there is real and meaningful overlap in their ideas. They recognise that Britain needs more decent affordable homes and renters need protection. That alone is enough to vote for progressive parties on the issue of housing, over Tories that raid social housing to feed an out of control market.

But the big answers on housing have yet to make their way into the party mainstream in Britain.

General Election 2017: The Alternative guide to a critical general election for Britain

The priority for progressives in 2017 is to stop the Conservatives sweeping aside all opposition, that would leave the way clear for Theresa May's regressive government and impoverishing policies. Image: Made from @TheProgAlliance campaign images (Adapted)

Not since the time of Margaret Thatcher's rise have the Conservatives been so strong and the progressive opposition so weak. For that reason alone, this could be counted an extraordinary election. But there is much more at play.

As the pollsters have been keen to point out, this election has so many factors - from Brexit to the prospect of a second Scottish independence referendum - that conventional assumptions cannot be relied upon for predictions (Duffy, 2017).

The view of The Alternative is that the way forward for the Left and Centre at this election is to work together, and our coverage will reflect that. We'll argue at each step for a Progressive Alliance and advise voters not to wait on leaders to make the first move.

As campaign the progresses, this article will act as a hub for our election coverage. In particular, you will find below links to our analysis of each party's manifesto, as they're released. Our focus will be on what unites the progressive parties.

Conservatives - Demanding unity, making no promises.

Labour - Stepping up the role of the public sector.

Liberal Democrats - Practical pitch to rebuild trust.

Greens - Openness, compassion and cooperation.

Scotland - Scottish MPs must bring soft power to bear.

Wales - Poor, fractured and ignored, needing a radical alternative.

Over the course of the campaign we'll also compare how progressives and conservatives are approaching each issue, and how major events, like the local elections or tv debates, have affected the campaign, with links here.

Local Elections - What did we learn?

Budget - Progressive optimism vs Conservative pessimism.

Housing - Britain needs more decent affordable homes.

Health - Ousting Jeremy Hunt would send a strong message.

Check back here as the campaign goes on for more articles on each factor and policy area in this critical election.

An Introduction to General Election 2017

The Conservatives enter this election from a position of strength and have everything to gain and, just maybe, everything to lose. Meanwhile, the polls say that Labour are vulnerable and might finally crumble. The local elections were not reassuring.

The local elections where a preview of the danger the Tories pose to Labour MPs. Up to this point, Labour under Corbyn had held it's own in most contests - though with one significant exception, in the Copeland by-election.

In a major shock, Labour lost a seat at a by-election to the government. Those in government usually focus on not being whittled away through successive by-election losses - winning a seat from the oppositions is an almost unheard of gift.

Corbyn's divided Labour lost ground in some key areas, like Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and parts of Wales. There Tories will be throwing their weight fully behind widening these cracks in the Labour front.

So for the opposition, things hang at a delicate balance. Worse than being vulnerable, they're also divided. Labour are split internally, but are also part of a progressive wing of British politics that can find dozens of reasons not to cooperate. But this time, there is one big reason to consider it.

The Progressive Alliance

With the opposition so weak and led by problematic leaders, progressives are being forced to break down a few of the old walls and rally together. In that effort, the grassroots have taken the leading role.

Local party branches, independent organisations and individuals have started organising cross-party cooperation. Led by the grassroots, 2017 looks like being the year of tactical voting.

An anti-Tory tactical vote looks like it will to be a factor in June - even if the party leaderships are reluctant to support cooperation. And, perhaps a little thanks to their reluctance?

But it's hard to gauge whether it will be effective at halting the Tory machine. The local elections made clear that the efforts of progressives will be mostly about rallying a defence.

There are also, of course, the usual objections and questions to consider: what do these 'progressive' parties have in common, and are their voters really that well aligned?

The Alternative will certainly argue from this position over the weeks ahead. And there are those in each party who also believe that parties like Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens have a lot in common - belief in equality, working for social justice, defending liberty. In fact there has been a long standing aim amongst members of Left-leaning parties to 'Realign the Left'.

One of the more controversial parties usually added to the progressive line up is the Liberal Democrats. Yet it is home to some of the most vocal progressives. For example, the Social Liberal Forum, an internal pressure group that represents the progressive wing of the Liberal Democrats, endorses progressive alliance cooperation and has been vocal in its belief in unifying progressive values (SLF, 2017).

Their positive attitude to cooperation matches that of the Green Party, that has been firmly behind alliances between Left and Centre parties for a number of elections. Local Greens have in fact already started organising behind single anti-Tory candidates (Left Foot Forward, 2017). Local Lib Dems have, in turn, stood aside in Brighton to back Caroline Lucas.

The big question mark on progressive cooperation has always been Labour, traditionally zealous in its presentation of itself as the one and only representative of progressives. But the run up to this election has seen a number of Labour MPs getting on board with cross-party cooperation, such as Clive Lewis and Lisa Nandy.

The biggest factor will not be whether the party leaderships are willing to endorse some sort of alliance. Rather, it will depend on people taking up the responsibility and organising themselves if the Tories and their regressive government is to be held to account.

It will be from grassroots efforts that a Progressive Alliance will flower. From tactical voting, from vote swapping and from individual citizens and local organisations making their own decisions and running their own campaigns.

Local Elections 2017: Council polls set to be a dry run for the GE2017 campaign

Before it got bumped down the bill by the new main event that is Theresa May's impromptu general election, this year's premier political test in Britain was going to be the local elections. While it might have lost its billing, it hasn't lost it's significance.

In fact, it now carries an expanded added role. Theresa May's U-turn on an early election has created an unusual situation: the 2017 UK general election will get a dry run. The pitches and arguments that the parties are formulating will first be tested on Thursday 4th May.

Unlike in most of Britain's elections, the parties are going to have a chance to put their strategy to the public, assess its impact and then refine it. So don't be surprised to see the parties shift gears heading into June if they feel their pitch struggled in May.

The local elections, covering nearly 5,000 council seats across England, Scotland and Wales, should also give us some idea whether - as we saw in 2016 - Labour can, for the most part, resist a Conservative advance. At the 2016 polls, Labour broke even on councils controlled and limited losses to just 18 councillors, taking 31% of the vote.

However, they also went on to lose a seat at a by-election in Cumbria in the early part of this year, in Copeland - a gift of a victory for a sitting government, the first since 1982, that would normally be faced with just limiting its losses.

With its usually lower turnouts and a slightly different approach, trying to extrapolate trends or sentiments from local elections is difficult and potentially flawed. But there are some races around the country that will be watched intently for any sign of movement.

The particular focus will be on any council under Labour control. They will be under intense scrutiny. The four Labour-controlled councils up for re-election in England in 2017 are Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Durham and Doncaster - and at least three of those have relevance in the June general election as prime Conservative targets.

In Derbyshire: Labour holds North East Derbyshire by just 1800 votes. In the nearby City of Derby, Labour holds Derby South with an 8000 majority - but by only 2500 over the Tories and UKIP combined. In Derby North seat they were narrowly beaten into second in the 2015 general election.

In Nottinghamshire: In the Ashfield constituency, Conservative and UKIP votes add up to over 20,000 with Labour sitting MP elected on less than 20,000, in a seat Labour kept only narrowly from the Lib Dems in 2010. It's a similar story in Bassetlaw, in Gedling and in Mansfield, and Broxtowe was lost narrowly to the Tories in 2010. In the City of Nottingham, the Nottingham South constituency, the total support for the Right is enough to cause concern.

In Doncaster: The Conservatives and UKIP combined to total 18,000 votes in Doncaster Central, a constituency where a Labour MP received just under 20,000 - and in 2010, 15,000 votes between the Tories, UKIP, the BNP and the English Democrats to 16,500 for Labour's MP elect. The neighbouring constituency of Don Valley faces much the same numbers.

In Doncaster it would take a mighty shift to tip the seats away from Labour MPs. But, as with all of the council elections mentioned above, that is exactly what the Tories are counting on. And major losses in council elections will not bode well for Labour's chances come June.

Labour will also have an eye on the elections for the new Metro Mayors, who being given funding powers - though with little democratic oversight, sitting as they will at the head of a council of council leaders. But it presents a chance to fight Conservatives for executive positions that come with funds to distribute locally.

The Liberal Democrats will also be looking to continue their fightback, recovering the ground they lost between 2010 and 2015. They made large gains in 2016 and recovered to 15% of the vote - out performing the polls - and will hope to repeat that performance to gain momentum heading into the June election.

The Lib Dems will also have an eye on the Metro Mayor elections, in particular in the West of England where Stephen Williams, their former Bristol West MP, is running against a Conservative. Winning an election for an executive position, on what used to be their home turf, would be a tremendous boost.

The Green Party will just be looking for a positive performance, after failing to make any headway in 2016 - coming out with 3 seats less.

The local elections in Wales will likely carry a particularly heavy level of media interest, thanks to the BBC focussing on Theresa May's repeated visits to the country and the talk of the opening of opportunities there for the Conservatives. As elsewhere, the question will whether Labour can hold its ground.

In Scotland, there is talk of the Conservatives rallying Unionist support to take seats from the Scottish National Party in June. For both the SNP, with their own aims, and the anti-Tory opposition in England and Wales, it will be of intense interest whether the Conservatives can make any inroads into the astonishingly broad front the SNP have seized in Scotland.

The overall popular vote will also likely be of interest. With only the polls as a guide, some tangible numbers could have a real impact. Now, these should be taken with caution as the majority of councils up for re-election are currently Conservative-controlled - meaning this won't be a simple straight fight. But the plus and minus of council seats, at least, should offer some illumination.

The final factor, but by no means the least, will be the turnout. With a second general election in two years, along with the referendum, falling a month after a large round of local elections, there is reasonable grounds for concern that turnouts will fall drastically.

The big question facing all parties will be: who won't show up? Overall turnout and where and which demographics could have a gigantic affect in June. A lot will depend upon whether disenfranchised voters feel able to turn to the Conservatives (Fearn, 2017) - or whether they simply wash their hands and walk away. If Theresa May is to increase her majority, she needs these people to turn out.

The only effective progressive strategy in June will be vote anti-Tory, whoever and wherever possible uniting behind the strongest candidate. So the local elections will be a chance to express their support for the different Left and Centre options with nuance, before things get an awful lot simpler in June.