Unionism: What is Mrs May pitching?

Unionism was Joseph Chamberlain's special province when he dominated Victorian politics. Today, Theresa May is trying to spark a resurgence. Photograph: Joseph Chamberlain plaque by Simon Harriyott (License) (Cropped)

At the beginning of last week, Theresa May launched her first full year as the leader of the Conservative & Unionist Party with a speech that called for a 'shared society' (BBC, 2017). Over the years, the Conservatives have made many rebranding attempts. Is May's any different?

For the most part, the attempts of her predecessors - Major, Hague, Duncan Smith and Cameron - have been focussed on repackaging Thatcher. They have tried to soften the harsh anti-government and anti-interventionism tone to the policies of the Thatcher-Reagan consensus (BBC, 2017{2}).

But they all contained the same disdain for the idea of a 'society' as a figment created to justify collectivism - to justify a claim that people have duties towards others beyond themselves and their own families, expressed through taxation and the state. They just tried to make rejection of the state, and embrace of the free market and privatisation in its place, palatable or 'empowering'.

May's rebrand seems different. She has appealed harder to the idea of the state's role, promising intervention in a way that none of her recent forebears would perhaps have contemplated. She has hinted at moving away from austerity and letting the state intervene more. But how does this all relate to what we know of conservatism and do these appeals follow through?

Chamberlain and Unionism

Theresa May's inspiration, it seems, for this deviation from the legacy of Thatcher is Joseph Chamberlain. Chamberlain was the Victorian political heavyweight who broke his Unionists away from the Liberals and led them into alliance, and eventual merger, with the Conservatives.

A businessman, and industrialist, he was at first aligned with the radical liberal reformers who campaigned for enfranchisement and free, compulsory - and local authority run - education. As Mayor of Birmingham he reorganised municipal utilities, bringing them under municipal control, cleared slums, and rallied public and private money to public works, such as building libraries, museums, schools and parks.

On the other hand, he proved himself to be an aggressive nationalist. He opposed Irish Home Rule and defended the Union, and further wanted to see the Empire become a truly, exclusively, British trading system, protected by trade tariffs and was willing to back military action to advance Britain's interests - in ventures not so far removed from the interventions of the neoliberal governments in oil rich countries in the early 2000s.

The Unionists, of which he was a leading figure, where a strange coalition of aristocratic Whigs with landed estates, who as a faction were drifting away from the Liberal mainstream, and a group of radical reformers led by Chamberlain. These two groups were united mostly by their opposition to Irish Home Rule, which would break up the Union.

The composition of the Unionists shifted over time, but it settled around a particular outlook: a British nationalism that transcended its constituent nationalities, built upon institutions like Westminster government, and preserved the Union; and, economic intervention at home with a protected British system of trade abroad, directed to British interests alone.

But what was perhaps most significant, from where Theresa May sit, was that the Unionists brought a working class base to the Conservative coalition. Chamberlain's personal support, centred on Birmingham, included working class voters, gave the traditional party of the landed aristocracy a broad enough base of followers to dominate government in the twentieth century.

May and Unionism

May's first conference as leader was at Birmingham, the centre of her hero's political empire and was the scene for the first two big moves of her ministry: to disentangle a still United Britain entirely from continental entanglements and to prioritise some spending over paying down the deficit (BBC, 2016; BBC, 2016{2}).

And there have been other moves. Intervening to delay Hinckley Point, alleged promises made to Nissan that speak of protectionism, hints of economic planning in the promises to develop an industrial strategy, and the continuance of the Conservative policy of devolution to the local government level that could have pleased Chamberlain (Goodall, 2016).

However - and it is a big, emphatic, however - no Conservative leader has been scared to use central government, top down, intervention when it suited them; privatisations continue; part of the Brexit rhetoric is that Britain is leaving the EU in search of freer trade, not more protected; and devolution has been hand in hand with cuts, as a way to impose austerity while handing off responsibility for its results.

Without a tangible set of policies to mark her approach out as distinct, what part of the legacy of Unionism is May promoting? Well, so far, the main thrust of May's Unionism has been cultural. Her speeches focus heavily on acknowledging injustice (Kuenssberg, 2017) and warning that it will 'undermine the solidarity of our society' (May, 2017).

That word - 'solidarity' - seems like an odd choice of phrase for a Conservative in the modern era, but it might be understood better when coupled with her phrase 'bringing our country together', which is what May presents as her solution to the rising resentment.

That phrase makes clear that this isn't 'solidarity' in its usual collectivist democratic sense, of the people standing together for mutual empowerment - an egalitarian mass movement of people aiding each other as a counter the power of an elite class.

Rather, May's point - her Unionism - seems to be very conventionally conservative: the traditional institutions have broken down and people are lost without their place in the established order. To end resentment, May seems to be arguing that a Burkean social harmony must be restored.

In that, there seems to be marked a drift in the party away from liberal conservatism towards something more purely conservative. Since the decision to enter the Coalition, a reaction within the party has grown ever louder against Cameron's soft conservative neoliberalism. In its place, rises an effort to reconcile individualism and competition, with an appeal to nationalism and community coherence, to unite the two errant wings of the ideology.

It is in the prioritising of these first two, and neglect of the last two, from which May sees resentment springing - and it certainly seems to fit how resentment has been filtered through Farage and UKIP. What May also sees is an opportunity.

Chamberlain combined local social reform with banging the patriotic drum, pitching a British system that carried a sense of a nation and tradition in which ordinary people have a stake - where everyone has their part to play. May sees a chance, in evoking the Chamberlain heritage of Unionism, to bring working people into a Conservative coalition.

Society as seen through a Prism

To do this May has taken up the language of the Left, but filtered its cause through a conservative prism. For instance, she wants to equate social justice with social harmony - in the process stripping it of its sense of distributional equality, leaving behind only class collaboration and perhaps, in the conservative sense, a 'fair deal' on work and pay.

The trouble is that social harmony is illusory. It requires citizens to accept exclusion and inequality in exchange, maybe, for a place of safety and security within the fold. Meanwhile the true elite - the wealthy, the rentiers - do not need to give up or compromise much of anything to take up their place within the harmonious order.

"A Britain that works for everyone" is not a slogan that promises very much - just as "We're all in this together" proved an empty promise to ordinary citizens, their sacrifices unmatched by the elite. Unionism addresses resentment by falling back on nationalism, looking to 'the nation', 'the Union' and their institutions as a rallying point.

Chamberlain's own Unionist star fell when colonial adventures brought misery and his closed economy could not compete with the benefits of being open to the world. The reality is that his Unionism did not leave ordinary people better off, however much it rallied them about a patriotically waved flag. Theresa May is trying to pick up and claim that fallen standard.

Progressives should not be seduced. People cannot be content with a place within May's social hierarchy: tightly ordered, tightly surveilled - living under close control, in exchange for just the hope of a little basic social security. Unionism, and its social harmony within a hierarchy, offers citizens neither liberty or justice.

Witney by-election suggests Tory support is soft and their majority vulnerable

In hindsight, the Coalition Agreement now almost looks like the first move in a patient five year Conservative strategy to move on the  Liberal Democrats and try to absorb their support. But the gains they made amongst liberals are beginning to look very soft.

By-elections are often tricky to decipher. For instance, sitting governments usually do poorly and lose ground - so that can not necessarily in itself be taken as an indicator of impending defeat at a general election.

However, there are a few things that the Witney by-election, triggered by the resignation of former Prime Minister David Cameron shows us about the state of British politics.

First of all, and of some importance, it is a reminder of just how thin the government majority really is. Cameron & Osborne, and now May, have governed like they have a majority of one hundred and thirty seats, not a narrow thirteen - showing little regard for how divisive their policies actually are.

It takes only a minor disagreement with just a few disgruntled MPs for the path toward Tory goals to be blocked - a clear indicator that, majority or no, the government should be far more respectful of political opinion far broader than the narrow and unrepresentative majority the party holds.

However the second observation is perhaps the most alarming for the Conservatives. Their advantage is not just thin, but also soft. Their majority was attained in 2015 by crushing their former coalition partners the Liberal Democrats, claiming credit for Liberal Democrat policies while specifically targeting their electoral campaign at their seats.

But governing as a majority, unfettered by the Lib Dems, seems to have, perhaps, stripped away the blinkers from those thought that the Conservative & Unionist Party had adopted a gentler, more decent and more liberal way - rather than being restrained by Liberal Democrats in endless policy battles.

And in Witney, it would seem that a significant number of liberals, on the fence between the Tories and the Lib Dems, went over to the Lib Dems - in fact, an entire third of Tory support went over to the Lib Dems, cutting the majority in the seat from twenty five thousand to just five thousand.

What could that mean for British politics more broadly?

David Cameron's former majority, in his recently resigned seat of Witney, has been reduced from 25,000 to just 5000 by his former Coalition partners the Liberal Democrats. Photograph: Prime Minister David Cameron - official photograph by Number 10 (License) (Cropped)

Since 2010, it has been abundantly clear that the easiest way to achieve a progressive government in the near future will be through a coalition. And the only way to make up those numbers would be for whoever is strongest against the Conservatives in a particular area to take the lead.

The strategic position of the Liberal Democrats and their support makes them invaluable to putting progressives over the top and into government. The party is the main opposition to the Conservatives in thirty six constituencies - with a particular concentration in the South West - and that number does not include Witney were the party was third along with at least four others were they also fell below second in 2015.

Local election gains, along with a steady rise in party membership, have been all that the Liberal Democrats have so far had to encourage them that a 'Lib Dem Fightback' is under way. The Witney result might be the strongest signal yet - though, even if an election is just around the corner, it is far too early to read much into whether the Liberal Democrats can recover, not least because turnout at by-elections is often far below a general election turnout.

But their result - even if other progressive parties didn't fair as well (Labour fell to third and the Greens took only four percent) - should give progressives some hope, as voters abandoning the Conservatives for the Liberals is one necessary condition for toppling the Tory majority.

That makes for one front in the coming contest, though with some further assembly still required. Work must now be done to ensure that when an election campaign begins in earnest, progressives have opened up a number of other fronts and are ready to take on the Tories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tory Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

Is a Labour-Tory merger really possible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum: 4 things you should know about TTIP, free trade and the European Union

One of the most controversial elements of the UK's membership of the European Union, at present, is the TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - trade deal. Between the United States and the European Union, it is intended to break down trade barriers limiting free trade.

The prospective deal has been controversial from the start - being assembled in negotiations deemed secret, under a cloud of fear that business is being given legal rights to seek recompense from governments for profit-hurting policy, reduce Europe's regulatory standards and open protected domestic institutions to aggressive corporate competition.

I: The EU is only what you make of it

The misconception here is that the EU is a distinct, abstract institution, pursuing its own agenda - thus imagining the deal to be the work of the EU alone, with exit a simple blocking measure. But the EU doesn't work like that. It is driven by a council of the governments of the member states, including the UK.

Right now, Britain's representative are David Cameron's government and the Prime Minister has argued forcefully in favour of TTIP. Leaving the EU is not going to stop the UK's Conservative government seeking the pass TTIP-type trade agreement.

The basic reality is that the opposition to TTIP is to be found in Europe, not out of it. In Germany, 250,000 people have marched against the treaty. In France, the government is opposing the treaty for the way it threatens its protection policy covering certain of its own domestic interests. The movements are right in step with the major concerns over the treaty in Britain.

II: Remember ACTA?

As ever, the problem persists of national governments hiding behind the EU - using it as an excuse or a way to pass policies where the public aren't watching, when it is simply a system whose strings they are pulling.

Consider the controversial ACTA treaty. ACTA, which was intended to ensure an international 'harmonisation' of copyright enforcement, was criticised as potentially allowing private companies to violate basic personal liberties like privacy and even threatening generic medicines to protect the financial interests big pharmaceutical companies.

While many national governments around the world and across Europe signed, including the UK, the treaty was ultimately blocked in a vote by the directly and proportionally elected EU Parliament, following massive public protests across the EU.

III: What is the point of free trade?

On TTIP, Prime Minister Cameron has tried to make out that there are stark lines over the deal. From his perspective, on his side - supporting TTIP - are all those who want free trade and the benefits it brings, and on the other are people who are 'against free trade and wanting to see an expansion of trade and investment and jobs' (Mason, 2016).

It is not unfair to suggest free trade is a worthy principle, but why can't we have it on ethical terms?

In its more idealistic form, the EU is all about constructing an ethical free trade area. In its origins, it was conceived of as a way to end war in Europe by stopping national governments getting into strife with each other over control of the natural resources with which to construct to materiel of war.

Going further back, into the 19th century, the campaign for free trade was about breaking open cartels. Under the system of trade formed by the competing systems of national protection, the basic necessities were made prohibitively expensive by the stranglehold over them of powerful and unaccountable landlords and bosses whose interests where served by national government protection.

The Anti-Corn Law League, the early radical liberal campaign in the UK for free trade, sought to break up these cartels to reduce the cost of basic food and goods, so that the poorest could afford a decent and healthy life. The campaign for free trade was in service to the public against the protected interests of the rich landowners.

IV: What does EU trade look like?

What the EU has attempted, but not completed, is to ensure that the free trade it promotes takes place on a fair and ethical playing field. Basic standards, enforced by regulation (the mythical beast the Right love to talk of slaying), protect workers' rights, prevent animal testing and in a host of other important areas ensure a basic minimum expected of business practice in Europe.

Internally, this comes hand-in-hand with policies like the Regional Development Fund. The fund is intended to invest in the poorest, sub-national, regions of the EU to raise the standard of living up, so no country can look to undercut another on basic standards or be cut out left unfairly behind.

Externally the protections, of standards and rights, require trading partners to meet certain conditions for access to Europe's common market - like those of Norway and Switzerland that have been much publicised as alternatives in for the UK during this EU referendum campaign.

All of these ideals depend, however, on who is in charge of policy and negotiation at the EU. Right now, it is the conservatives of many EU member states who are in the ascendency and control policy and decision making at the European level. As a result, the EU's actions have been tinged with conservatism.

Within that system, it has been the Right, and the far right, who have been the ones pushing most aggressively for the UK to do away with the EU's standards - though it has faced resistance. The solution for the Right has become doing away with the EU, but keeping the market intact, as they still want to trade with Europe, but want to be undercut everyone else and help big business pad its profits by doing away with concern for the environment or workers' rights.

What do progressives want from trade?

Exiting the EU will require new trade deals to be negotiated. The conservative Right is unlikely to make those standards and regulations any kind of priority in its negotiations. Maybe, of course, those who want a 'left exit', unrestricted by the European system, will get a government of the Left before too long, to set about forming a new progressive trade policy.

But what are progressives in Britain going to negotiate for, if not an ethical trade area? An ethical trade area underscored by democratic accountability and cooperation?

Even a progressive exit would mean the dismantling of systems of cooperation, decades in the making, that have supported advances in rights, in a move that could only make the Far Right happy - only to have to then try to rebuild it all over again.

Right now for progressives, fighting corporate power and ensuring trade is conducted ethically and with appropriate standards and rights protections, remaining in the EU - not idly, but campaigning for progressive, democratic reforms - is still the best option.

This is Part 2 of  a multi-part series, "The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum" - click here to go to the introductory hub

An Alternative Easter Round-up: Three political stories from around the world

With Parliament away on Easter Recess, politics in the UK has been reduced to the government hoping for quiet days with as few intermittent controversies as possible. So while politics takes a breather in the UK, here are some of the stories brewing elsewhere around the world.

An Individual's Scandal and Stability in Iceland

Faced with popular pressure following the Panama Papers leak, Iceland Prime Minister Gunnlaugsson has resigned. Photograph: Reykjavik from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

The story that has excited press reaction the most this Easter has of course been the leak of the Panama Papers. The leak has made life difficult for the leaders of a number of countries, from those affected more directly like Mauricio Macri in Argentina (TeleSur, 2016), to those more tangentially involved like David Cameron in the UK (Sparrow, 2016).

Not least affected was Iceland's Prime Minister Gunnlaugsson. Having been connected to millions in offshore accounts, he sought an election to, it would seem, seek the absolution of the people. However, his request was denied by the President - who pointed to the lack of Parliamentary support for new elections.

Backed into a corner, with no escape hatches left and protests being held against him, Gunnlaugsson resigned (Henley, 2016). It is both fascinating and deeply troubling that he seemed willing to throw a country's entire political sphere into upheaval and instability, just to save his own position and career.

He would not, by a long margin, be the first to seek out politics for such reasons and be prepared to use its powers and mechanisms in such a way. But in this case, at least, it seems that the constitutional structure of the government in Iceland was robust enough to fend off such efforts.

'Macri Gov't Claims President's Innocence in Panama Papers Leak'; on TeleSur; 5 April 2016.

Andrew Sparrow's 'What David Cameron did and didn't say about his father's offshore trust: The prime minister chose his response to reporter’s question about Blairmore Holdings very carefully – and he will probably get away with it'; in The Guardian; 5 April 2016.

Jon Henley's 'Iceland PM steps aside after protests over Panama Papers revelations: Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson steps aside amid widespread anger over allegations his family attempted to hide millions in offshore account'; in The Guardian; 5 April 2016.

Institutional Corruption and Hypocrisy in Brazil

Politics in Brazil is mired by the corruption investigation into its current and its former President. Photograph: National Congress of Brazil from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

The situation facing Brazil, where a corruption controversy threatens to pull apart an already divided country, there do not seem to be the same constitutional assurances to fall back on.

President Dima Rousseff, Vice President Temer and former President Lula all face impeachment over corruption charges (BBC, 2016). There is allegedly mounting evidence of kickbacks, deal-making and corruption in the billions and apparently trusted polls suggest two-thirds of the people support impeachment (Davies, 2016).

Yet the country is divided (Davies, 2016). Rousseff's party - the social democratic Workers Party, which under her and her predecessor's governance has introduced far reaching welfare programs to help the poorest - is largely supported by the working class, while the opposition protesters have been largely from the white middle classes.

Amongst the working class there seems to be genuine concern that the scandal is little more than an attempted coup (Weisbrot, 2016). That isn't helped by the fact that the opposition seem to have overstepped the mark, by politicising corruption probes with orders for police detentions and questioning, and the leaking of wire taps.

Middle class double standards have also been singled out (Davies, 2016). Less concern has been shown by Rousseff's opponents for the Swiss bank accounts and corruption allegations, shielded by the legal protections of Congressional office, that have been levelled at opposition politicians.

That hypocrisy exposes one of the most dangerous facets of widespread corruption. When everyone is dirty, within a system set up only to serve divisive interests, there can be nowhere to turn for help and little hope of bipartisan action that could both clean matters up and be a bridge to rebuild commonality and unity.

Wyre Davies' 'Brazil crisis: There may be bigger threats than Rousseff's removal'; on the BBC; 21 March 2016.

'Brazil Vice-President Michel Temer could face impeachment'; on the BBC; 5 April 2016.

Mark Weisbrot's 'Attempted Coup in Brazil Seeks to Reverse Election Results'; on TeleSur; 5 April 2016.

Barcelona Municipalism and the Cities of Europe

Barcelona En Comu's municipalism is getting an outing on the continental stage, as Europe's elected city administrations look for a voice in setting policy. Photograph: Barcelona from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Beneath the press coverage of the refugee crisis, there have been frantic discussions in Europe over how to address the large numbers of people fleeing to the continent. The primary mechanism has become a migrant-exchange deal with Turkey to facilitate deportation of migrants, out of Greece to Turkey (Connolly, 2016).

However, the refugees welcome campaign refuses to go away. On Tuesday, Mayors from a number of EU cities gathered to discuss ways of supporting refugees already in Europe. For Ada Colau, Mayor of Barcelona and face of the Podemos-affiliated and citizen-led Barcelona En Comu, the meeting represented a chance to show the merits of municipalism on the continental level and issue a call to action to shelter refugees.

And it would seem that the municipalist message is getting through. The EuroCities group, bringing together and giving a voice to the elected administrations of European cities, conducted a survey that suggested that, despite the role being played by cities in managing the refugee crisis, they distinctly lack a voice in setting policy (Bramley, 2016).

While there clearly wasn't unanimous agreement on the EU's refugee plan at the meeting, there was at least agreement that central governments were failing to allow enough discretion to cities over the control of funds that could be helping people now (Valero,2016).

Kate Connolly's 'EU-Turkey deal begins as Syrian refugees arrive in Germany and Finland: Three planes from Turkey, carrying a total of 43 people, land as part of migrant-exchange agreement'; in The Guardian; 4 April 2016.

Jorge Valero's 'Red Cross questions Turkey refugees deal'; on EurActiv; 5 April 2016.

Ellie Violet Bramley's 'Cities need more power to deal with refugee crisis: report - Refuge cities - Despite urban centres having to receive and integrate huge number of refugees, cities lack crucial input when it comes to policy, says a new European report'; in The Guardian, with the Rockefeller Foundation; 4 April 2016.

Citizen Government as a remedy for Corruption?

From individual to institutional corruption, it always poses a threat to good governance. And that is never more obvious than when poverty is spreading and budgets are tight - as less eyes are turned blind to those grafting something extra for themselves or their friends.

In the face of austerity and broad discontent with the political system, Spain's local governments have looked to the horizontal rather than the vertical for solutions - pooling resources, and working side by side, with other municipalities.

That message of devolution and citizen government, for municipalism, is a tonic for anyone needing to feel a reinvigorated belief in democratic government. Alone, it cannot do everything that is needed to chase out corruption. But what might municipalism achieve as a broad movement of democratic citizen-governments, in league, working together?

Cameron & Osborne reached Easter Recess having survived another tough short term battle, but longer term dangers linger unaddressed from failure to invest

Approach of UK Conservative and Canada Liberal governments to their respective 2016 budgets were worlds apart. Photograph: Parliament of Canada in Ottawa from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

As Parliament went into its Easter Recess on Friday, it appeared that the Cameron Government had weathered the political storm caused by the budget. Controversies had weakened the government's position, but had not toppled it. Yet Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor Osborne have only won the week, as tends to be their criticised focus (Kuenssberg, 2016).

While they manage the short term, there are larger, longer term, dangers they're not addressing - not least of which is the long term danger of failing to invest. Cameron and Osborne like to talk of not leaving our debts to the next generation, yet there are debts other than fiscal to leave to the next generation. One deficit they are sure to leave behind is infrastructural (Yalnizyan, 2016).

It is interesting how different priorities can be on either side of the Atlantic. In Canada, their new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled his first budget. As promised during the election, it involved deliberately running deficits in order to fund public investment in rebuilding Canada and setting it up for the future (CBC News, 2015).

John McDonnell's focus as Shadow Chancellor has been to try and undermine the perception of the Conservatives as the economically competent party, that can be trusted with the national finances. In his response to the budget, he paid special attention to the Conservative habit of over-promising and under-delivering, especially when it comes to public investment (McDonnell & O'Connor, 2016).

McDonnell has expressed particular and repeated concern that the Conservatives keep sending out press releases launching projects and yet, as argues McDonnell, don't provide or secure adequate funding. Meanwhile, against the recommendations of the OECD and the IMF, Osborne has continued to let investment consistently fall as he pursues a budget surplus (McDonnell, 2016).

What is interesting this is not a trend that Osborne began, but is rather just fitting into. Public investment in the UK has been falling steadily for the better part of fifty years (Thornsby, 2016). At the last election, both Labour and the Lib Dems wanted to put aside money for public investment, exempt from the efforts to balance the budget, but their efforts were timid due to lingering doubts about ignoring the debt or deficit in the short term to pursue a longer view.

While these doubts are being harboured in the UK, in Canada the situation couldn't be more different. At the last election the Conservatives were defeated by the Liberals coming from third place into a sweeping majority while promising to run deficits in order to fund economy growing public investment (CBC News, 2015).

Now there were certainly other aspects of the Liberal approach that helped them over the finishing line - not the least the fact that none of the parties leaders were Stephen Harper. The Trudeau campaign was open, relaxed and friendly with the public and the offer of limited-deficit funded public investment in infrastructure cannot be discounted as a factor (The National, 2016).

Yet it would seem to have only been possible to propose those deficits because the Liberals did not have the weight of a reputation for fiscal irresponsibility on their shoulders. Pre-election polls suggested that the public not only trusted the Liberals the most on the economy, but also believed they would be the most likely to have a positive impact on the economy (CTV News, 2015) - and aligned more with their promise to invest in infrastructure rather than simply cut taxes and balance the books.

While tackling the Conservative reputation, Shadow Chancellor McDonnell has also been trying to rebuild one for Labour. Bringing on a team of advisors, he has taken them on tour where, speaking across the country, they have explained how negative austerity has been and what might be possible in its place.

No one has typified this more than economist Mariana Mazzucato. In her own work, and in her work advising Labour, Mazzucato has consistently argued that the private sector is too risk averse and too short term in its thinking to handle the kind of positive long term investment that the public sector excels at (Mazzucato, 2013{2}).

In fact, if anything, she suggests that the private sector leeches off of public investment - privatising the rewards (Mazzucato, 2013). For those wedded to the fear of progressives forever being labelled as high spending, controlling statists, Mazzucato's call if not for a bigger state, but for a much easier to stomach smarter state (Mazzucato, 2014). A state that promotes growth by making smart investments where the private sector only hinders or won't take the risk; a state that promotes justice by seeing more of the reward for public efforts returned to the public.

The second, and maybe harder, part that follows the building of a reputation, is maintaining it. In Canada, the Liberals have been smart, deliberately managing expectations (Evans, 2016). While every $1 of infrastructure spending can lead to much bigger revenue returns - what Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, refers to as a virtuous cycle of investment (Taylor, 2016; Gray, 2016) -  they have nonetheless managed their forecasts down, leaving themselves plenty of headroom for showing the positive impact of their policies.

Public investment is important. In infrastructure, in education, in housing, in healthcare. All of these materially benefit everyone, even tackle inequality. Yet despite the Chancellor's obvious pleasure at announcing investment projects, there has been little to back it up (Pidd, 2015; Boffey, 2015) - with announcements seemingly serving as publicity to encourage private investment instead of the making of public commitments.

Sooner or later, the public will have to face the reality of the Conservative failure to invest - in education; in affordable housing; in technology, science and research. Long term public investment will be missed when the reality of selfish, short term, private investment is grasped. In the meantime, progressives have to do what they can, building the credibility of the argument for a smarter state that invests in the common good.

Europe is facing a humanitarian crisis, far too serious to be reduced to being the subject of petty political point-scoring

Despite David Cameron's flippant dismissal, something must be done to aid those suffering in Europe's humanitarian crisis. Photograph: Calais Jungle on 17 January 2016 by Malachy Browne (License) (Cropped)

In a week where Chancellor George Osborne had given the government one miniature PR crisis by claiming the retrieval of 3% Tax from Google as a victory (Churcher & Woodcock, 2016), it was almost inconceivable that a member of the government could make things worse. Almost.

During Wednesday's Prime Ministers Questions, Prime Minister David Cameron, as nothing more than a cheap shot at his opponent Jeremy Corbyn, dismissed the refugees in the 'Calais Jungle' camp as 'a bunch of migrants' (Dearden, 2016). The Prime Minister has been roundly criticised for his lack of tact or concern.

The particularly troubling thing is that this is neither Cameron's, nor his government's, first time treating the, largely Syrian, refugees that have fled to Europe with such disdain. A senior minister and Cameron himself have previously dehumanised refugees with words like 'swarm' and suggestions that towns were being 'swamped by migrants' (Elgot & Taylor, 2015; Syal, 2014).

This Conservative attitude does their position no favours and does them no credit. Having already resoundingly rejected UK involvement in taking a share in a proposed Europe-wide support network for those refugees who have fled into Europe (Parker & Robinson, 2016; BBC, 2016), such language doesn't paint their stance in a positive light.

As it happens, Cameron's stated priorities with regards to the refugee crisis are not tremendously far from the broad consensus: the people, made refugees by war, want to go home (Capaldi, 2016).

Cameron's plan is for the UK, firstly, to support the refugees who have stayed in North Africa and the Middle East (Watt, 2015). Then, secondly, to push for international resolution on a plan to create safe spaces in war-torn Syria, to allow those fleeing to return home.

Leading progressives like Guy Verhofstadt, former Prime Minister of Belgium and leader of the Liberals in the European Parliament, have stressed the need for similar priorities (Verhofstadt, 2016). Yet Verhofstadt also points out the big weakness undermining those in Cameron's position: being too tied up in managing and attempting to satisfy domestic nationalism to tackle the bigger picture.

However much of a priority it is, truly, to provide aid to those who have remained in Syria and Lebanon, the fact remains that turning a blind eye to those who have, and continue, to arrive in Europe will not solve anything. In Europe, conditions are worsening, restrictions are getting more severe, and there is a risk of hearts turning colder (BBC, 2015; Crouch & Kingsley, 2016).

What is especially unhelpful in that charged atmosphere are comments that belittle or dehumanise refugees, especially when those comments come from a Head of Government - and one who is, no less, part of the continental council whose job it is to come up with a solution to this major humanitarian crisis.

How can a political figure think anyone could take them seriously if they can be so flippant about people in distress? How can they be relied upon, trusted, to develop a respectful and humane response to a very human crisis?

This isn't a time for cheap, political point-scoring. Like it or not, refugees are here in Europe. Pettiness won't change that, only a concerted humanitarian effort in both Europe and the Middle East can alleviate their plight. Being prepared to stand together in support of vulnerable people is the only way out of this crisis.

Conservative Energy Bill changes energy priorities at exactly the wrong time

After a rapid expansion, new community energy projects are in retreat as Europe's governments focus their energies on other problems. Photograph: Solar Panels (License) (Cropped)

Only a month ago, David Cameron, on the UK's behalf, signed the Paris Agreement (ITV, 2015). Those accords, however vague, nonetheless committed Britain and 199 other countries to the reduction of carbon emissions and to work towards a target of zero emissions (Vaughan, 2015).

However today, even as this weekend a senior UN official has praised the agreement for showing that the world can come together (Goldenberg, 2016), Cameron's government is promoting an Energy Bill that is leading the UK away from those goals.

The government's Energy Bill, in the Commons for its second reading, has been criticised for prioritising short term economic gains over the long term picture of sustainability (Lucas, 2016). The bill has been accused of encouraging the pursuit of coal and fossil fuels instead of leaving them in the ground and for failing to address fuel poverty - the scandal that as many as one in ten struggle to afford basic warmth.

That drive towards fossil fuels follows on the heels of cuts to subsidies for community green energy projects, which where allowed to lapse (Harvey & Vaughan, 2015; Vaughan, 2015{2}). Under the Coalition, the Liberal Democrats had encouraged these community projects (Davey, 2013). Their government research showed that community energy projects were sought out by the public to keep costs down, as well as fight climate change and to help in disadvantaged neighbourhoods - making a difference on many social and economic fronts.

These cuts to community energy subsidies and encouragement of fossil fuel recovery would seem to be a drastic change of direction for the government's public stance on energy. However, this disappointing shift in policy would not be the first. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the government had long been undermining its own commitment to clean energy (Monbiot, 2015; Monbiot, 2014), with a previous bill encouraging the maximization of exploitation of fossil fuel resources.

At the time when is there a need not only for clean and sustainable energy but also for a way to take power over the energy we consume out of the hands of big energy companies and despotic states, to increase competition and reduce the cost of energy, support for decentralised clean community energy should be a priority.

Community utilities providers have a proven track record of success in Germany and the US (Thorpe, 2014; Heins, 2015). With community projects still taking their first steps in the UK and the municipal movement in Spain acting as an inspiration across Europe, now is the time to be encouraging communities to get engaged with civic life in pursuit of the common good.

Cameron & Osborne's long term plan for austerity is now deep into territory even Conservatives are finding hard to accept

David Cameron's long term austerity plan is starting to worry Conservatives, but he and ministers seem to be blissfully unaware of the human impact of cuts upon even working families. Photograph: Prime Minister David Cameron - official photograph by Number 10 (License) (Cropped)

With their defeat in the Lords on Tax Credit cuts, the Conservatives seem to be in a bit of a crisis (Morris & Grice, 2015). While Chancellor George Osborne has assured anyone who will listen that he has found his next round of cuts (BBC, 2015), a massive 30% from departmental budgets to be announced at the spending review, he has faced opposition from his own party.

Former Conservative Prime Minister John Major called for a rethink of the government's approach in light of rising inequality and the impact of policies upon the poorest (Quinn, 2015). There has even been opposition from the Conservative controlled work and pensions select committee.

The members of the select committee argued that cuts are at their limit and urged the Chancellor to take a pause and rethink his priorities (Wintour, 2015). Combined with the Conservative MPs who spoke out against Tax Credit cuts and those that would not back a slackening of Sunday trading laws (Dathan, 2015; Lansdale, 2015) - which led to that proposal being withdrawn (BBC, 2015{2}) - the government is under growing pressure to back down and change direction.

Yet it seems unlikely that, in the long run, David Cameron's Ministry will deviate from its general course. The broadest evidence for that is the Prime Minister's own bafflingly ill-informed letter to Ian Hudspeth, the leader of his native Oxfordshire county council, criticising cuts to services (Monbiot, 2015; Oliver, 2015).

Cameron's apparent ignorance of the depth of impact from his own economic policy is yet another example of the Conservative failure, or refusal, to address the human cost of their policies (Morse, 2015; Stewart & Elliott, 2015). According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the burden of cuts has been falling almost squarely upon those least able to bear it (Hastings et al, 2015).

Essential services like social care are being stretched thin and, as Cameron himself notes, staples of British civil society like libraries and museums have already had their funding cut (The Independent, 2015). And yet, the most well off have been sheltered.

Opposing and mitigating the deeply negative impact of the cuts on citizens requires two things. First, the progressives on the opposition benches have to unite behind broad, common positions. And so, second, moderate Conservatives willing to rebel against government policy can move decisively to check negative plans. It has been seen before over the seven months of this government: only a broad Parliamentary effort can successfully defeat the government's, albeit thin, majority.

As John Major admitted, inequality isn't about skivers or scroungers. It's about those with opportunities and those without them - and that second category is at risk of being flooded with the 'working families' Conservatives have tried to make a staple of their support.

The key for progressives is to make sure concerned Conservatives see how much hurt austerity can and will bring down upon the very people they depend upon for votes in their constituencies - to show them just how toxic it can be to have a lack of compassion and consideration.

George Osborne's appeal for progressives to back his 'reforms' cover an attempt to dismantle compassionate social security

An old branch of the Job Centre in London. Photograph: DSC_0107.JPG via photopin (license) (cropped)

In The Guardian on Sunday, George Osborne made an appeal to progressives and Labour Party MPs to get behind his welfare 'reforms' (Osborne, 2015).

"We are saying to working people: our new national living wage will ensure you get a decent day’s pay, but there are going to be fewer taxpayer-funded benefits.... I believe this settlement represents the new centre of British politics, and appeal to progressive MPs on all sides to support us."

Yet even as Osborne attempted this appeal to 'moderates' with his new 'Centre', Conservative ministers were floating policy ideas that made it clear the party is not content to settle for just the latest round of austerity cutbacks.

While it has become abundantly clear that austerity is the long term economic plan that the Conservative leadership has taken pains to remind us of, ad nauseum, the ambitious extent to which that plan would be extended was not.

As far back as 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron was telling guests at the Lord Mayor's dinner that austerity measures would, in the end, produce a 'leaner' state permanently (Watt, 2013). The first Conservative budget, divorced from the Liberal Democrat obstructions, then arrived with a prelude from Cameron, announcing his wish for a 'higher wage, lower welfare, lower tax' society (BBC, 2015).

But even the budget, with its cuts to welfare - which have been variously criticised as driving divisions between the old and the young (McVeigh & Helm, 2015), between men and women (Watt & Perraudin, 2015), and between the rich and poor (May, 2015) - only mask a more fundamental change being pursued.

There is a project under way to comprehensively deconstruct the welfare state and the principles upon which it was founded. From the NHS (Campbell, 2015), to welfare (Mason, 2015), to even the post office (Macalister, 2015) and public broadcasting (Perraudin, 2015), the public sector is faced with being stripped back and undone - with tax funding for services being replaced with fees charged to the 'consuming' individuals.

The big question is why? Looking beyond the temptation to suggest a colourful variety of reasons involving detached selfishness and collusion with vested interests, what ideological and theoretical motivations are there to dismantle the systems of social security?

The word that comes up, again and again, is dependency.

From around the 1970s, modern conservatism began to form itself around the long abandoned ideas of classical liberalism, absorbing its priorities of laissez-faire, that is non-intervention, and meritocracy. Those principles are used as the theoretical underpinning of a low tax, low regulation and low equality modern conservative economic system, that acts as the social framework for advancing certain deeply ideological values.

The stated aim is to encourage self-interest, or greed as Boris Johnson championed it (Watt, 2013{2}), while discouraging dependence. It is in particular dependence which these modern conservatives see as the danger inherent to systems of welfare and social security.

The practical application means divorcing the state, acting on behalf of society and particularly of its richest members, from the responsibility of securing the wellbeing of the individual members of society - passing that duty off onto the individuals themselves. Through this means, neoliberal conservatives aim to drive individuals to self-interested action, where their productive work directly links to their social security and makes them wholly dependent upon themselves.

What they do not seem to grasp is that the idea of paid work, in the form of productive labour - with success and wealth marked as the result individual character, and failure and poverty as likewise the result of a personal fecklessness - is a deeply moralistic and ideological viewpoint of how society should function.

The facts do not bear out these moral and ideological beliefs. If you are born poor, the statistics say you will likely remain poor (Harrison, 2013). Whatever merit based rewards that the market might offer are suppressed or distorted by very real social conditions. Liberties and rights become privileges far out of reach for most individuals, who are reduced to factors of production competing with each other for survival.

So busy are neoliberal modern conservatives in trying to avoid dependency (George & Wilding, 1994) - and an escalating collectivism that they fear it would lead to - they ignore, are blind to, or outright disavow, the necessity of facilitating opportunity, for competition to actually be fair and so produce meaningful outcomes, or facilitating justice, where members of community are fairly supported and rewarded for the competitive exploitation of what ultimately belongs to the community.

Neoliberalism also undermines two important factors in any progressive state: social cohesion and the principle of universality. Through progressive tax contributions that pay for general use public services, society is bound in a common obligation (Peston, 2015). A portion of what is made by the individual through the exploitation of other individuals and of community resources, is used to fund care and support for the whole community.

The public sector, from healthcare to education, represents the individual members of society pooling their funds to provide a universal service. Everyone, who can, pays in and everyone benefits, regardless of their bank account, from freely accessible services. Communities, and society at large, are brought together on the basis of compassion, acknowledging the inherent value of one member of a society to another - with each member benefiting from the education of another and from their wellbeing, healthy and free from poverty.

Neoliberalism is neither post-ideological nor centrist. It carries very definite social aims that are focussed squarely upon the destruction of this consensus. In its place is put a highly moralised version of earning a living, where working for pay - however degrading and insufficient - is no longer a necessary sufferance, which radical reforming governments attempt to alleviate, but the focal point of an individual's life and a  marker of their worth (O'Hagan, 2012).

At a time when people are talking seriously of abolishing poverty (Ban Ki-moon, 2015), are rolling out trials of the basic income (Perry, 2015) and discussing the possibilities of a post-capitalist society based on abundance (Mason, 2015), George Osborne is trying to implement a system designed to entrench the old world - and he wants the help of progressives in rewriting that script.

But whatever iniquities the welfare state may have, including its cost, what is there to consider progressive about coercing people into paid employment, however degrading, with the threat of impoverishment? The classical liberals of old were left behind by the modern liberals (1928), who moved on to say:

"We believe with a passionate faith that the end of all political and economic action is not the perfecting or the perpetuation of this or that piece of mechanism or organisation, but that individual men and women may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

Dignity and self-esteem come from autonomy - which is a far throw from a life lived supported by the ever insecure low pay scraped together from working in poor conditions for exploitative employers. The austerity agenda will not achieve them for any but the very few.