The Alternative Year: Behind the facade, the reality of Conservative government is finally laid bare with smoke and mirrors dismissed

It seems each year in recent times seems keen to outdo the last for crises and calamity. It is a long few years now that progressives have been looking for the tide to change, for a chance to get Britain moving forward again.

Looking back over 2018, our focus was on laying bare the reality of a living under a Conservative government - and how the realities of that are finally becoming visible, released by time, escaping from behind excuses and scapegoats.

Here is our rundown of 2018 in British politics as we saw it and wrote it - and as we see it informing us for the new year ahead.

Ten Years of Conservative Government

The year 2018 marked ten years of Conservatives in government and what that really means is becoming all too clear. Hiding behind the fallout of the Financial Crisis of 2008 that happened on Labour's watch, the Tories always had a handy excuse to deflect criticism.

But it has been a full decade now - and for many, it will be marked as a lost decade. Child poverty and working poverty have risen, hand in hand. Homelessness and indebtedness have risen. Padding out employment statistics has been prioritised over wellbeing, as pay stagnates and precarity rises.

Furthermore, the privatisation and outsourcing drive is being exposed. Plush contracts handed out to private sector profiteers have done little for services, while greedy executives extract public wealth - even as the companies themselves fall apart in a poorly run shambles.

The structure of our services, both public and private, has been allowed to crumble to enrich some few well-connected individuals. The few who profit from hastily assembled companies acting as little more than a front to funnel profit - even as the work is done by largely the same people who have always done the work - before being left to crumble.

Smoke and Mirrors

What the crumbling reality of Britain under the Tories is showing us - beyond the poor state of things under their method and ideology - is how much effort is dedicated to surface phenomena. To keeping up a veneer, rather than dealing with the real, underlying issues.

The 'Northern Powerhouse' is one such issue. Funding shortfalls, cancelled upgrades, rail timetable chaos, entire rail franchises in chaos. The Conservatives time and again put their faith in an empty branding exercise - brands like the 'Northern Powerhouse', and the 'Midlands Engine'.

Empty words. Housing had faced the same trouble. Slogans like 'Right-To-Buy' and 'Help-to-Buy' are a temporary fix, meant to rally someone else to invest so the Tory government doesn't have to - temporary measures that often make things worse in the long run. Look at local government.

From the devolution to regional mayors, to housing policies, to social care, local government has been cut out of the loop and ended up with less funding, even as it has felt greater weight dropped on to it's shoulders - more burdens, more less power and money with which to act.

Too Much Fiction, Not Enough Fact

The Conservatives have hidden so much of this beyond a wall fact-less, and often tactless, political debates. Being well informed is crucial to making good decisions, but the media make that so much harder every day - itself embattled and feeling political and competitive pressures.

So we took to debunking a few of the best laid myths.

We looked at the far right, it's rise and how it has been pinned to the working class - of claimed to be some great movement of the people. The reality is exposed as the far right being a nearly exclusive middle class ideology - one rooted in the fear of the loss of privilege.

This was as true for Brexit as it was for Trump.

Whether those voting for Brexit could see what the future outside the EU would hold or not, you can see this privilege in what a hard Brexit would mean. We laid out the reality of 'WTO terms' as accelerating, not ending, the decline of UK sovereignty at the hands of globalism - for which the WTO was founded to be the point of the spear.

The poorest haven't been given share-enough of the spoils of globalisation and Brexit isn't going to change that. Nor, really will Remaining - not by itself. Without a radical will to reform, all we have in either scenario stagnation and inequality. But while Europe provides framework to try and build something better, Brexit strands us.

Looking forwards

There were hopeful sparks too, in 2018. As hard as that is to believe. The #MeToo movement, the Women's March, and other events, occuring so close to together have the makings of a pivotal historical moment - an expression of women's power, both resistence and progress.

Wars, cold and hot, that have been fought for decades also saw an interruption for peace. Historic cooperation in Korea, a peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Basque paramilitary group ETA finally dissolved, Greece and North Macedonia settled a naming dispute.

These events represent a cropped image of 2018. But what they also represent are slow burning, long negotiated, discussions finally bearing fruit. Hate produces only a brief flash. Rash action, the product of rash thought, puts down no roots. Hate only lasts if we embrace it.

The fight for justice and peace puts down deep roots. Even in a world on fire, there comes a fresh flowering. The New Year will bring opportunities to get back to looking after the common good. The first step towards that isn't a big one. All you need to do is care and get informed.

Ideology, NHS funding and money from nothing: Beware politicians bearing gifts

Under Theresa May and Philip Hammond, the Conservative government has continued on from where it left off under David Cameron and George Osborne. Austerity at the top of the agenda, with all else battered before it's ideological wake.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that the Prime Minister at the head of the party of austerity, this weekend, made a pledge to increase NHS funding by £20 billion a year.

How does this happen?

The Conservatives, for sure, in the majority these days ascribe to a "pro-business" ideology. A belief in private sector growth that boosts tax returns, that in turn cuts taxes, that in turn boosts private sector growth.

That is the ideological belief, at least. One that requires the market to play along with the ideal - particularly when the private sector is required to pick up the slack as the public sector is cut back by the government.

However, these ideological ideas must interact with the real world - and with one of the prime movers of compromise in the political sphere: the point at which politics as ideology meets politics as a competition with a lot riding on it.

The Conservatives in government and Labour on the opposition benches have differing ideologies - though the gaps between the two are at times and in places very narrow, and produce primary outcomes that are very similar.

That similarity comes from politics as a high stakes competition. Each party vying to shape public opinion, or to win over the electorate as public opinion stands - shaping what is called the 'centre ground'.

So even as the Tory government cuts with one hand, it looks to deliver a windfall with the other, to shore up electoral support. And, in this case, that means doing precisely that which the party accuses Labour - making large spending commitments, reckless in the absence of a clearly defined statement as to where the money will come from.

But ideology is never far away. Theresa May followed up her offer of new funding with a cautionary word that the health service much watch and account for every penny carefully. And others have pointed out that this injection of cash only brings the NHS back up to level of funding it had between 1948 and 2010 - when the Tories began imposing austerity.

So long as we treat politics like a game of win or lose in the pursuit of power, we can expect belief to be mingled with ambitious pragmatism. And we must remain wary that what we're being sold comes through layers of motivations - especially when it's a windfall of cash with no obvious source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What next for Merkel and Germany?

Photograph: Bundestag by Hernán Piñera in 2011 (License)

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

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

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

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

What Next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resist the Far-Right

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Election

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

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

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

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

The Oppostion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Bitter Pill

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

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

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

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 - A hopeful night for progressives: It's time to do opposition right

The provisional results, that give the Conservative-Unionist pact a very slim working majority.

The aim for progressives going into last night was supposed to be damage control. As it happened, they'd gone above and beyond - in fact, as the night went on, matters so very nearly tipped the Conservatives right out of government.

It will be interesting to see as the turnout is broken down to see how much of it came down to tactical voting among progressives - not organised by the parties, but voters themselves taking the lead and making their presence felt.

In the end, progressives had to settle for seeing off the Tory advance - a goal achieved with surprising comfort in the end. It came with the cherry topper of handing Theresa May an embarrassing rejection. She demanded the country unite around her and the country said no.

So much for strong and stable.

Theresa May has lost the Conservative majority and is now left dependent upon Arlene Foster and the Democratic Unionist Party - very recently hit by scandal and criticised over mismanagement in government at Stormont - to form a government.

Despite the Conservatives constant criticism of coalitions and relying on regional parties, Theresa May showed no hesitation in cobbling together a government that relied on the support of a narrowly focused regional party with some extreme views.

While the Conservatives deal with despondency, Labour are in a jubilant mood. Although celebrating and calling this a victory might be a little loose with the truth, it's a clear step forward.

In fact it is plenty enough for Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to be justified in their stance that Labour are right now ready to govern as a minority government. It is a strong and confident stance they need to push and Labour MPs need to echo and reinforce.

You have to wonder if Corbyn and McDonnell always understood that Labour's route back to government would always take two elections. Last night they defied a threat of Tory advance, and revitalised themselves at home in their own seats.

Much criticised from within the party or focusing on boosting the party itself, in its own constituencies and ranks of members first, the strategy paid off. Labour's heartlands remained so and young turned out in droves.

Labour even expanded threateningly into Tory country. They took down junior ministers and established a following in the seats of senior ministers, that ran their incumbents very close and place them well for the next big push.

That will be at the next election. It will be a big moment for Labour. They've placed themselves breathing down the necks of the Conservatives and there will be no excuse next time. The platform is now there to launch Labour are into government.

However, Labour winning an election these days requires more than just Labour wins. It needs Liberal Democrat wins too. Last night the Lib Dems showed that they could win, but their performance was otherwise absurdly erratic.

From the nine seats they began the night with with, the party held four seats, lost five seats and gained eight seats. The Lib Dems also had a number of close calls either way - they really could have ended with anything from eight to eighteen seats.

The party largely held up its share of the vote - likely losing some to tactical voting, while gaining a little too. But the party could have hoped for a lot more and there will be some introspection among liberals in the days to come.

Honestly, considering the party's whole campaign at a distance, it's hard not to see Tim Farron's leadership as being compromised, despite the overall slight improvement in the party's position.

The leadership seemed to misjudge the public mood, unwaveringly focusing it's campaign on Brexit and rerun referendums, when many who the Lib Dems had to pitch to appear to have either gotten passed or not cared about in the first place.

And then there were the blunders Farron himself made, that were just plain ridiculous. No leaders of liberals should find themselves getting stuck with the label of intolerance on questions of support for LGBT and abortion rights.

The party's messy night speaks to the lack of clear message that connects values to policies to people, and resonated with an audience - as if the party simply wasn't sure to who exactly it was pitching it's ideas.

The return of Jo Swinson to the Commons for East Dunbartonshire on a clear majority perhaps presents the Liberal Democrats with a viable alternative leader - a woman, not least, outspoken and capable. All things the Lib Dems need to put at the forefront.

The SNP also had a dramatic night. While it is obviously on the one hand a tactic of media management to play down seat losses as best as possible, it was not unreasonable in this case. There really wasn't anywhere for the SNP to go after they swept Scotland last time out and the monopoly couldn't last.

The drama came from who the Lib Dems lost seats to: the Tories. Before the independence referendum that would have been, nearly, unthinkable. But last night, the Tories pretty much saved their political skins with gains in Scotland.

Their gains brought a particularly sad loss: Angus Robertson has lost his Moray seat. Sadly, Robertson will no longer bring his impressive performances to bear from the opposition benches in the Commons.

The big question going ahead now will be who can maintain their vote share and move forward. On several fronts, the Tories seem to have hit a wall that suggests they've maximised their reach. Labour, in contrast, broke new ground.

For Labour, this is a platform to win from. However, to turn that potential into a reality will depend upon keeping young voters, particularly first time voters, engaged and coming back time and again - and that will mean rewarding their engagement.

Labour also has to make a big pitch to Wales over the next five years. Voters in Wales shielded Labour last night, but the party hasn't really earned it - even with Corbyn's bright new manifesto. It has to start delivering.

There is a progressive majority. Seventeen million voted for the Centre-Left, while fifteen million went for the Right. Yet there is a Conservative government - a Hard Right Blue-Orange Loyalist coalition, no less.

It's mandate and majority are thin. Labour has a platform to fight and overturn that now, but first things first. All of the progressive parties have to get opposition right. There can be no messing around this time.

All progressive parties - Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens - have to start coordinating. And right now. Right from the start. The infighting must stop. The progressives turning fire on each other must stop.

All focus now has to be on holding the government to account, to prevent its Hard Right nature from getting out. On LGBT, on abortion, on human rights, on welfare - there are so many crossovers for progressives were opposition will be needed.

Corbyn's result has restored hope to progressives. It has trammelled the Conservatives. The time to make that count is now. The next election campaign starts now - and this time it'll be a fight progressives can win.

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.

Local Elections 2017: What did we learn?

County Hall in Derbyshire, now under the Conservative control thanks to a local election sweep that doesn't bode well for Labour prospects in June. Photograph: County Hall, Matlock, Derbyshire by bazzadarambler (License) (Cropped)

The big story from the 2017 local elections is that the Tories made big gains. Hard to get past that, even if some gains have been rather misreported to more effectively represent the narrative people want to tell (Murray, 2017).

For a sitting government to make such sweeping gains is very unusual. And yet, it wasn't quite the kind of triumphal sweep that polls would have led us to expect (Murphy, 2017) - especially in the Tory heartland shires.

It's even more underwhelming, perhaps, when UKIP's collapse is taken into consideration. Every single seat they held was lost and they were swallowed whole by the Tories. Yet, this was no landslide.

Yes, Labour certainly took hits, but there were perhaps fewer than feared and the party even held on in some key places, like urban South Wales, and won a couple of Mayoral contests in Liverpool and Manchester.

That's not to say this wasn't a bad night for Labour. At the least, it'll be seen as another reason for the disgruntled to break with the party leadership and attack Corbyn. But in the revealed weakness should be clarity.

Labour know where they're weak, they know where they'll be targeted, and they have a good idea who and how. The path to the 8th June should be clear, the roads in need of some barricades should be obvious.

And it should be obvious that in places across the East Midlands, in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire for instance, Labour need the support. In both of these counties, and their neighbouring cities, Labour have seats at risk and they lost a lot of county council seats in both.

That support can only come from a Progressive Alliance. With Conservatives rallying around one banner, and attracting former Labour supporters, Labour MPs will need the help.

The estimated national poll figures for the local elections where the Conservatives on 38%, Labour on 27% and the Lib Dems back up to 18% (Curtice, 2017) - very 1992, but with weaker main parties.

These numbers are short of a Conservative landslide but still bad for Labour, giving nobody what they want. Polls have suggested that the gap is perhaps closable before June, but completely overcoming the gap is unlikely.

These results make that clear. Which leads to the conclusion that the practical and achievable aim of progressives is to stop the Tories expanding their majority, perhaps even cutting it, through tactical voting.

To hurt the Tory majority, progressives need to keep their shoulders to certain barn doors, because the Conservatives do still have vulnerabilities that various candidates across the country can expose. The Lib Dems in particular have a chance to take back a number of seats.

The evidence of the local elections then is that, for the Left and Centre, this is a defensive election. In Brighton, and in parts of London, the message has caught on. But that message needs to spread.

Easter Recess: Time to take stock and give thought to rising uncertainty

Uncertainty is the new reality. With it comes rising anxiety and the prioritising of gain over wellbeing.

It's the Parliamentary Easter Recess and that means a chance to take a breath, and take stock of the present political situation. In short, uncertainty is fast becoming the new definition of life in Britain.

The formal process of Brexit has begun with the triggering of Article 50, which means the scramble to define the new UK-EU trade relationship has begun. The bill repealing EU laws, and replacing them with UK equivalents, has been announced in a white paper. And, another round of welfare cuts are set to begin.

Each of these, in their own way, is contributing to the rising sense of precarity. Each is serving to shape everyday life, and the grander framework it functions within, around the idea of uncertainty - and it is a deliberate ideological project.

Take for example the most pressing of these, the welfare cuts. Up until now, welfare cuts have been focussed on those at the very bottom, who have little voice and who the right-wing press demands be afforded little sympathy.

However, these latest cuts are going to thrust deep into the soft belly of the middle class. Restrictions to child benefit, to bereavement benefits, and to working age benefits will have real impacts even on people who have so far managed to skirt the impact of austerity (Butler & Asthana, 2017).

From those with a disability to young people, there is something in these changes that is, directly or indirectly, going to affect everyone (Cowburn, 2017). The safety net is being disassembled and the Conservatives are justifying it as a way to 'encourage' people 'back to work'.

The white paper for the so called 'Great Repeal Bill' - a name of unlimited pomposity - has only added fuel to the fire. Human rights groups, like Liberty, have already expressed deep concern at tremendous gaps it found in the paper (Liberty, 2017).

A particular controversy lies with the bill granting the government 'secondary legislation' powers - in theory, the executive power to implement and administer what is required by the primary legislation - over matters being transferred from EU supervision (Owen, 2017).

Critics are warning that this provision risks handing the government the ability to sidestep Parliament in altering legislation (Fowles, 2017). At the least, it will allow the government to shape and direct aspects of the law without proper oversight - a power of huge potential.

Those concerns will be hard to assuage, because the final bill will be so long and dense - "one of the largest legislative projects ever undertaken in the UK" (BBC, 2017). It could take years of Parliamentary time to scrutinise and this government has shown itself to be neither that patient nor transparent.

Conservatism, whatever Theresa May wants to preach about the return of Unionism, has long since given itself over wholly to an aggressive form of laissez-faire capitalism - and the sharpest lesson of that ideology is the belief that growth is achieved by rewarding energy and dynamism and punishing the 'idle' (George & Wilding, 1994).

In other words, to promote limited precarious rewards, directly at the expense of assurance. Through coercive uncertainty, to build profit on the back of anxiety - mistaking gain and accumulation for progress.

And understanding that should make any observer take a pause, consider and ask: what kind of trade deals the Conservatives are willing to drop the EU and the single market in order to negotiate?

The Conservative long term plan is now nearly fully realised. Uncertainty is the new reality. For an increasing number of people that means the life precarious, filled with anxiety about tomorrow, so some few other can exploit them.

Relief as Far Right falls short in Dutch election, but there's no future in that feeling: Progressives need reasons for optimism

Elections to the Dutch House of Representatives, seated at the Binnenhof, saw the Far-Right fall short of power. Photograph: Binnenhof from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

The "Wrong Kind of Populism" had been defeated claimed Mark Rutte, leader of the governing liberal conservative VVD (BBC, 2017). Rutte celebrated the defeat of Geert Wilders and his Far-Right PVV, despite his own party's loss of 8 seats, and called the Netherlands the breakwater of the populist tide.

Despite Rutte's good cheer, the results will bring progressives relief but little optimism. Yes, the Far-Right was prevented from claiming a victory, but the debate has already been affected by them. Policy has lurched ever more into their prime, exclusionary, territory (Henley, 2017).

It was also a defeat of the Far-Right that will only be finalised when a broad spectrum of parties are rallied together into an effective coalition - that will have to include perhaps everyone from staunch conservatives to the Left-Greens.

That pattern that has been followed everywhere that a far-right challenge has emerged. The results have not been good. Look, for example, at the Brexit referendum and the US Presidential Election.

The Remain campaign needed support from a broad spectrum if it was to fend off the Leave challenge, but it did little to inspire the radical Left to get on board - in fact there were Left Exit groups. In the US, Hillary Clinton fell short in the face of the same challenge. In both cases, working class men walked away from the Left and the Centre in disillusionment.

As the nationalist tide rises, it pressures the Left to rally behind the uniting of all the mainstream forces. And, further, to accept some bad policies to head off worse. The result has been confusion and despondency about alliances and policies that leave a bad taste in progressive mouths.

It was the kind problem that came between the Remain Camp, and Hillary Clinton, and the Left. How could the Left, radicals, progressives, stand behind parties and institutions that backed the neoliberalism that had helped create the inequality and austerity that had fostered the Far-Right?

Such alliances are not a realistic basis for building a progressive future. The Left, and even the Centre, have conceded too much to Conservatives in the scramble to fend off the extreme Right - accepting too much of the Right-Wing narrative, letting politics be defined by it.

The existential threat that the far-right poses must, however, be faced and opposed by radicals and moderates alike. And if the need for opposition inspires a new period of cooperation and collaboration in Western politics, then all the better. In bitterly partisan times, it would be refreshing to step outside the bounds of narrow party interest.

But these broad coalitions must be formed on the basis of inclusion and not concession. They must form an open dialogue and take representation seriously: too many people have been left feeling excluded and ignored.

It is doesn't feel good to cheer when the Far-Right doesn't win. It feels more like the relieved sigh of the battle-hardened, weary and despondent, at keeping Rome standing just one more day. We need something more. Hope and idealism. We need inclusive alliances that aspire to something better.

Budget Preview: Will Hammond act to end Conservative pattern of money being redistributed away from most vulnerable?

With the National Debt is still rising, will the Chancellor be able or willing to find some money to invest in essential services? Photograph: Pound Coins from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Philip Hammond faces his first budget as Chancellor on Wednesday and he has a lot of pressure to handle. The overall Conservative promise to alleviate the country's debt is still a long way from started and there are spending decisions that Hammond will find it difficult to avoid addressing.

Funding plans for Schools, Social Care and Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) all indicate a troubling pattern of money being redistributed away from the poorest and most vulnerable areas that need it most - not an image that Theresa May, if she is to keep her promise of a Britain that works for everyone, will want to reinforce.

Schools, even those under financial pressure, face up to 3% in budget cuts. Social Care has seen billions cut from the system. And, Theresa May's government is trying to wriggle out of coughing up more money to cover a court-ordered expansion of the PIPs welfare programme.

How the Chancellor addresses these concerns is important. He has already done the press rounds in the past week to assert there will be no big spending and rolled out, the now standard Tory line, that problems are less the result of low funding and more of not following 'best practice' (BBC, 2017). But will that line be maintained through Wednesday?

On Schools, Hammond faces a situation that will be hard to explain away. The government announced plans for a new funding formula in December, that came with the less than reassuring 'assurance' that no school would lose out by more than 3% (Weale, 2016).

That is hardly going to offer succour to schools in poorer areas. As Andy Burnham (Bean, 2017), Labour nominee for Mayor of Greater Manchester, asked the Prime Minister in the Commons: how does the Prime Minister expect to get more working class children to university by cutting schools funding across the North West?

Meanwhile, Social Care has become the particular Tory baggage with which to pummel the government. With £4.6 billion in cuts since 2010 and shortfall predicted (Full Fact, 2016), it is about the hardest area for the government to argue that funding cuts don't make a difference.

In fact, the previous Chancellor George Osborne did begin to respond - but only with an, at best modest, increase in funding, that was planned to come in with this budget, but would only raise around £200 million nationally (Merrick, 2016; BBC, 2016).

The plan also does not actually involve a boost in cash from the government itself, but rather put it onto local councils to raise more in tax - up to 2% extra. However, the one, and particular poignant, flaw in this approach is that wealthier areas will be able to raise more for themselves than the poorest and most vulnerable who need it most.

Across Schools and Social Care, there is a very clear pattern emerging of money being withdrawn from where it is needed most to make tax savings for those from wealthier areas - simply, regressive economics.

That pattern is reinforced in the government's insistence upon not spending the extra £3.7 billion that an expansion of Personal Independence Payments, ordered by the courts, would call for across four years (BBC, 2017{2}) - less than a billion a year to take care of people primarily with mental health problems.

An aide to Theresa May was heavily criticised for his callous remark that funding need to kept to only the "really disabled" (BBC, 2017{3}) - for which he later apologised - but it summed up the Conservative attitude.

Under Conservative government, the services people depend upon in their everyday lives are being squeezed. Money is being siphoned out programmes that serve the most vulnerable and leaving them to find ways to fend for themselves - whether they're young, old or disabled.

There are rumours that the Chancellor will respond with a little more money than is currently planned (Kuenssberg, 2017). However, a lot more investment is needed to convince anyone that the government is moved by a real comprehension of the difficulties people actually face when the public services they rely on are disappearing.

Conservative's callous attitude to disability benefits underlines the reasons to embrace principles behind universal welfare

Conservative policy is clearly to take away support from all except those in the most absolute despair - and to subject those remaining to demoralising assessments, pressures and sanctions. Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

The Conservative Party unmasked its own callous attitudes towards public welfare at the weekend, when one of Prime Minister Theresa May's aides took it upon himself to say that benefits shouldn't be going to those "taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety" but to the "really disabled" (BBC, 2017).

After years of climbing uphill, campaigners have finally got mental illness - and the cause of giving it parity with physical illness - into the mainstream consciousness (Cooper, 2016). This comment, coming from a ministerial aide, is a huge step backwards.

It also underlines the inefficacy of the assessments regime, based always on the prejudices of particular governments and liable with its rhetoric, and in pursuit of budget targets, to set high the bar for access to support. And, right now, the Tories are running just such a harsh regime that is rolling back support further and further in the name of purse-tightening.

The compassionate alternative is universality. The idea behind a universal basic income is that everyone would receive a personal independence payment, as a basic safeguard against poverty and as a guarantee of their liberty.

The practical application of the idea, which is still only in the trial stage in a number of countries - where much can still be learned about how it might be shaped for real world use - might well be some time away. But the least we can do is learn from the principles underlying a universal system.

So what are the principles? The premier amongst them is personal freedom, which is hurt most by coercion - being compelled to make certain choices, or accept certain realities, by the absence of a true choice in the face of desperation.

Universality is an act of positive liberty. It seeks to enhance personal liberty by, not simply removing barriers, but reaching out to help people out of the pits that prevent their access - traps like poverty. It creates a welfare system that truly levels the playing field by creating a fundamental baseline.

Even in the modern world, a disability can prove expensive and mental illness, in particular, can be hard to predict and hard to manage. In a world of hyper-competition, that demands flexibility and only offers an insecure return, a person with a disability can easily find themselves out of despair coerced into making choices that are not right for them.

Conservative policy is clearly to take away support from all except those in the most absolute despair - and even then to subject them to neverending assessments, pressures and sanctions that demoralise people and rob them of their dignity.

That policy is an expression of an ideology of 'meritocratic' competition that rewards wealth with privilege and champions individual selfishness - in other words, believes that 'greed is good'. But those who do not 'win' and do not 'merit' privilege are left behind and blamed as the cause of their own failures.

It is that callousness that was revealed by Theresa May's aide. It is a must for progressives to make their voices heard in opposition to this selfish ideology that feeds privilege to the already privileged.

Progressive voices need to be heard too in support of a more compassionate way, that is underlined by the principles of universality - where we value our society based on how it empowers and liberates the least fortunate.

The Tory Facade: The healthcare crisis in Britain belies the Conservative presentation of their party as responsible stewards

The central claim that the Conservative Party makes, its fundamental promise to the electorate, is that it will be a responsible manager of the state. It tries to present its opponents as reckless ideologues, to be contrasted with their own sensible handling of public duties.

The current condition of the NHS exposes this claim as nothing more than a marketing campaign. The NHS remains the single most popular element of the public apparatus in Britain, even as it has descended into a period of prolonged crisis.

A report released today showed that beds have been filled beyond safe levels in 90% of hospitals over winter, with all the results of overcrowding that follow - in long waiting times and cancellations (Triggle, 2017).

It has been the tendency of the Prime Minister Theresa May at recent renditions of PMQs to deflect blame. On healthcare, her response has been to deflect it to the NHS administrators - claiming bad practice in the use of resources for shortfalls and service delivery (Merrick, 2016).

To back up that claim, the government says it has provided the funding the NHS asked for - but that is a half truth at best. The government has been accused by fact checkers, and Parliament's health committee, of fudging their numbers (Campbell, 2016).

While the government repeats its criticised claims of providing "$10 billion" of extra funds - with the reality being half of that - more parts of Britain's physical, mental health and social care service slide into crisis.

For instance: Social care is critically underfunded (Eichler, 2016). It was not protected from austerity and has been terribly withered by cuts to local government.

The Tories have no 'responsible' remedy. Talk of upfront charges for foreign patients (BBC, 2017), claims of bad practice in administration - these are cheap deflections, taking advantage of anti-immigration myths or falling back on tired austerity.

On social care, the Tories have responded with trivial tax powers for painfully stretched councils. But they will raise more in richer areas and less in poorer, and raise little in either case - only £200m nationally - to counteract the deep cuts that have ravaged the social care infrastructure (Merrick, 2016; BBC, 2016).

Standing back and observing the Conservative stewardship of health and social care, brings one of only two conclusions: incompetence or ideologically driven mismanagement. Whether deliberate or due to incompetence, the NHS is being undermined.

The public stood behind last year's strikes by junior doctors. But the pressure remains and continues to build. Progressives must start to dismantle the façade and show people the reality of the Conservative Party behind the marketing image.

The future of health and social care in Britain depends upon the public understanding its worth and seeing with their own eyes the devastating impact that Tory policies have had on this iconic symbol of progress in Britain.