The Alternative Election 2019: The Labour Party, 'Real Change'

There are headline grabbing, radical changes in the Labour manifesto. And yet in some policy areas, like welfare, they're less progressive than the Lib Dems - that is the paradox long at the heart of the Labour Party, that will stay hard to challenge so long as they remain simply the best shot at ousting the Tories from government.

For Labour, their priority is how they are pitching to people that they can take back control of their lives. The starting point for that in the Labour manifesto is for the wealthiest, those earning more than £80,000, to pay more in tax and for the government to borrow a sum of around £500bn, at the historically low interest rates available, to fund some hugely transformative policies - including the ambition to "make Britain’s public services the best and most extensive in the world". 

How does Labour plan to do that?

Well, public ownership is a big feature of their manifesto. On that front, in all parts, this manifesto goes further than in 2017. From bus networks returning to public ownership, to rail as the franchises expire, to water and energy, and putting workers on company boards, this is a manifesto that wants to undo the privatisations overseen by the Tories in the 1970s and 1980s.

Together with a boost in priority for environmentalism, the twin themes of Public Ownership and Green Industry run through this manifesto, bleeding into most of the policy ideas and frequently being tied one to the other - expressing the idea that the profit motive is destructive to our community and environmental wellbeing.

You can see this in their response to the first of the key progressive priorities: addressing the climate crisis.

On the climate emergency, Labour are promising a Green Industrial Revolution. Of the £400bn that Labour is going to borrow to form it's National Transformation Fund, £250bn is to be directed to Green Transformation - with additional funding coming in the form of lending from the proposed National Investment Bank.

This plan, that appears to be founded entirely on borrowing and lending - with an unspecified amount coming from a windfall tax on oil companies - is how Labour intend to provoke a shift to renewable and low-carbon energy and transport, that delivers net-zero carbon emissions by the 2030s.

Part of the Labour plan to deliver this Green Revolution is to nationalise the energy companies. This goes a step further than what they offered in 2017 (a low-cost rival state-owned supplier), though how this will be funded is left to the reader's assumptions. Readers will likely infer that the money will come from the tax rises on the rich and the intended borrowing - though it is worth keeping in mind that with any nationalisation, the government gains an asset that may ultimately be able to pay for itself.

On health, cutting out private provision is the headline that fits the broader narrative of public control before private profits. Labour promise a 4.3% a year rise in the budget for the health sector - and clearly expect ending outsourcing to private providers to save a significant, if hard to verify, sum of cash to help fund ambitious promises.

There will also be a National Care Service for social care, although the specifics are lacking in the party manifesto - beyond the intention to impose a lifetime cap on personal care costs.

On education, the Labour contribution to the progressive spur of lifelong learning is the National Education Service. At it's core, it represents a massive recruitment drive, with huge numbers of new educators needed to deliver the expansive promises on everything from preschool to adult retraining. These plans come with a lifelong, entitlement to free training up to certain standards and the return of maintenance allowances.

However, the manifesto focuses more on criticising the state of education under the Tories, instead of actually clarifying the detail of changes or how any of this will be paid for - beyond, it is assumed again, that this falls under what Labour hope to pay for with it's tax rise on the richest.

The theme of public ownership is present here too, as Labour promise to abolish tuition fees and engage in a clampdown on private schools - even going so far as to look into integrating them into the comprehensive education system.

Public ownership runs into housing too, as Labour are saying they will build 150,000 social rent homes a years - 100,000 council homes and 50,000 housing association - by the end of a five-year Parliament. And the party commitment to reducing energy consumption, and thus energy bills, by making homes to a greener standard keeps the key Labour themes entwined.

Conclusions

The theme of public ownership and green revolution run through these plans. They are the foundation for an, at times, deeply radical offering.

But there are flaws. The focus on simply undoing the Tories destructive welfare plans, results in Labour offering what is ultimately a less progressive than pitch for welfare reform that what the Lib Dems have offered.

On welfare, however, Labour are promising to run a basic income trial - which is a welfare policy with revolutionary potential should it be implemented, and implemented well.

And then there is the wider context. Labour and Jeremy Corbyn in particular have been besieged by the right-wing press and have found themselves unable to wade out of the antisemitism scandal in which they have sunk.

And Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn wants to stand neutral on the matter, taking no side in a second referendum between whatever he can negotiate in Brussels and the choice to cancel Brexit and remain in the EU.

The reality, however, is that for voters the controversies and flaws will simply play a part in a sadly two-dimensional election fight.

Rather than choosing between nationalisation and privatisation, or between radical funding boosts and more austerity, it's likely people will choose between whether they can tolerate more Tory government or can take a chance on what may seem like drastic change.

The fight between Labour and the Tories, Corbyn vs Boris, will dominate the election - and which of them you don't want to win will probably dominate your voting strategy, in a very tactical battle.

Local Elections 2018 Preview: Labour look set for gains, but what we need more is a greater diversity of perspectives

Manchester City Council, with 95 Labour councillors and 1 Liberal Democrat, is a prime example of the need for a greater diversity of unwhipped perspectives in local government. Photograph: Manchester Town Hall by Stephen Douglas (Licence)

After last year's opportunistic election did not go to plan for Theresa May's Conservative and Unionist Party, her government - propped up by the Northern Irish loyalist Democratic Unionist Party - has been stumbling from one potential crisis to another.

These elections come at a strange time. Despite both main parties struggling, they both remain at around 40% in the polls and have a strangling grip on local government. Is this a chance for smaller parties to make some breakthroughs on councils?

With the majoritarian two-party system reasserting itself, some pushback from smaller parties like the Greens or Lib Dems would be welcome, to ensure representation of a wider set of perspectives - and to increase the accountability of local councils.

Conservatives

This will be the Tories first big electoral test since then. The final totals will need to weighed against the fact that half of the seats up for re-election are currently held by Labour. Yet there could be some headline defeats for the government.

Theresa May's party is particularly at risk of losing council seats in London. This includes control of Wandsworth, their flagship council from the time of Margaret Thatcher, which was used as the pioneer for contracting out local services.

The Conservative have taken a low key approach to the local elections. This may be a result of their own strategists projecting heavy losses to Labour. Downing St may have accepted that and prepared to downplay the significance.

This hasn't stopped local Conservative branches from pursuing aggressive campaigning tactics - including repeating the racist and Islamophobic overtones of the Goldsmith campaign for Mayor of London, which targetted Sadiq Khan's ethnicity and religion.

This time around there has been condemnation from Tory voices. But is the Conservative establishment distancing itself simply because of the timing? Local councillors have said their leaflets were signed off by Conservative HQ.

Mired by the Windrush scandal - entirely of their own creation - and with the media pursuing Labour hard over antisemitism, did the Tories just find it an inconvenient moment to be pursuing openly divisive tactics themselves?

Labour

With Labour holding most of the council seats up for grabs this time around, the party has to make inroads in Conservative areas. Part of that has them focussing very heavily on London - perhaps sensing that there are big headlines to be written.

Key Conservative controlled areas could be vulnerable to Labour and sweeping gains - on a night when they will begin already in a dominant position - will be an emphatic statement that can be milked for publicity and be used to continue the narrative of a Labour Party on the ascent.

For the Labour Party leadership, that would be a much need boost as their forward momentum has been arrested - despite the Tories creating problems for themselves - by their inability to adequately address the issue of antisemitism.

The media and critics have run roughshod over Labour on the issue, and Corbyn and his team have not come up with a way to convincingly show that antisemitism will not be tolerated - and thus diffuse the issue. As a result, a cloud hangs over the party.

So too does the ever looming prospect of a split. It's hard to see how anyone on the opposition benches would benefit, in the short term, from an inamicable split - even though a split increasingly seems like a good idea, to end the spiteful internal squabbling.

A split is hindered however, by the archaic quirks of our electoral system, that does not abide multiple parties and the increase in critical perspectives it can bring, nor the prospect of groups working together despite holding different membership cards.

Opposition

The Green Party laid out this, the big theme of the local elections, in the UK in their campaign launch. Co-leader Jon Bartley called for an end to Britain's "one-party state" local councils, to increase their transparency and accountability to local people.

It's an argument that thinktank Compass and it's chair Neal Lawson also press, stressing that Labour need to overcome their obsession with claiming a monopoly on power - which leads it to absorb or crush any possible rivals, rather than working with them.

In terms of the Green Party's own prospects, their best hope may be in trying to make inroads into Labour dominated councils, whose unchallenged authority has resulted in some poor outcomes - that have left some voters disaffected. Consider, for example, the goings-on under Labour at Haringey or Sheffield.

The other visible party of opposition in local government are the Liberal Democrats. Buoyed perhaps by their consistent - as usual - good form in council by-elections, they've been talking up their chances of a mini-revival at the local government level.

With the polls consistently putting the Conservatives and Labour neck and neck, 40% to 40%, it's difficult to see where the Lib Dems will make inroads - especially after several years of desperate defence, to hang on to what they hold.

As supporters of a Progressive Alliance, The Alternative wants the Lib Dems to refind their progressive side. But at present their best chance of picking up seats may be by, finally, convincing Conservative voters that what they liked about the Coalition was actually the Lib Dems all along.

So watch Lib-Con head-to-heads. This is a dynamic that could have a gigantic affect on a future election, where Lib Dems taking votes and seats directly from the Tories could tip Theresa May out of office and open the way for Labour.

Voter ID

These local elections will also be the first to trial the controversial new Voter ID measures that the Conservatives hope to roll out nationally. Such measures have been deeply criticised by electoral and rights groups.

The reality is that, first of all, Britain has very little in the way of electoral fraud, and second, that Voter ID does little to stop voter fraud. In fact, it does little but deter voters - discriminating particularly against the poor.

The trial runs will take place in Swindon, Gosport, Woking, Bromley, and Watford.

Municipalism

If we are to have effective local government there must be no barriers to participation for the community. Their representatives must be accountable and transparent, and able to hold local bodies to those same standards on the public behalf.

Erecting barriers, especially those disproportionately impacting voters from minority groups, and leaving one-party local councils unchallenged, is a recipe for bad governance. Well run, accountable local government can achieve so much at the municipal level.

There are big ideas out there, from Barcelona to Preston. Municipalism taking root. Local government can empower local people. The first step is to break up the local political monopolies, to leave them no choice but to start hearing criticism and engaging with it.

The collapse of Carillion has thrown open the door to Municipalism, but there is work to be done to make it a success

Photograph: Future site of the Library of Birmingham, from 2009, by Elliott Brown (License) (Cropped)

The collapse of government outsourcing giant Carillion has opened a door for critique of how the neoliberal approach to giving out services contracts to the private sector is handled - and mishandled.

With profits subsidised, companies mismanaged to threaten jobs and small businesses, and responsibility for pension funds all too frequently abdicated, that is to be expected.

But beneath and within that critique, is the opening of a much deeper line of thinking. It has opened an avenue for thinking up a new progressive direction - it has become a case study for assembling so far disparate thought and theories.

Voices from all across the progressive wing have been chipping in with pieces of a larger theme that's starting to take shape.

Jeremy Corbyn has followed Carillion - and the defeat of Clare Kober and her Public-Private development scheme - by launch a commitment to the renewal of municipal socialism. He has called for councils to bring services back in house and make regeneration about people first, not speculators.

on Newsnight, economist Mariana Mazzucato argued that Britain's outsourcing partnerships operate in a parasitic ecosystem, where profits are siphoned out of services, but the risk is left with the public. That we need to set out new terms, to define a what a good partnership looks like.

Meanwhile, writing a new column for Open Democracy, journalist Paul Mason began by talking about how neoliberalism had disassembled social mobility along with community. Mason acknowledged that nationalisation can't be done the way it used to be, but that neither can outsourcing. Central government needs to shape models and strategise, rather than dominate.

The example that people keep turning to, for a new model, is Preston. In the past few decades, Preston suffered through, ultimately failing, private-backed regeneration plans. After the failure, the council in Preston responded by doing something incredible.

Preston council tried to use it's own resources, and the funding tools at it's disposal, to stimulate it's own local economy - rather than trusting to more inward private investment and the precarious jobs it brings.

In part courtesy of the efforts of Michael Brown, the council used it's procurement budget to invest in local businesses, it supported local co-ops, and it fought off pop-up high street pay day lenders by backing a credit union.

In the era of government outsourcing giants going under - Carillion, and now Capita the latest to be fighting to not go the same way - rethinking how government budgets are spent, and who they subsidise, is a question that people are finally asking.

So what are these and other thrusts driving at?

Municipalism. A return to communities having an empowered stake in their own local government and local services. Co-operatives, small community-based businesses, community-owned water, energy, homes and rail. Restoring a sense of local purpose that might restore some sense of local hope.

The really interesting thing, though, is what comes next. If efforts to relocalise, to reestablish community, are successful, then influence, money and subsidy are going to be in the power of local municipal politicians. This is so much closer to putting power in people's hands.

But it isn't the end of the battle. Without oversight, without transparency and democratic accountability, local government can be - and at times, is - even harder to keep an eye on and hold to account. If we are going to realise the potential of local government, we need the democracy and oversight to match.

In simple terms, addressing that has two elements: the political and the journalistic.

For the political, reengagement is the first big task. Local election turnout is abysmal. There isn't really any other way to put it. Without people engaging and voting on local matters, there is no more empowerment locally than nationally.

Alongside the collapse in local community life, globalisation has also ushered in the near elimination of local journalism. Local newspapers - like the Coventry Telegraph, that once employed six hundred people - are long gone. The starting point for building oversight will be in finding a way to revitalising the local press.

These are just two starters on a list of issues to tackle. Of which, economically, 'hollowing out' may be among the largest. After decades of sending outside experience, it is no great surprise to find no expertise left inside - or the infrastructure needed to support it.

There is hope in municipalism. A real empowerment to be had. A chance for communities to rebuild, to recover their self-confidence. That has to be worth supporting. To achieve those ends, progressives of all stripes need to throw themselves into preparing the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 - Labour Manifesto: Stepping up the role of the public sector

Labour's manifesto, For The Many, Not The Few, proposes a major rethink of the role of the public sector.

At the core of Labour's 2017 manifesto is the role of the public sector. It has a place at the centre of all the party's ideas on how to rebalance Britain's economy.

Labour has promised to be "radical and responsible", to end the years of austerity but to do it "within our means", to address a "growing sense of anxiety and frustration. For the Labour leadership, as represented in this manifesto, that means rethinking the government's approach to public and private, and to restore the public element.

That puts Labour in stark contrast with the Conservatives, and fundamentally questions the government's approach - that would strip away the public in favour of the private. As Labour announced its plans in parts over the past couple of years, there was a surge of criticism for the idea of any policy that would see more public spending. The austerity thinking that public debt, government debt, is a burden that must be lessened has been wielded against Labour at every turn.

There remains a strong current, despite the slow discrediting of austerity economics, that clings to a fawning infatuation with the idea that public debt, not underinvestment, will blight the future and that the market is the great innovator. But, as the economist Mariana Mazzucato has argued, this is at best a half-truth.

In reality, public sector plays the role of innovator and risk taker, not just shaping markets but opening them. Meanwhile, private actors are aggressively risk averse, even stifling innovation, all while opportunistically exploiting the publicly-funded advances - taking the credit and returning little of the wealth created.

A New Public Role

This Labour manifesto seizes upon that idea: an innovative public sector that can take the initiative and intervene, without overbearing state management, to invest and promote growth and support innovation in the name of the common good.

It proposes a National Transformation Fund, for instance, that will invest £250 billion over ten years in improving the country's infrastructure, aimed at promoting and speeding along future economic growth. It pledges improvements to transport links, for renewable and low carbon energy, and an industrial strategy that invests in creating and enabling a high-skill economy.

And, of course, there are the pledges to 'renationalise' energy, rail and water. Having come upon this word, a moment needs to be taken to reiterate something. The word 'renationalise' has been used for Labour's plans, but isn't entirely accurate. The Left (as a positive) and the Right (as a negative) have both used the word, but to be clear: Labour's plans don't propose costly industry takeovers by the state.

Remember: state-ownership is just one form of public-ownership, but it is not the only form. There are municipal, community and co-operative models that are also public options that do not require or propose centralised state management - whether you think that would be a good thing or too overbearing and inefficient.

As for the cost of 'renationalisation'? Well, a rail franchise will lapse at no cost and new public rail and energy companies, while requiring startup, would have the capacity to be self-supporting. In short, 'nationalisation' is a crudely charged word that hides a lot of potential nuance.

In Labour's actual manifesto, the focus is on democratic ownership of the economy. For instance, the party propose a "right to own" policy that makes "employees the buyer of first refusal". So when the party says it wants publicly-owned regional water companies, there is scope to think co-operative and community, rather than state.

As for rail returning to public ownership: it's already publicly-owned. It's just franchised out in pieces for companies to turn a profit from it. Returning these franchises on expiry is not a major outlay, though it could take time, and they could become self-supporting, employee-run services rather than being state-run.

Likewise, the party's plan for public energy is much smaller in scale than the 'renationalised' headlines suggest. Rather than wholesale takeovers, Labour have announced their intention to set up local, decentralised, publicly-owned energy companies to compete with the big energy corporations and lower prices.

The new role for the public sector doesn't end there. The party propose a National Investment Bank, that will work with private investors, to make £250 billion available to lend to "small business, co-operatives and innovative projects" across Britain - offering "patient, long-term finance to R&D-intensive investments".

The NIB's work in getting credit flowing again may be assisted by breaking up the publicly-owned RBS into a series of smaller, "local public banks" - pending a consultation on the proposal.

In housing, there is a public role too. Half of the one million new homes that Labour are promising will be housing association and council homes for affordable rents, promises the manifesto - with higher standards being set for the quality of homes.

The clear purpose behind this is to restore a sense of social security and of communities owned by the people who live in them.

That is why a rethought public role goes hand-in-hand with promises of new rights and protections for renters, a National Education Service that brings childcare, comprehensive education and free higher and further education under one coordinated heading, putting more funding into social care, and taking steps to protect workers by tackling insecure and precarious jobs.

It also chimes well with the proposal to make active use of the national and local spending on procurement of services from the private sector. That means using a bill amounting to £200 billion a year to promote, and invest in, good jobs based in local economies at businesses run to high standards.

A £10 living wage, four more bank holidays, increased paid paternity leave and more secure contracts at work, indicate an intention to create a less precarious everyday environment. While funding ten thousand more police officers and strengthening laws around domestic violence and violence against women and girls, demands that these rebuild communities be safe spaces.

There is even a nod to restoring some judicial oversight to investigatory powers - though the word 'surveillance' does not appear - to ensure than individual rights and civil liberties are not weakened.

And the NHS, Labour's crown jewel, will also see a large injection of new money. The party's plan involves additional funding of more than £30 billion into the service "over the next Parliament", with the NHS also benefiting from the National Transformation Fund to make much needed upgrades to buildings and equipment.

To put Labour's ideas into action will require funding. Te main source for Labour promises will be a tax rise for only the top five percent of earners, all earning over £80,000. There will be higher corporation tax, with small businesses protected by a lower rates and less frequent paperwork.

In all these measures are estimated to raise the extra £50 billion the party needs for it's policies - though the IFS stresses that some of that is conditional on somewhat unpredictable factors.

There is one glaring ommission: the absence of a pledge to end the Tory working age benefit freeze, which has led to deep cuts with further restrictions to come. With the deep impact that welfare cuts have already made it is a remarkable gap.

At the manifesto launch, ITV's Robert Peston raised this point. He asked Jeremy Corbyn why, when there is clear evidence of the coming impact, that ending the welfare freeze isn't mentioned. It isn't in the manifesto, but Corbyn responded that there will be a review of the situation and there will be no benefits freeze. But the lack of costing here is notable.

There are provisions, though, to repeal cuts to the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), implement the court decision on Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) to protect those with mental health conditions, scrap the Bedroom Tax, scrap the sanctions regime and restore housing benefit for young people.

The Co-operative Party

And let's not forget that Labour is part of a century-long electoral pact with the Co-operative Party, with whom it stands joint candidates. Running and sitting as Labour and Co-operative Party, or Labour Co-op for short, the alliance has had and continues to have a number of well known MPs, such as Ed Balls, Gareth Thomas and Stella Creasy.

In addition to the Labour manifesto that these candidates will be judged against, the Co-op Party has also published its own priorities. These include expanded detail on both employees and consumers having a place in the shake-up of boardrooms, more localism and public services and utilities that are tied closer to their communities.

But there is very much something for the co-operative movement in the Labour manifesto. Along with backing for more democratic public ownership, there is a commitment to doubling the size of the co-operative sector with targeted investment - matching a Co-op Party aim.

In fact, there is a strong sense of the co-operative movement and of co-operative influence running right through the Labour Manifesto proposals. Everywhere the new role for the public sector come appended with 'local', 'regional' and 'democratic'.

Progressive Alliance

This election will not be, however, be a straight contest between the Conservatives and Labour. So the question is, what crossover is there between Labour and the other progressive parties on policy?

Well, there are plenty of crossovers, though cooperation at the party level will be unlikely. The leadership has made it's position clear and that sticks to Labour's longstanding attitude that it alone is the progressive party of Britain and everyone should rally to its standard.

There are, of course, also issues of disunity behind the scenes within the Labour Party itself - never mind between parties. There are many an "independent-minded" Labour MP who in 2017 are standing virtually as independents, disavowing Corbyn, and they look like they may finally be ready to split away - perhaps even to form a new party.

On one level, it might actually be a breath of fresh air, perhaps even making it easier for the two groups to work together in a more amicable fashion. But Labour's relationship with the Co-op Party and with trade unions could make a split a bit messy. And the party's legacy is something over which fights have been bitter.

However - all of the factionalism aside - on housing, on tax, on welfare and healthcare, there are plenty of crossovers and a lot of compatibility to be found between the Left and Centre parties.

For housing, their is a common consensus that Britain needs more homes that are more affordable, and that renters need far more protection and longer term contracts. Both Liberals and Greens match Labour in these ambitions.

As for public utilities, even the Liberal Democrats - seen by some on the Left as too far to the economic Right - maintain a strong vein of support for co-operatives and democratic ownership.

Local, community-owned utilities are no hard Left socialist experiment (as the Right would demonise it). They're a tried and tested system, with broad progressive support and proof of results.

And on health and social care there is broad support both for reversing Tory cuts and for taxation to pay for increased spending - which includes restoring dignity in welfare for people with disabilities and difficulties both physical and mental.

For a grassroots progressive alliance to work, voters need to be able to find common cause across party lines. Labour's pitch is clearly anti-austerity, clearly wishes to restore the public sector, and clearly wants the rich to pay a fair share.

Whether you like Jeremy Corbyn or not, there are plenty of reasons in this manifesto for progressives to vote Labour. But perhaps of more importance, there is plenty to make voting tactically for Labour more than palatable.

References

'For the many, not the few: The Labour Party Manifesto 2017 - A manifesto for a better, fairer Britain'; from the Labour Party; as of 16 May 2017.

'General election 2017: Corbyn launches Labour manifesto'; on the BBC; 16 May 2017.

Mariana Mazzucato's 'Let's rethink the idea of the state: it must be a catalyst for big, bold ideas'; in The Guardian; 15 December 2013.

'General election 2017: Labour pledges to build 1m new homes'; on the BBC; 27 April 2017.

Shehab Khan's 'Labour to pledge an additional £37 billion of funding for the NHS: Jeremy Corbyn is hoping to improve A&E performances and take one million patients off NHS waiting lists'; in The Independent; 15 May 2017.

'General election: Labour's '£7.4bn a year extra for NHS''; on the BBC; 15 May 2017.

Jessica Elgot & Peter Walker's 'Labour looks at new tax bracket for those earning £80k-£150k: Shadow chancellor says highest increases would be for top 1%, and only top 5% of earners would face rise'; in The Guardian; 7 May 2017.

'Labour manifesto: Extra £48.6bn in tax revenue to fund pledges'; on the BBC; 16 May 2017.

Stuart Adam, Andrew Hood, Robert Joyce & David Phillips' 'Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals'; from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS); 16 May 2017.

Robert Peston's 'Will Labour end the benefits freeze? Corbyn says yes - and no'; on ITV; 16 May 2017.

'A Co-operative Plan for a Britain Where Power and Wealth are Shared: The Co-operative Party’s policy platform for the 2017 General Election'; from the Co-operative Party; as of 16 May 2017.

Paul Mason's 'It’s now clear what Corbynism represents – so what does the centre do next? Labour’s new manifesto is popular on the doorsteps and in the polls, and may accelerate the creation of a new party and new alliances'; in The Guardian; 15 May 2017.

'General Election 2017 - Housing: There is a progressive consensus that Britain needs more homes and more protection for renters'; in The Alternative; 15 May 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour policies are popular, but party must still win back confidence on economy

Labour policies are popular and Corbyn is no hindrance to that, but the party must still win back public confidence on the economy if it is to mount serious opposition, let alone return to government.

With the local elections coming up, the Labour Party has made use of the Easter break to make a series of policy announcements in an effort to take back control over its image. Under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, a hostile relationship with the media has made it hard for the party to put across what it stands for to the public.

The way Corbyn has chosen to try and cut through to the public has been to roll out a few major promises. The party has pledged to deliver a £10 minimum wage, universal free school meals and raise standards for the £200 billion the government, central and local, spends on commissioning and procurement in the private sector (Eaton, 2017; Ashmore, 2017).

Yet, if Corbyn is going to breakthrough and recover public confidence in the Labour Party, damaged long before he became leader, he has one main task: he must win the argument on the economy. His problem is the party remain divided on whether that means regaining trust as the credible stewards of the neoliberal economy, or to change minds and develop something new.

The policies Labour proposed have been, on the whole, welcomed by the Centre-Left press (Eaton, 2017; Slawson, 2017; Lister, 2017) and a ComRes poll showed that Labour's Easter announcements were very popular - even when people knew they were Corbyn's policies (Cowburn, 2017). All around, two weeks used well by the party.

However, the poll also highlighted something important. When asked how they regarded the longer standing Labour plans for a National Investment Bank, funded to the tune of £350 billion by the treasury, the response was much more unsure. Herein lies a problem that speaks to the absolute crux of the dispute between the factions within the Labour Party.

The austerity narrative, sown deeply into the public consciousness by the Conservatives after they came to power in 2010, has firmly established the idea that money is short. Further, the Tories pushed hard to make a link between the shortage and Labour's spending in government.

That narrative created a presentation problem for Labour. Whenever Labour pitches a policy that involves spending, they play right into a Right-wing narrative of frivolous profligate - as seen by Theresa May responding to Corbyn's policy pitches with her standard line that Labour will 'bankrupt Britain' (Eaton, 2017).

To this point, Labour hasn't helped itself. In the past five years the party has veered between doubling down on meeting Tory policy pledges, point for point and pound for pound even when it comes to cuts, to promising big uncosted spending - or criticising the Tories for underspending without a costed alternative.

For instance, while the £10 minimum wage will only be a pound more what the Tories will be offering come 2020, there was no breakdown as to how the increased costs would be handled. There will be more pressure on the community & voluntary sector, on social care that is already stretched and on small businesses and low pay employers, to name but a few.

Will there be increased spending to further fund the social sector to cover the costs? Will there be tax cuts for business to protect low-paid work? Where will the money be found to fund these? From increased taxes on the rich that the party has been criticised for mentioning in connection with a whole range of spending proposals?

These questions need to be asked, because at present the collective public consciousness still appears to accept the core of the austerity narrative on economics: that government money is limited, that a government siphons from society when it spends, and that borrowing is a reckless alternative.

And yet, the argument for austerity is weakening. Every day some new story emerges that exposes a little more of its cruel impact - and that impact is starting to be felt by the middle class and not just the poorest. Ahead of the Labour Party is a choice and its different factions need to unite behind one or the other.

To remain hitched to neoliberalism as well-meaning and trusted stewards or to fight for a new narrative that isn't shaped by the Right-wing press. Either way, it is a fight it must win - because while the ComRes poll from the weekend suggests that Corbyn is not the problem he has been cast as, Labour still sit 21 points behind the Conservatives (The Independent, 2017).

There are people searching fora working opposition and, right now, Labour is the second largest party. A progressive movement cannot function without them. Labour doesn't have to do it alone, but as the loudest voice it must start making itself heard - and start setting the tone of economic debate.

Labour Leadership: Corbyn returns to the leadership but party still at an impasse as Labour Right remain defiant

Jeremy Corbyn speaking at a CWU event at Manchester Cathedral in October 2015.

On Saturday, Jeremy Corbyn started his second term as leader of the Labour Party. And yet, despite a second large popular vote victory - actually increasing his already considerable mandate - the Labour Right has already marked out their territory.

Even the night before the vote, Labour MPs where making demands. Amongst them, a demand for shadow cabinet roles that have joint policy setting power with the leader (Sparrow, 2016) and for arbitrary deadlines for leadership reviews that will effectively keep Corbyn on permanent probation (Asthana & Mason, 2016).

For Corbyn's part, he accepted his new mandate with a conciliatory speech. He said it was time to wipe the slate clean, to put aside things said in the heat of the contest and strongly denounced hostility and bullying. He called Labour the 'engine of progress' and called for unity around what the party's factions have in common.

Despite paying lip service, the Labour Right has, from the beginning, resisted Corbyn and sought every means of undermining him. And all the while it has demanded that Corbyn must compromise - which, from their attitude, can only be interpreted as saying Corbyn must do things their way.

To be fair, the leadership of Corbyn certainly has plenty of issues - but none of them really offer the Right of the Labour Party any reflected glory.

Corbyn has displayed poor media strategy - which isn't about playing the media's rigged game, but reaching out to the broader public with a coherent message and making a connection (Jones, 2015; Jones, 2016); and, as Billy Bragg expressed concern, there is a worry that he, and the Labour Party as a whole, are offering 20th century solutions to 21st century problems (Bragg, 2016) - expressed not least in Corbyn's embrace of his party's standard issue rejection of pluralism, saying no to the prospect of a broad progressive alliance.

However, while Corbyn may very well not be the party's saviour, Labour without him has nothing constructive to say. All there has been is whinging, that turns quickly into very public tantrums at the slightest provocation - and even without.

There isn't even any particular effort being made to engage with the positives of Corbyn's short tenure. Rallies where tens of thousands turn up to see Corbyn speak and a tremendous increase in membership and engagement - these things are readily dismissed, when they should be engaged with and used as a platform to reach out into communities.

Trying to reduce support for Corbyn to a 'personality cult', even making comparisons to the supporters of Donald Trump (Manson, 2016), is malicious, untrue and counter productive. It blatantly ignores the fact that many of Corbyn's more militant supporters are part of a long ignored faction and are rallying to support and defend their besieged leader, who's public role represents their fragile reemergence.

It is also to act, untruthfully, as if militant ideologists are a thing that has never otherwise existed, is an invention of Corbyn and the Labour Left, and don't form a loud minority of EVERY political movement. The only difference for New Labour or the Conservatives is that their ideologues wear suits and wield greater media savvy - not to mention both connections and influence.

The Labour Right has, from the beginning, fought Corbyn beyond all reason, sense and seemingly self awareness, undermining at every opportunity - crushing their own party's steadily recovering polling just to take a poorly organised shot at toppling him. All the while, they have failed to make any kind of constructive case for how the leadership should be done differently.

As a challenger, Owen Smith offered practically the same policies. He merely stood as not-Corbyn - an embarrassing revelation of the Labour Right's apparent reduction of all the party's problems to be the result of one old democratic socialist and nothing to do with New Labour alienating most of the country.

And now that their latest, large and embarrassing effort to oust him has failed, they're wedged deeply into a corner. How, after such a deep and prolonged an attack on Corbyn's competence, can they proclaim to the public that they stand behind him?

The next move on that front, from a purely practical viewpoint, is an opportunity for Corbyn to take the initiative. To make symbolic gestures of addressing concerns about his poor approach to the media, for example, so that recalcitrant MPs can say their fears have been allayed and so save face - that is, if he really wishes to lead Labour as the broad socialist-moderate alliance it has historically been.

The only other options appear to be continued destructive civil war, that will simply scorch the earth of the Labour brand completely and render it worthless to anyone, or for one or both factions to leave the party - likely the Right, with the party staying in the hands of the significant emergent Left-wing, socialist and radical democratic, faction of which Corbyn is but the face.

As for Labour's future electoral chances? To say that Corbyn and the Left-wing cannot win is to negate entirely the point of party politics. A party organises around a set of common values and seeks to convince the public of their importance.

The reach elected office, a party must find a way of reaching people who do not know, or currently share share, their values and secure their good will. To suggest it is impossible to convince is to say there is now point to holding a dissenting view, or moving in anyway not driven by the crowd.

If a party isn't to stand with a set of ideals, that inform an attitude to policy-making, then there seems little point to having a party. To say - as Labour MPs have - that the party's duty is just to represent the electorate, is not an argument for how to run a party. It is an argument against party politics.

To run an organised party on the basis of just reflecting your constituency's views, is to run a populist machine designed only for grabbing power - turning constituents into passive actors rather than representing them, and alienating them from power.

For the part of the Labour Right, this is just a deeply-ingrained pragmatic reaction to the iniquities of the present electoral system. At every turn there are conflicts of interest that reduce accountability. An MP cannot be held to their manifesto if they must also represent constituents that didn't vote for them - and if they do, thousands of voices are excluded.

The trouble is that playing the game well, within the iniquitous system, produces power. And that is a seductive lure. However, to express a possibly minority and dissenting view, is not supposed to be about 'winning' power. It is supposed to be about representation.

Politics is supposed to be party candidates, representing the full spectrum of beliefs, being sent by their voting supporters as the people's representatives to an assembly where together they will build a consensus. Where they will build an inclusive compromise that reflects the country as a whole. It is not supposed to be about one party supplanting the system itself, to seize power by convincing enough people it is alive to all of their prejudices.

Adversarial politics offers power at a price. That price is currently tearing the Labour Party in two. One solution is to embrace pluralism, with a number of separate parties with common ideals are willing to cooperate - not least to create a more representative and less alienating system.

However, the most likely (and classic) compromise between the party's factions will be a middle ground between the Left's ideals and the Right's demand for 'electability'. The faction that Corbyn figureheads can achieve that - and success heals rifts faster than anything else in politics.

And yet, this inward-gazing uncooperative party-first attitude, that burns within both Left and Right factions, is unhelpful. While to the two groups squabble over power within and for the party, a plural society goes unrepresented and alienated.

Welcome Back Westminster: Big decisions ahead for Members of Parliament

After a summer recess intended as a break from politics as usual - but which in reality turned into a carnival of political attractions - Westminster is back in session and there are some big decisions ahead.

Top of the list for progressives is human rights. With the first PMQs of the new term in sight, the Justice Secretary took it upon herself to confirm Conservative intentions towards the Human Rights Act and the UK's relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Liz Truss, newly appointed Justice Secretary announced during the break that Conservative manifesto plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights will go ahead (Stone, 2016). The plan has been widely criticised and spent a lot of time buried in the face of parliamentary opposition (Sankey, 2016) - including within Conservative ranks.

That decision goes nearly hand in hand with the decision ahead of Theresa May regarding Article 50 - which triggers the beginning of the UK's exit from the European Union. So divided are the Tories that the PM arranged a special gathering at Chequers, the PM's country retreat, to hash out a common strategy (BBC, 2016).

The product, that has been seen so far, is a refusal from Theresa May to commit to any of the Brexit campaign's promises: in particular the promises of points-based immigration and £100m a week in extra funding for the NHS (Mason, 2016). Even continuing to contribute to the EU's budget was not ruled out.

Beyond the headline issues, even just in the first week back MPs must get to grips with questions on refugee children, debate the government's budget which is at its third reading in the Commons, while the Lords tackle the Investigatory Powers Bill - the latest iteration of the so called Snooper's Charter.

Meanwhile Labour's leadership election has been seemingly fruitless and has made the attempt to oust Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership look a shambles. Owen Smith's challenge hasn't really materialised in the debates and he has been unable to set himself apart.

That is not, though, necessarily to say that there is substantial ground between the two candidates. Corbyn clearly has faults and never really set himself apart either - even in front of audiences where he enjoyed a clear majority of members' support. Yet for Smith to replace Corbyn, he has to demonstrate himself to be clearly better suited and he has so far failed.

And if, as his polling numbers of around 60% or higher suggest, Corbyn is re-elected leader in three weeks time, the divisions in the party are unlikely to have been resolved - MPs opposed to Corbyn, having failed to oust him, have more schemes planned to undermine him (Whale, 2016).

In all, the Summer seems to have been an embarrassing failure for the Labour Parliamentary Party and its disaffected MPs, and their disappointment looks likely to spill over long into the next Westminster session.

After a summer where Labour have appeared chronically unable to get their house in order, while the Tories got theirs settled almost too quickly, and with only one utterly fringe MP having a 'Brexit' mandate from voters, in a house that by overwhelming majority supported remain, UK politics is back but its actors look unready to deal with the important matters ahead.

Surely against this backdrop, a new election has to be a very real consideration. For the Left, in as difficult a position as it seems, a Progressive Alliance seems to be the only way to take the fight to the Conservatives, who look right now able to win in virtually the same manner as Theresa May became Tory leader and Prime Minister - uncontested.

Caroline Lucas, in her return to the Green Party leadership in a job share, certainly put her best foot forward in making the forming of a Progressive Alliance her number one priority (BBC, 2016{2}). While for the Greens any strategy to increase their own representation is certainly in their interest, an alliance would also help to increase the representation of diverse voices in Parliament and rally the Left opposition to mount a serious challenge to the Conservative position.

However, plans for an Left alliance are already looking to near to scuppered by Labour's inability to get beyond its need to be the single and uncontested party of progressives. The party's official stance remains firmly opposed to pluralism, with even Jeremy Corbyn ruling out a Progressive Alliance by rolling out the party's usual lines about its historic role.

Its belief in the two-party, adversarial, system, and its own special role in that system, is summed up in the slogan on its Pride banners: "Only Labour can deliver equality".

That attitude doesn't bode well for a project aiming to build a Progressive Alliance. While there has been some warming up to pluralism and proportional representation by some individual MPs or members, the Labour Party's official stance remains intransigent.

There are big decisions ahead and progressives can only really face them working together. That means respecting the desire for broader representation, finding common ground, and working across partisan boundaries - rather than trying to wrangle everyone under one programme announced with one voice.

The Left cannot be frightened of debate between plural voices. The Left is diverse and its diversity is its strength. The way ahead for the opposition in Parliament, and the wider progressive movement, is to embrace plurality and co-operation, in the name of the common good.