The Northern Powerhouse is a smoke-and-mirrors sales pitch to sell the North and it's assets. The North needs something real.

Photograph: Northern Rail train at Manchester Oxford Road by Mikey. (License) (Cropped)

The chaos caused by the mess Northern Rail has made of it's timetables, has led to commentators calling into question how committed the government really is to the vaunted Northern Powerhouse - it's plan to rejuvenate the North.

Perhaps this mess would have been containable for the government, if it wasn't for the fact that the collapse of the rail network in the North comes not in isolation, but on the back of big promises that been ever further downgraded until they have been all but scrapped.

Tory ministers had pledged major upgrades and major new links. But the big pledges were watered down. Last summer, the transport minister announced that Electrification for the North were cancelled, even as he confirmed more investment in London.

And the ambitions of the TransPennine railway upgrades have been severely contracted - originally pitched as work from Liverpool to Newcastle, the latest focus is just on speeding up links between Bradford, Leeds and Manchester.

Even in the face of the current crisis, the Transport Secretary has been reluctant to talk punitively of how the rail services are being run - even as they are effectively curtailed, cut down to something approximate to an emergency schedule.

It isn't hard to see why the Northern Powerhouse now looks to have been all smoke and mirrors.

Part of the problem is that it was. In essence, the government plan for devolution was constructed around a branding exercise - the "Northern Powerhouse", the "Midland's Engine" - the semantics of which give away the broader aim of gearing the regions towards serving the corporate interests of UK PLC.

In practice, devolution reflected Conservative interests. It cut money from local services, only to return it, in part, through the Metro Mayors - executive figures, alienated from local government and accountability - whose role seems mostly intended to spend the funds on easing the way for business.

The focus was on building a framework, an infrastructure, that will encourage inward investment into a transport hub that would have most Northerners at most an hour away from most major Northern cities and their employment opportunities.

But the plan has also effectively cut local people out of the loop - developing plans for them, to impose on them. And the focus is still on the cities, and not post-industrial towns, where people have been left feeling abandoned.

Recently speaking at a Manchester Business School event on the Northern Powerhouse, Vince Cable delved into how the Powerhouse plans that he and George Osborne developed unfolded.

Cable said that the Northern Powerhouse was supposed to achieve two things: balance out the lure of London and address previous failures to get people and jobs in the same place - which he referred to as the "work to the workers, or workers to the work" dilemma. Transport would be key to Powerhouse's "workers to the work" approach.

Cable argued that efforts were however undermined by budget cuts - the Liberal Democrat said that he protested cuts to capital spending, and that the local government minister failed to protect local government budgets.

The result was a collection of cities, still poorly connected, that have become more vibrant and dynamic, but are still surrounded by impoverished suburbs - already stripped of opportunities, now cut off and drowning amid cuts.

In these conditions, of course, any investment for the North is welcome. And needed. But is tailoring the whole region purely for business the right way to go about it?

The Conservatives have sought to rebrand the North and prepare it's assets - including Northerners themselves, presented as a pool of workers and customers within easy reach and ready to scramble - for sale. Regional devolution becomes a sales pitch, all show and no substance.

But where are Northerners themselves fitting into this? People in the North are struggling to make ordinary journey's to work, that they really can't afford to lose. With competition for jobs so overwhelming, expensive journeys and cancellations are a direct threat to the ability of the lowest earners to get by.

There's only so much that an influx of business investors and new jobs could fix - even job security would unlikely be improved if the amount of work available better matched the demand for employment, such is the direction working conditions are headed in.

The North need more that is rooted there. Affordable housing. Affordable and reliable public transport. Career opportunities for the least well off, and least skilled, with the longevity and security around which to build a life.

Was any of this ever on the cards with the Northern Powerhouse?

The North needs public investment in public infrastructure and work deeply rooted in it's own communities - the means to make use of it's own resources. Achieving that from the outside, from distant Westminster, would be hard.

But from well organised and funded local government, taking seriously civic engagement, giving people a real voice and involvement? In that there is hope.

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.

Around the World: Renzi, Last Man Standing

Matteo Renzi, Prime Minister of Italy, speaking at a university in October 2015. Photograph: Matteo Renzi a San Giobbe by the Università Ca' Foscari Venezia (License) (Cropped)

In Italy, the Left-Right dynamic that emerged over the last two decades finally seemed to have broken in favour of the Left. Silvio Berlusconi's powerful populist Centre-Right groupings lost ground at the 2013 elections and have struggled in the polls since - falling below even the anti-establishment party Movimento 5 Stella (M5S).

Meanwhile, polling had put the party of the Centre-Left, Partito Democratico, consistently ahead as the only party with a truly national mandate. Even despite having had three separate leaders since the election, Pierluigi Bersani, Enrico Letta and now Matteo Renzi, the Democratici have remained the only stabilising force in Italy's political mainstream.

Matteo Renzi, as leader of the Democrats, is the centre point for what little stability remains. Yet he has staked it all on winning a controversial constitutional referendum - with opposition to be found in all corners of Italian politics - making the plebiscite a vote of confidence in his continued leadership and job as Prime Minister (Politi, 2016).

If that were not enough, on top of Renzi's struggle to change the political and electoral systems, he also faces a battle with the European Union over the rules regarding how he can tackle Italy's National banking crisis (Sanderson & Alex Barker, 2016) - a crisis which, if it where ever to fully unravel, would dwarf the chaos into which Greece has been plunged.

Italy's major national banks are drained of funds, burdened by impossible debts - €400bn in bad loans - and need recapitalisation. EU rules say, however, that the government cannot buy out the banks of their debt (Guerrera et al, 2016), despite support for the policy from the European Central Bank (Jones, 2016), unless the burden falls first on investors.

But in Italy that is all but impossible. The largest share of the debts now weigh heavily upon its citizens, thanks to retail bond and investment schemes. That state of affairs has already caused tragedies, when problems at regional banks led to suicides after families lost hundreds of thousands in savings (Poggioli, 2016).

To force creditors to take the burden is to invite the collapse of Italy's biggest banks and destroy the lives of and impoverish its people. Renzi has expressed his intention to defy the EU and save Italy's banking sector, to protect particularly the country's ordinary savers.

Renzi's government also has ambitious and extensive welfare plans in the works to help those in poverty. Intended to begin in September, after a significant trial period, a programme would extend support for hundreds of thousands of families with children living in poverty, covering a million people to €320/month (Conte, 2016).

The €750mn/year investment, to be doubled as the programme goes forward is conditional on meeting educational and job searching objectives, to spread the governments aim of increasing 'income inclusion'. But it could make a massive difference for the most vulnerable.

But future action depends upon Renzi and the mandate of the Democrats surviving the referendum, which looks to be taking place in increasingly heated circumstances. Anti-establishment and anti-European sentiment seem to be rising hand in hand. The banking crisis and the intransigence of European institutions is not helping. It's no big surprise then that September's vote is being touted as the next big turning point for the future of European institutions after Greece and Brexit.

In that toxic atmosphere, Renzi has staked his efforts against his own position - not the Prime Minister's first act of brinkmanship as he tries to reorganise Italy, having made a similar move to pass same-sex unions (BBC, 2016). But the move stakes more than just his own career on the vote: Renzi is virtually the last man standing in the Italian political arena.

The Democrats are internally divided (La Repubblica, 2016) and only the anti-establishment, anti-elite and Eurosceptic populists M5S, who sit with UKIP in the European Parliament, have something approaching the national mandate to take over.

Making the matter personal by making it a vote on Renzi as well is a dangerous move, not least in this political climate - as former President Giorgio Napolitano stressed (Politi, 2016). It clouds motivations, particularly when Renzi is the central figurehead of the establishment, pushing through reforms that are each time controversial to some large group - from labour reforms (BBC, 2014) to same-sex unions, to the banking crisis currently unfolding - and likely only to feed anti-establishment populism.

Europe finds itself now, once more, with a crisis on it hands. The only leader with a modicum of a mandate is risking his position and the country's stability each time he tries to push through a reform. And yet even as Renzi takes on that task, he finds himself also pressured by the EU that would force him to act punitively against citizens by nullifying their investment savings.

The institutional rules themselves are in essence intended as pro-market anti-trust regulations, aimed at preventing state-corporate collusion, as a bulwark against corruption. For progressives - who want to see an open Europe where all parts cooperate in mutual support for the common good - to see them deployed to prevent the state from performing its basic duty to the people is disappointing.

If Renzi falls, Italy risks falling back into political paralysis, much as Spain has been by its electoral deadlocks. The fact so much has come to rest on the career of one politician should be a disconcerting warning to Europe of the need to find stable ground for all of its member states. Yet at present, Europe institutions seems unwilling or unable to respond positively. Europe's present system of legal authority without sufficient democratic accountability has alienated.

Reform is needed. The need is pressing to argue the case against the flaws of the present system and for the building of a better one. The Democrats were elected in Italy on the slogan 'Bene Comune' - the Common Good. It is long overdue time to start rebuilding Europe under the same words.

Return of Charles Kennedy's proposal of a penny on tax for education signals worries that more needs to be done on inequality

The late Charles Kennedy, whose practical policies have returned to the table for consideration in Scotland. Photograph: Charles Kennedy speaking at the Friday Rally at the Scottish Liberal Democrats Spring Conference, 2015 from James Gourley/Liberal Democrats (License) (Cropped)

One of the more worrying statistics of the moment is that generational inequality is rising, as the doors that allow social mobility are closing (Inman, 2016). One particularly telling factor is that home ownership has become a distant and fading dream for young people, as modest incomes are no longer enough to get started (Elliott & Osborne, 2016).

So far, George Osborne's efforts have been aimed at finding ways around tackling the key problems: making larger and cheaper loans available, turning rents into deposits and selling off social housing cheaply to tenants. All of these moves are attempts to stimulate the private sector and take care of the middle class - largely at the expense of those worse off. What they don't do is fix the core problems, like a lack of supply that drives rents and prices through the roof.

But Osborne's austere laissez faire isn't going to close the inequality gap. For schools, for example, the place where inequalities first begin to take their substantial toll - whose teachers and administrators are buried under mounting stress that is driving employees away (Harris, 2016) - a place to start would seem to be a simple, practical acceptance: more money is needed. Yet with austerity ascendant, that will be a difficult thing for this government to accept.

Under the present conditions, its really no surprise that the late Charles Kennedy's penny on tax policy has seen a resurgence. Kennedy proposed, as Ashdown did before him, to add one penny in the pound to income tax - an increase of 1% in search of £3bn in additional funds - to support extra spending on education (BBC, 2001; Marr, 2001; Taylor, 2016).

The same policy has now turned up in Scotland. Will Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, announced the return of this policy to the Lib Dem's platform at the end of January (Carrell, 2016) - only to be upstaged a week later by the Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale's adoption of the same policy (ITV, 2016).

Under Kennedy, this was seen as a bold, but practical measure at a time when the economy was improving dramatically. Under Kennedy's successor Nick Clegg, the emerging financial crisis led to these ideas being translated into 'fairness'. Clegg's, now much missed, red lines in government involved sharing the burden  (Parkinson, 2012) - refusing to have cuts impact on the poorest without the equivalent be expected of the richest.

Amongst the things Clegg fought for was increased spending for the early years at school (Ahmed, 2015), hoping to close gaps so that children might grow up with the skills necessary to seize opportunities on their own merits. During that time, Conservative supremacy and lust for cuts was barely restrained by the Coalition. Now it doesn't seem to be restrained at all.

All in it together, to protect the next generation from crippling public debt, seems to have become the means to disenfranchise the next generation - denying young people public services and affordable housing. Meanwhile, the wealthy are doing just fine (Inman, 2016).

And yet, austerity has laid bare and made finally visible in the UK the true extent of the financial crisis - from which the UK was largely sheltered by the government funded public sector. From homelessness at the extreme, to the now common shortages of affordable homes, the public may now finally - thanks to austerity - be realising the full weight of the burden falling on them.

In those conditions, the re-emergence of policy's like Kennedy's penny on tax is not surprising. A general outcry for more the government to do more cannot be far away. While that, of course, doesn't necessarily always have to mean constant high levels of public spending on fully nationalised services. But more has to be done.

Mariana Mazzucato, economist and one Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's anti-austerity economic advisors, has argued that the private sector is a weak innovator that is loathe to take risks. Quoting Keynes, she argues that most innovation - the opening of new economic spaces - is done best by government (Mazzucato, 2013) - in the form of a smarter state.

Inequality has many facets that need to be tackled. Education needs more support. Housing needs to be more widely available and cheaper. Young people need to see more opportunities in more fields. None of these things can be achieved without some additional government funding at some stage. Public bodies have the ability, and the right, to act: to open up new economies, to create new opportunities where there are now none, and to invest in new futures.

 

Breakthroughs in all of these areas would lead to new economic growth and wider spread shares of the spoils. A penny on tax for education is a modest, practical start. A small, subtle, rejection of the austerity doctrine. But it is one small solution, for just one part of a huge and interlinked problem of inequality that the government cannot for much longer simply trim around the edges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crisis in the neoliberal economic system may not be a guaranteed springboard for a radical new economy, but it does signal the need to prepare a coherent alternative

With the world economy in seemingly constant crisis, progressives need to have a credible alternative ready. Photograph: Euro Bank Notes from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Yesterday brought some gloomy economic news. The global economy is struggling, markets everywhere are slumping, and to all intents and purposes the great recession appears to be heading on into its eighth year (BBC, 2016). Not even a new low for unemployment in the UK could bring much cheer, as wages continue to stagnate (BBC, 2016{2}).

With 20% of Europe's young people unemployed (European Parliament, 2016) - as many as 50% in some cases and trapped by nearly a decade of slim to no opportunities - and with austerity cutting away at social security (Gaffney, 2013; Nielsen, 2014), it wouldn't be surprising for some on the Left to at least take in hope in the idea that the lack of return for all of the precariousness and the sacrifices might be a crisis in the making for the neoliberal order.

And yet, as Yanis Varoufakis has warned, a crisis is not so easily exploited by progressives (Varoufakis, 2015). In fact, they often play out at the expense of the Left. With the aims of the Left so often dependent upon the building of a social institutions - something taking time and public support - progressives can find themselves in the unenviable position of defending the establishment in the face more extreme populist positions.

So, building an alternative economy is not going to be accomplished overnight. Neoliberalism certainly wasn't (Ridley, 2016). It took decades, around a half century, of work and preparation for the neoliberal theorists to promote their cause to the mainstream.

That doesn't mean, however, that some of the work has not already been done. For the Left, the construction a new path has been bubbling away since at least the beginning of the great recession - almost a decade ago - and breakthroughs have been made.

In the past year, Syriza won two elections and a referendum as an opponent of the prevailing system (Mason & Skarlatos, 2015) - and even as they have been strangled and forced to concede endless ground their leader Alexis Tsipras continues to argue for the room to build something more inclusive and sustainable (Tsipras, 2016). Yanis Varoufakis, now the former Finance Minister of Greece, has become a figurehead for the European Left for the way in which he stood against the austerian establishment.

In Spain, the 15M Indignados movement has taken just two years to launch the Podemos party and become a real presence of the national scene (Jones, 2015). In the last year it has won control of some major cities with its municipalist ideas, becoming an inspiration for movements across Europe (Gutierrez Gonzalez, 2016).

Also of note is that in Utrecht (Perry, 2015), in the Netherlands, and in Finland (Unkuri, 2015), trials are being rolled out to test the merits of the Basic Income. An idea that could erase poverty and bring some salve to those suffering caused by the precariousness of the times, the Basic Income is an important idea whose time has come.

There has also, of course, been the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum within the Labour Party (Mason, 2015). Corbyn is faced with plenty of struggles with his own parliamentarians and with the mainstream media. Yet his ideas have led to a huge upsurge of engagement with the Labour Party that represents - regardless of whether it is enough to win a national majority - the emergence of a significant voter base for radical democrats in the UK.

As elsewhere in the world, much like how Spain's Podemos was born from the Indignados, this base of voters has been brewing and coalescing in the UK since the Occupy movement launched its protests around the world in 2011. Occupy saw individuals and groups coming together, organising themselves, in a massive show of civil disobedience.

All of these elements carry with them ideas and theories about how the world might alternatively be constructed. Yet so far they have been, not to sound disparaging, just protests or singular parties, isolated in the mainstream.

The next step is overdue. A part of it is coming from Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, in a move that seems like something New Labour's masters of spin should have come up with a decade ago. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell is taking his rockstar economists, assembled in October as an anti-austerity economics advisory body, on the road to debate and promote the building of a new economy.

Another part will come from in the not too far future with the launch of Varoufakis' movement for rebuilding democracy in Europe in February (Wingard, 2016). As he has been keen to stress, the next step has to include the building of a broad movement, bringing together many ideas, across the whole of Europe (Varoufakis, 2016; Varoufakis & Sakalis, 2015) - on the same scale as globalised neoliberalism also functions.

To topple a broken and unequal system in a time of crisis may not be more than a romantic Left-wing notion. But the stumbling of neoliberalism, from crisis to crisis, makes it essential to put together the various threads of thought into a coherent proposal that is ready to step up when neoliberal thinking finally runs of credibility.

From the basic income to the reduction of full time hours, a living wage to a living rent, municipalism to community energy, there are many elements that could fit together and complement each other. The job ahead is to construct that bigger picture and start showing it to the world.

A sudden, stark and tragic turning point for our common humanity

Yesterday, the British media at large made a dramatic U-turn. After years of pushing aggressive and insensitive attitudes towards migrants of all kinds, the death of one small boy - an image thrust right into face of people across the UK - has produced a dramatic volte face (Wintour, 2015).

Suddenly, the reality of the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Syria and by the other ongoing conflicts in North Africa - such as in Libya and Iraq - was out in the open. These people were no longer dehumanised 'immigrants' out to steal jobs. They were human beings again, terrified strangers fleeing for their lives.

With the apparent shift in public opinion represented by the change in the media's tone, David Cameron's Premiership is suddenly under substantial pressure (Wintour, 2015{2}). While Cameron has stood resolutely aloof, governments across Europe have at times creaked with the strain and ordinary people have taken the responsibility upon themselves to save lives and to shelter them (Duffy, 2015; Moore, 2015).

The shift in the media tone may well be the signal for the government to now alter its policy with regards to the crisis - in particular accepting more of the refugees from Syria. But, behind the present crisis, there is a dangerous matter just as large that the shift in tone may begin to address. And that is the dehumanisation that has crept into public attitudes over the last decade (Kingsley, 2015).

Those attitudes, of reducing human beings to crude caricatures based on simplistic, grim and derogatory terms, posed as much of a threat to the internal workings of British society as it did to outsiders unfortunate enough to cross paths with it. It turns people cold towards outsiders of all kinds - including the least fortunate in their own communities, who find themselves suffering from cruel stigmas and draconian crackdowns in addition to poverty and homelessness (Sparkes, 2015).

Hopefully - and it should be stressed that this is hope - this one tragedy, and the sudden stark turning point it has made possible, can at least have a decisive impact and force a step forward in the recognition of our common humanity.