Industrial Strategy: May government needs to match it's words with public investment if it wants to unlock missions potential

When Theresa May took over the leadership of the Conservative Party, she heralded a change of approach. There has been a lot of talk of government being willing to get more involved - on May's part, expressed in her insistence on restoring the Unionist part of the party's legacy, including invoking Joseph Chamberlain and a more activist government.

The issuing of an industrial strategy was seen as a statement of intent - an act of intervention that broke with the pro-business, laissez faire brand of 'liberal conservatism' of her predecessors David Cameron and George Osborne.

However, follow through has been limited. So too has money. Once published, the government's strategy looked less about shaping markets and supporting innovators, and more about propping up Britain's failing industries with deals and deregulation.

Theresa May's latest step was to reference the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IPPR), who along with it's director Mariana Mazzucato have been pressing hard for a reshaping of how we understand the role of government in innovation. But her warm words toward the potential of strategic missions will mean nothing without the funding to match.

Mazzucato's work has argued, the state can be the risk taking pioneer - a role expected of the private sector, but which it is never willing to fulfil. By funding R&D, by offering long term, stable public investment, government can open up and shape entirely new markets.

But it can't do this without money - at either end. Projects need investment and support to be there from the start and need the private sector not be able to simply walk away with unlimited potential earnings at the end, with no restitution for the public role. Big ideas should fund new big ideas.

Theresa May's government, however, has yet to be willing to match big words with big funding. Today's speech was no different. There was a lot of praise for public institutions that engage in research, but little mention for how they have been strangled of funding.

May set out her four missions - within four 'grand challenges' facing Britain taken from the Industrial Strategy - and praised the potential of missions to drive innovation forward. But that was the extent of it.

Both the IPPR and the thinktank OECD have argued that increased public investment, and the infrastructure to implement it like a National Investment Bank, is a golden opportunity that the UK is not taking advantage of - despite Britain investing well below 3% of GDP.

Without funding, potential will remain unexplored. Mission statements represent step one in a coordinated approach. The Prime Minister herself acknowledged that progress is born from collaboration and cooperation. There needs to be a lot more of it, and something more: coordination.

Theresa May is committing to the big visions/big speeches aspect of the call for strategic thinking. Will the government wake up and start to put in place the rest of the infrastructure needed to maximise the potential that can be unlocked by long term strategic thinking?

General Election 2017 - The Budget: Progressive optimism vs Tory pessimism

In the general election campaign so far, there's a determination on the Right to spread the idea that their own plans are sensible and that their opponent's are chaotic and don't add up. But that's a crudely simplistic narrative and it comes with a couple of main assumptions that need to be broken through.

On the first assumption: none of the six main parties in England, Wales and Scotland are calling for a drastic overhaul to Britain's economic system. On the second: most economic systems work on their own terms. The sums will add up, whoever is in government. The biggest difference between progressive and conservative versions is their contrasting optimism and pessimism.

While conservatives, and progressives, will try to make the management of the budget a question of competence, or a question of right and wrong answers, those are not the primary questions facing voters. The real question to consider first, is: what are you trying to achieve?

How Ideology affects Economics

All approaches to the economy are ideological: they propose a set of steps to follow, with an intended outcome - an intentional attempt at shaping society to maximise certain behaviours and to minimise others.

When looking at the pitches made by progressives and conservatives, there are two elements you should consider, one for each of the two main categories of public spending - Current and Capital.

For clarity: Current spending is the day-to-day spending on the departmental budgets, historically offset against government revenue. Capital spending is long term infrastructure investment, usually funded by government borrowing.

On Current spending, you need to consider the question of intervention vs laissez faire: do you consider government action in any given policy area to be helping or interfering?

On Capital spending, you need to consider whether to invest in the future or tackle public debt: do you consider public debt or out-of-date technology and buildings for schools, hospitals, or roads and rails for businesses, the bigger burden on the future?

These two questions are deeply connected.

How entwined they are can be illustrated by the long term plan pursued by the Tories. Planning to 'balance' the budget by having both Current and Capital spending offset by revenue, severely limits how much the government can do in the present and for the future. Even more so as they pursue a huge reduction in the proportion of Britain's GDP, the country's gross wealth, the government is spending.

Now, borrowing to fund Current spending, on the day to day department costs, would theoretically be adding to the public debt at the expense of the future (hence the Tories popular refrain about not burdening our children). But Labour - whether you take the vision for the treasury as assembled by Brown, Balls or McDonnell - has not and does not intend to do that.

Under Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the intention has been - from at least the leaderships of John Smith and Paddy Ashdown - to follow a Keynesian approach: to balance just Current spending against tax revenues, thereby not accumulating public debt to pay for the needs of the present.

This approach does, however, leave Capital spending to be funded by borrowing.

The reasoning behind this is that the longer term Capital spending behaves much differently to Current spending. For a government, borrowing is cheap and the added value created by using it for long term investment is huge - so much so that the actual cost of borrowing is ultimately offset by the increased economic growth that results, and the rise in tax revenue that follows.

How to fund investment

The progressive view of these budget questions has a particular focus on Capital spending, refusing the simplistic calculation that public debt equals a burden on the future. Public debts, within reason and where they result from investment in the future, are largely harmless.

But the negative impact of poor infrastructure, on every area of society, could be disastrous. Just look at the mess that resulted from outdated operating systems on NHS computers. But the same point extends to more mundane situations: old and crumbling school buildings, potholed and traffic strewn roads, ports with insufficient capacity, a telecommunications network that doesn't keep up with the needs of people and businesses.

There are, of course, always attempts at being clever in order to reduce borrowing for Capital projects, even when they aren't covered by tax revenues. New Labour tried something new, expanding on plans they inherited to seek out private investors for its controversial and now infamous 'Private Finance Initiatives', as a way to fund Capital spending without adding to the public debt.

The New Labour plan for private-funded public investment built hospitals - but the private sector expects returns. The PFIs left those institutions with the expectation to deliver astronomical returns on those investments - some £300bn all told - and private benefactors continue to receive interest payments from hospital trusts in the hundreds of millions.

In a way, New Labour's approach resembles the Coalition plan for funding higher education - shifting a public debt, weighing on the Current budget, onto citizens as private debt. In a stroke, a chunk of Current spending and public debt was privatised.

But like the burdens that were shifted onto the backs of hospital trusts, the treasury saw a clever accounting trick,  not the social impact of burdensome debt - though at least more limitations were put in place to protect students than the hospital trusts received with PFIs. In either case, the financial burden ends up on the public books anyway.

The Conservatives plan was to oppose borrowing and fund both Current and Capital only with tax revenues. From a progressive view this was reckless, as it would result in one of two outcomes: it would mean slashing spending on people's wellbeing in the present, while still having them pay tax to fund Capital projects that will never bear fruit for them, or it would mean slashing both to endlessly pay off mostly harmless debt.

The underlying motivations for conservatives to pursue this path is as simple as 'faith' in the market. A belief that private schemes are better than public action - seeing public action as interference that just distorts outcomes. Instead of taking the advantage of scale provided by the collective public option, where resources are pooled to maximise their use, conservatives prefer personal private schemes of insurance to pay for services.

How the government finances stand

The overriding aim of this privatising conservative mentality is to fight against 'dependence'. But to pursue that low tax, low interference, approach, that promotes private action, is not compatible with maintaining well funded public services. At some point, something will have to give. To emphasise the point, consider how the public finances stand after seven years of Tory government.

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

That will mean, in the coming years - helped perhaps if revenues rise due to economic recovery or growth - 'balancing' the budget will still require a combination of tax rises and budget cuts, to both Capital and Current spending, amounting to over £60 billion a year - and perhaps more, if the aim is to produce a surplus with which to pay down the public debt.

We know that some £22 billion is to come from the NHS, through the finding of 'savings'. Another £3 billion is coming from schools, thanks to recent funding changes. More will come from the welfare freeze. There is clearly an intention to clear some of the cost of social care off the public books by making middle class homeowners pay with their assets. But that still leaves a lot of cuts.

As for the Liberal Democrat and Labour plans, both are actually fairly similar and neither are that tremendously radical. In fact, they're downright sensibly Keynesian. Both intend to balance the Current, day-to-day departmental, spending against tax revenues - with modest tax rises, mostly on the rich, making more room for manoeuvre.

And here is something interesting. On the measure of balancing the Current budget: it's already balanced. In fact it's in surplus. By some £20 billion. It is projected to be in surplus by about the same amount next year. The previous year the Current budget was only £3 billion in deficit. If the job was to rebalance government spending and revenue, the job is nearly three years done.

With their commitments fully costed, either Labour or the Lib Dems would come into government with a very positive outlook on the public finances - seeing the public books as being in a healthy state. The positivity of either of these parties would alone be a drastic turn around from the doomsaying Tories, who promise nothing but ever more cuts.

It is remarkable the affect that optimism and positivity alone can have in economics, particularly in contrast to the Tories doom and gloom and neverending warnings. But the renewed public investment, called for by all progressive parties, could provide a huge long term boost to Britain. From the mass building of new homes to long term support for innovative new industries - particularly in green energy - there would be a lot to be optimistic about.

How we frame debt matters

As for the deficit and debt? Well, how these are drawn up may have to change when the Tories are eventually ousted, because the way we frame these matters. Conservatives have been very successful at getting into circulation the idea that fiscal credibility means opposing public debt. Progressives must counter that narrative by reframing the ideas.

If the value added by Capital spending vastly outweighs its cost - thus removing it as a factor in balancing a budget - it might well be worth starting to calculate it separately from the deficit and debt which results from the Current budget. That means separating out public debt into two categories: productive Capital debt and unproductive deficit debt.

The progressive aim will be responsibility with productive Capital debt and credibility in tackling and avoiding the unproductive Current deficits and debt. Consider: In the three years between 2015 and 2018, there will have been a Current budget surplus of £47bn. The deficit in that period, that Tories use to justify austerity, is the result of £233bn in Capital spending - investment in long term projects.

That means, at the end of that three year period, around 12% of our total public debt is just from that productive long term investment. When you consider the long term, positive impact of that Capital spending, it makes the public debt a lot less intimidating. It also resets priorities.

How we move forward

To be a progressive is to be an optimist - to be believe that people have the power to change things for the better. While government spending is not the be-all-end-all mechanism for that, progressives argue that it has an important role to play and is currently being poorly utilised.

There are huge challenges to face and most them require sturdy long term commitment. Poverty needs to be addressed with affordable housing and energy, and with compassionate welfare that gets people back on their own feet.

Britain's imbalanced economy needs restructuring around innovative new industries and businesses, spread out across the regions, with green energy power them and the technical skills to run them.

The public sector is able to deliver that long term investment in a way private finance has not yet been able to match. It is part of the solution. The next step is to grasp that idea and to pursue it with positivity and energy. Progress is possible and austerity not inevitable.

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.

The Budget: Hammond's budget all about tweaks - spending headlines mostly in the millions rather than the billions

Philip Hammond delivered his first budget today. Photograph: NATO Summit Wales 2014 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (License) (Cropped)

Philip Hammond looked relaxed, even made jokes, as he delivered his first - and apparently Britain's last - Spring Budget. The Chancellor's budget was one tweaks, all framed as adjustments to increase fairness. He began by summarising current economic trends, noting the highest number of women in employment ever. Growth projections are up slightly, but a projected drop in borrowing is only short term.

The long term economic plan of his predecessor George Osborne, to eliminate the deficit and produce a surplus to whittle away the national debt, was much delayed. Its aims where pushed back again by Hammond today. The promised fiscal surplus now not likely be seen until a long way into the 2020s - at least.

As for spending, the numbers he was pitching were all notably in the millions rather than the billions. £200 million for school repairs. £100 million for A&Es. A few hundred million for devolved administrations. £700m for councils to tackle urban congestion. The one exception appeared to £2 billion for Social Care - yet that was immediately qualified as being spread over three years.

Those spending commitments were companied by big companies seeing Corporation Tax fall again, as planned, to 17%. Perhaps as a counter to the criticism Conservatives have faced for their tax cuts for those at the top end, Hammond did however announce a halving of Director-shareholders' tax-free dividend allowance - noting it as a very generous tax break for investors.

For income taxes and wages that affect the overwhelming majority of people, the Personal Income Tax Allowance and the National Living Wage will both increase, to £11,500 and £7.50 respectively. The Universal Credit taper rate will also be reduced from 65% to 63% for earnings over allowances. Yet the overall positive impact of these is likely to be slim.

It is not surprising then that Jeremy Corbyn attacked the Chancellor's budget as one of "utter complacency". Corbyn painted a picture of people in precarious work - unsure of where they'll find work or what money they may make tomorrow, queueing at food banks and one of a million working households getting housing benefit because working pay doesn't cover the rent - for whom there were few measures.

The Labour leader expressed anger that public servants have still seen no pay rise in seven years, due to the Government's freeze on pay, and that no funding security has been given to the NHS despite there being an obvious crisis, despite the fact that corporations are still going to get their year on year tax cut.

The Chancellor's budget has offered only a range of small spending increases, in a very concise series of measures, and it is hard to see them as sufficient. Analysts, such as Kamal Ahmed at the BBC, have characterised the budget as representing 'pain delayed' - taking advantage of the short term boost that Government finances are experiencing this year.

This is not the start of a public investment led drive to build a path out of austerity. With the debt and deficit still hanging heavily over Britain, these feel like stop-gap measures to assuage certain political pressures in the present, and to ease the way to the further austerity that waits ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autumn Statement Preview: Hammond looks likely to ease austerity, but progressives have to believe we can do more

What awaits Britain under a new Chancellor? Photograph: Pound Coins from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

On Wednesday, Chancellor Philip Hammond will present the Autumn Statement, the half-year update on the Government's progress towards their budget targets.

Under previous Chancellors Gordon Brown and George Osborne, the Autumn Statement became virtually a second budget, a second for the Government to manage and tweak the country's finances. Osborne in particular liked to tinker at every opportunity, adjusting targets again and again, an announcing new surprise policies to keep political opponents off balance.

The new Chancellor, Philip Hammond, as befits his reputation as 'dull', has suggested he'd like the Autumn event to go back to being just a rudimentary update, rather than a full blown budget adjustment. And considering the economic situation, that might not be a terrible idea.

An economy runs principally on the basis of confidence and Hammond has everyone to reassure: Brexiters and 48ers; the banks; businesses big and small, and workers. Whatever advantage Osborne's constant surprises afforded him in the political arena, would only have been yet another element of volatility in an already volatile time.

As well as provide assurance of a steady hand, Hammond must also find a way to satisfy his party's extreme right-wing - while, for sake of the appearance of competence, avoiding the complete repudiation of the actions of the previous Conservative ministry. That means maintaining at least token continuity with his predecessor's insistence upon tackling the deficit at the expense of front line services.

If those matters weren't hard enough to juggle, Hammond must also find a way to meet the new commitments made by the new Prime Minister Theresa May. That means, at the least, finding some way to slow down austerity just enough to help those who are 'just getting by'.

In times of high drama, a period of calm, anchored in fiscal stability and dullness, with no unpredictable moves and longer term planning - that actually sticks to a long term economic plan - would usually be a thing very welcome, for any economy. If that is what Hammond brings, it signals, hopefully, a return  to managing fiscal matters with a long term view, rather than with short term grandstanding better fitting a corporate boardroom.

However, the new Chancellor doesn't have the luxury of simply postponing a little of austerity programme and holding station. To that effect, Hammond has already deprioritised his predecessor's constantly shifting deficit targets and proposed a small increase in spending to a improve some roads, with May herself adding today the promise of a little more research and development funding. These steps are clearly an effort to show concerns - that withdrawing too much Government money, too quickly, will only make straightened times leaner - have been acknowledged.

Yet Hammond is rightfully under pressure from the Left to do more. John McDonnell, the Labour Shadow Chancellor, has also called for the undoing of tax breaks for the richest that were delivered by George Osborne, eve as frontline services and local councils were subjected to stringent budget restrictions.

With the money saved from reversing those measures, McDonnell has called for dropping the next round of welfare cuts, planned out by the treasury under Osborne - that will hit hardest precisely those who the Prime Minister lately pledged to protect: those 'just getting by'.

Socially and economically, the times have become hard and uncertain, and disproportionately for the most vulnerable - for women, minorities, people with disabilities and the working poor. And each of these groups are exposed to a range of risks, pressures and dangers by declining prosperity and rising desperation, as people turn inwards and shield themselves with hostility towards those who should be their neighbours.

While stability for the Conservatives may stop at settling down jittery markets, progressives want the Government to look further afield: to help calm the fears of ordinary people. Hammond's promises of infrastructure spending and pausing austerity are a start. Yet McDonnell isn't wrong to question the record of the Tories on delivery - Osborne made bigger promises of infrastructure spending, that might have helped stimulate the economy if they had ever seen the light of day.

For progressives, the time is long overdue for a budget with more spending commitments: on research and investment, to help stimulate the economy, creating jobs in the immediate present and to lay the foundation for more down the line; on the critical shortfalls in the NHS and social care budgets; on ending, and even reversing, cuts to welfare, to help people during hard times; and on building many desperately need homes.

All of those commitments are expensive and neither debt nor deficit can be completely ignored. But the present status quo simply is not stable. Worrying  about public debts, themselves fairly stable, weighing on the future as a tax burden is madness when the poor, just to get by, struggle under mounting insecure private debts.

And the Government, on the public behalf, is in the strongest position to help. Even just reversing tax cuts and subsidies for rich corporations and individuals - before you even get to the matter of how cheap interest is on Government borrowing - would go a long way to paying for what's needed.

Stability and reassurance are needed. But the Government must act first to create stability, because right now there is desperation and precariousness bordering on disaster. Progressives have to believe that Hammond can and should do more, before he can declare the ship steady, the waters calm and a course plotted for the harsh waters awaiting Britain outside of the European Union.

Progressives need to find an answer to precarious work, because conservatives back its rise and it in turn fuels the Far Right

The headline figures say unemployment is down, but they cover the fact that welfare is being replaced only with precarity. Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

In the breakdown of the Leave Campaign's victory in the Brexit referendum, and also that of Trump, the impact of globalisation has been afforded a central role. The shifting of work overseas, and only precarious opportunities at home, has fed fear and hostility.

Even a brief look at the political situation, as it stands in Europe and America, reveals that the main benefactors of the crisis have been anti-establishment populists and the Far Right nationalists and sectarians - from Grillo to Le Pen, from Spain to Eastern Europe.

With that in mind, the employment figures released by the government make interesting reading. The topline is, in a time of meagre of opportunities, likely to be praised: unemployment has fallen to a new low, as more people find a way into work.

But the headline covers up three important facts. First, that 15% of those in employment are self-employed (BBC, 2016). Second that, including the self-employed along with those on zero hours and in temporary jobs, some 20% depend upon precarious work (Booth, 2016). And third, social mobility has stalled in an increasingly tiered society, with the gap between the well-to-do and everyone else growing (Sellgren, 2016).

The impact of this shift has been to reduce the possibility of finding a secure and stable housing situation, career paths and job progression stall in the face of no opportunities, and in all, people can no longer expect to live a better life than their parent's generation.

Even with that damning assessment, the Tories have still found it possible to celebrate the shift towards ever more precarity (Stone, 2016). Damian Green, the Department of Work and Pensions secretary, called the shift away from stable hours, holiday pay, sick pay and pensions an exciting moment, praising the "gig economy" staffed by the "everyday entrepreneur".

The only possibility of finding excitement in these figures comes from an ideological viewpoint that reduces human life to little more than wage labour, and sees innovation only through the prism of strife, competition and exploitation - with social life, enjoyment, fulfilment or self-improvement as petty distractions.

But, as the rise of the Far Right is showing, people do not share that view. If work offers no rewards and doesn't lead anywhere, but to a never ending grind, then work is not a path to liberation but a prison. And that creates an opportunity for others to offer a way out - and to offer scapegoats.

People want more autonomy and elevating them, educating them and giving them more responsibility is idealism at its finest - but not at the cost of their basic life security. But nor should people have to cash in their autonomy, their liberty, in exchange for the promise of succour.

It is the job of progressives to offer a road on which stability and autonomy are wedded and sustainable. To build, not just an alternative view of the economy, but one that includes a path forward, with ongoing improvement of conditions and lessening of burdens built into it.

As the British Liberals of the 1920s put it:

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

The aim for progressives must be to have an economy that serves people, not the other way around, and works towards their liberation.

To achieve its goals, the Living Wage must be part of a comprehensive policy of reform

The Living Wage Foundation has designated this week as Living Wage Week, with the aim of spreading a broader awareness of the measure and what it fights for: the right to a decent standard of living (Ainsley, 2016).

Its launch coincides with the announcements today of the recommended living wage, as part of the voluntary living wage scheme, being instituted by civil administrations in London, Scotland and Wales along with a number of major firms (Living Wage Foundation, 2016) - the actual Living Wage, higher than the government's 'National Living Wage'.

At a time of rising prices and economic uncertainty, an increase in pay will be a very welcome boost for many of the most vulnerable and those facing hard times. But the idea of minimum wages has been controversial in economics. There are sore divisions over the idea of an intervention through the law to 'artificially' raise wages.

For those on the neoliberal economic right, setting minimum wage thresholds are an artificial inflation of the costs of business, where costs are seen as the primary problem. From their view, the priority should be to reduce costs, so to increase competition, and through both together to reduce prices - allowing market-set wages to go further (The Economist, 2015).

On the interventionist economic left, there has been a delicate negotiated balance to strike. With trade unions for instance, there is a need achieve better returns for workers on the one hand, while also ensuring the long term affordability of pay so as to avoid future closures and lay offs.

What particularly concerns both Left and Right is that business, faced with wage inflation, may decide they have little choice but to begin to replace many basic low pay jobs with cheaper automation (The Economist, 2015{2}).

It is absolutely clear that it is just that people get proper returns for a their labour. And further, it makes sense. The OECD has stressed that economic inequality hurts economic growth and therefore the general prosperity (OECD, 2014). That makes measures of redistribution from shareholders to workers, and a fairer distribution of the 'rewards' between them, essential.

However. There can be no complacency. An economy is an intricate web and pulling at one string has knock on affects for the whole network - especially when progressive administrations are not the only ones pulling strings that have decisive results. To achieve the aim of a decent standard of living, just wages must be seen as an integral part of a broader policy of reform, which must look also to the other side of the equation: the cost of living.

In two key sectors, in housing and in energy, high costs have a devastating impact on the economy and the lives of all citizens, especially the most vulnerable. A secure wage goes hand in hand with secure housing and affordable energy - a Living Wage needs the companionship of a Living Rent.

The third aspect of any broad progressive economic policy has to be tackling the thoroughly unequal distribution of power over economic decision-making. Too much decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of too few, creating vested interests inclined to behave like cartels.

Only with all three together - giving citizens the guarantee of a reasonable reward for work, the security of basic housing and energy, and enfranchisement in the making of economic decisions - can the economy serve the needs and wishes of citizens rather than just those of narrow and self-serving interest groups.

And, as a final note, the fear of automation must at some point be addressed. With it, there will also need to be an assessment of our attitudes to welfare, to how work is rewarded, and even our definition of work itself. Above all pursuing one goal: that progress should serve citizens, not disinherit them.

Chancellor quietly drops yet another target, but Labour infighting means chance to pitch positive alternative case will be missed

Under Chancellor George Osborne's stewardship, the Treasury is going to miss another of its fiscal targets. Photograph: Pound Coins from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

On Friday, at the quiet end of the week and under the cover of the Labour and Conservative leadership wrangling, Chancellor George Osborne announced that he was relaxing the fiscal rules demanding that the government deliver a budget surplus by 2020 (Ahmed, 2016).

Paul Johnson of the Institute of Fiscal Studies immediately stressed that the measure, though it would allow for more borrowing and so less spending cuts or tax rises to cover the shortfall caused by the post-Brexit downturn, would not mean the end of austerity (BBC, 2016).

On Sunday that was confirmed when the Chancellor announced his intention to further accelerate the reduction of the Corporation Tax rate down to a new low of just 15% (Monaghan, 2016) -  a move entirely consistent with Chancellor's M.O. of managing the economy by creating seductive conditions for major firms.

With targets being quietly missed and dropped, and sweetened tax deals for major corporations being announced, it is disappointing that Labour MPs are too busy completely embroiled in their own mess to take the opportunity for a big public 'We Told You So'.

Labour are also in no position at present to step up the argument for seizing this opportunity to push for the much needed public investment plan that Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has argued the Chancellor's fiscal rule did not allow for (Treanor & Allen, 2016).

While the first announcement was buried beneath other news on a Friday, where missed targets are often hidden, it was a move that brought the policies of Osborne and Tory leadership candidate Theresa May into alignment - as May said in her campaign announcement that she would put aside the aim to get a surplus by 2020 so as to avoid disruptive tax rises (The Independent, 2016).

While suspending the fiscal rule aligns with May's position, the decision to cut Corporation Tax may have a more complicated effect on the Tory leadership contest. Brexiter candidates have been keen to downplay the negative economic impact of the vote to leave and will seize upon any sign that life goes on as usual.

The Chancellor using the new freedom for a tax cut rather than as the first in a package of measures that include the rise in taxes that he previously warned might follow a vote to leave, could play into the hands of the Brexiter candidates. The idea that Britain still has room to manoeuvre, to make a pitch to international businesses that it is still a place to invest, will likely embolden Brexiters who accused the Remain camp of 'Project Fear'.

However, the reality is that public revenue in the UK is already tight and suspending fiscal rule only confirms the fact. Public spending is still in deficit and key benefactors like the NHS still suffer from shortfalls. Abandoning the rule means an admission by the government that only by borrowing more can it now keep up with spending demands - for now.

The big question remains as to whether borrowing, for public investment, or limiting and even eliminating borrowing, cutting public outlays and seeking private investment to cover instead - ie austerity, represents the sounder fiscal policy. Which will help produce growth and revenue?

From the OECD to the IMF (Elliott, 2016; Summers, 2014), the argument that the UK needs to borrow and increase public investment, because boosting public investment can drive the growth that delivers the tax receipts (Stewart & Asthana, 2016), has strong support. The economists who have joined John McDonnell on his New Economics tour have also made broadly the same case.

The argument from the Left is that the Chancellor's focus is on entirely the wrong part of the economy with his tax cuts, benefiting the richest in the hope that they see past their short-termist to invest with a longer view (Sikka, 2016). They also warn against the short term focus of austerity, which looks for gains by selling off parts of the government to would be rentiers, as flawed and likely to only increase problems in the longer run (Mazzucato, 2016).

The alternative is to instead start directing investment into ordinary people - whether that be through education, in skills through apprenticeships and training, through jobs repairing roads and other transport infrastructure or building thousands of much needed new homes - with every penny spent multiplying in value as it boosts the economy.

These are all long term projects, aimed at providing a stable and prosperous future. A progressive economic alternative needs to do more - from reforming welfare towards a compassionate Basic Income and improving workers' say and stake in the work they do - but public investment is the starting point.

The Chancellor has taken a step back but the pressures of austerity are not yet relieved. Progressives have to overcome their divisions so they can start building the arguments for a more prosperous future with the common good at its heart.

Osborne's damaged reputation encourages doubt in Treasury Brexit forecast - yet findings match those of other studies saying Brexit will be a blow to UK economy

The biggest issues, like accountability, have become international matters that require a multi-national response. In Europe, this international approach has encouraged not only prosperity, but shared prosperity.

The Chancellor has taken the opportunity presented by a UK Treasury department report released today, an intervention by the government likely to once again anger those in the Vote Leave camp, to stress how an exit would negatively affect the economy (BBC, 2016).

The Treasury decided to put front and centre its middle of three case studies, based on a Canada-EU style agreement, that suggested that a 6% hit to the economy would the result from an exit (Ahmed, 2016). For its 'best case' study, which involves following Norway and joining the European Economic Area, the treasury's numbers where closer to forecasts by other bodies (Chu, 2016) - which suggested smaller losses of 2-4%.

Those in Vote Leave have been quick to dismiss the forecasts on the simple grounds that Chancellor George Osborne and the Treasury have been so far from the mark, for so long on the economy (ITV, 2016) - a perfect demonstration of why reputation and the appearance of competence matter so much.

Even after years of missed targets, Osborne had managed to maintain the impression with the public that he, and his party, where the safest hands for the economy. Yet that image was massively weakened by the Budget 2016 debacle, when Iain Duncan Smith resigned and the Chancellor faced heavy criticism for high end tax cuts being laid out alongside cuts to disability welfare support (BBC, 2016{2}).

So with the Chancellor tarnished, where can we turn to verify the Treasury's findings?

Well, first of all, the Treasury's figures certainly concur with the other independent studies, despite variations, in saying that an exit from the European Union will be bad for the economy. That opinion is also shared by organisations ranging from the IMF, the overseers and facilitators of the global economy the International Monetary Fund, to the IFS, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (Allen & Asthana, 2016; BBC, 2016{3}).

Secondly, the idea of an EU exit having - at least in the short term - a negative impact on the economy has even been admitted by Boris Johnson, the most high profile supporter of the exit campaign (Stewart & Watt, 2016). At the core of why those in favour of exit say that this initial impact is worth experiencing, is to pursue a believed greater long term potential outside of the EU. Yet the exit campaign's own pretty extravagant claims must be treated with caution (Full Fact, 2016).

Even if post-exit economic prosperity - outmatching what might be expected in the EU - could be achieved, there are no guarantees that prosperity would be shared. The immediate benefit of any new investment would likely go straight into the hands of the rich and, as Ed Miliband stressed at the weekend, wealth in the hands of the rich doesn't trickle down but is instead stashed (Cadwalladr, 2016).

Reinforcing that point is the long standing aim of those on the 'pro-business' Right to 'repatriate powers' from EU regarding employment laws. The stated aim is to cut regulations pertaining to labour protections so as to make labour more flexible for businesses, cutting their costs. But that also means weakening the rights of workers (Farhat, 2014), and increasing the already precarious situation for people in work.

In contrast, the EU has built, gradually, an expanding market area, with free trade within and protection at the edge; with the free trade area being covered by rules and regulations that ensure protections for workers from unfairly low pay and poor treatment - on the basis of decisions made at the European level on the grounds that they affect everyone in Europe.

By building regulations into its system, the EU offers an alternative to the long standing debate between free trade and protection - lower prices and greater efficiency at the cost of precarity and low wages, versus the potential for higher wages and sheltered domestic production that comes with the risk of much higher prices and damage being done to international trade relationships through trade barriers.

In essence, the EU has built a pioneering model for the advancement, not just of free trade, but also of fair trade, where workers are protected and their contributions justly rewarded. Where the rights of workers, subject to multi-national corporations, are protected by corresponding multi-national agreements and cooperation (Stewart, 2016).

The world has gone global and multi-national. Corporations and wealthy individuals avoid tax across borders, globally and multi-nationally. If we want to work for the common good, if we want accountability, our horizons also have to broaden. The European Union undoubtedly needs reform to better live up to them. But achieving them is now a project that has to be completed internationally and the EU, warts and all, is the best medium we have in place at the moment.

Ideology in politics is unavoidable, but transparency should be as well - we need the facts to scrutinise policies and the societal ideal they are designed to build

As Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission and Prime Minister of Italy, put it: the incorrect way to use facts is as a drunk uses lamp posts - more for support than for illumination. Photograph: Lamp Post in Rome from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Yesterday, George Osborne went before the Commons Treasury Committee to answer more detailed questions on the budget he announced last Wednesday (Sparrow, 2016). The Chancellor and his budget came in for some difficult questions.

During the hearing it was disclosed that, since the Coalition ended, the Chancellor had stopped analysis that would have showed, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) analysis shows, that the budget appeared to be redistributing money from the poorest to the richest (Stone, 2016). The Chancellor's defence was that he believed that the statistics provided could be misleading, and make deficit reduction look like "a bad thing".

According to both Iain Duncan Smith and the IFS, the welfare changes will disproportionately - for the obvious reason that welfare is mostly needed by those in lower incomes - hurt the poorest 20% (Inman, 2016). It was this fact that Osborne was accused of attempting to hide by changing the way the Treasury analysed the budget impact.

Playing with facts to suit political purpose is bad enough on its own. But this was also the suppression of facts - showing austerity and deficit reduction, at the present time and by the present methods, appear to be disproportionately damaging to the poor - in order to protect an ideological political project (Dudman, 2016).

Yet the problem is not so much the ideological motivation. As Romano Prodi put it, the incorrect approach to using facts is as a drunk uses lamp posts - for support rather than illumination.

In order to reduce so called 'welfare dependence', Osborne has ignored the data in order to treat welfare as the problem in and of itself - rather than a symptom. That means ignoring the fact that high welfare bills are the result of its corrective role.

In reality, welfare at its best is a safety net that helps to guarantee basic freedoms and at worst can be criticised as a form of corporate welfare, when policies like tax credits or the personal allowance subsidise companies paying low wages - but either way it is a redistributive mechanism that anchors the affluence of the rich to the wellbeing of the poor.

In both cases a high welfare bill is a symptom. It represents people struggling with low or no incomes, a lack of access to affordable housing and a lack of opportunity (Johnson, 2015). But as conditions improve, as the low incomes turn into living incomes, housing becomes more affordable and greater opportunity spreads, the welfare bill decreases.

Ideology is an inescapable aspect of politics. It is the philosophical view of what the world is, the ethics of how to behave on a personal level and the shaping of society around those beliefs to enhance them and produce the ideal outcomes. But that is no excuse for a lack of transparency.

If the Chancellor believes that there is a positive outcome in the changes he is making, he should have no fear in these statistics. He should be able to explain how his changes fit his ideological narrative, and produce, from his perspective, a positive outcome.

Instead of trusting people with the facts, the people are shown fragments designed to fit a narrative. If people are to hold those in public office to account they need the facts. Vigilance can only do so much, without access to the facts and openness from public office holders and parties as to the big picture, broad context narrative, that they see written in the data.

Budget 2016: Osborne's Sugar Levy will get the headlines, but he's presiding over a weak economy and a fractured society

Osborne's budget will grab headlines, but there is more moving beneath the surface. Photograph: Pound coins from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

If there is anything you can take away from the UK government's 2016 budget statement, it's that the Chancellor George Osborne knows how to tick boxes. There was support for small businesses, a levy on sugary products and government help for savers (BBC, 2016).

The Chancellor gave these policies, gathered together, a budget for the next generation. Yet as ever, the headlines are only what Tim Farron called the 'political theatre' (ITV, 2016). There is much more to be found in the details - not least a revealing look at the Chancellor's approach to government.

Osborne admitted that economic growth forecasts suggest the economy is growing more weakly, and that the government has missed its own debt and deficit targets (BBC, 2016). Yet room was still found for cuts to corporation, raising the highest tax band and making cuts to capital gains tax.

Jeremy Corbyn's response was hostile. From the off he called the Chancellor's budget a legacy of failure, that was poor on equality (BBC, 2016{2}). The Labour leader argued that the breaks for the wealthy were being paid for by those who could least afford it.

Corbyn said that tax breaks for the wealthy were disgusting when they were accompanied by cuts to disability support. The poor attitude towards equality was epitomised in the continued existence of the tax on 'women's products', as in essentials like tampons and sanitary towels, and the patronising plan of distributing the proceeds to 'women's' charities.

As for the next generation, there was little in the budget to offer a tremendous amount of hope. Under-25s won't benefit from minimum wage rises - or increasingly from any kind of social security at all (BBC, 2013) - and savings help for under-40s won't do much to help deal with rising housing rents, let alone house prices.

There was also little information on how the Chancellor intended to find the funds to cut the deficit. Beyond the previously announced changes on tax credits and ESA, there were no other major spending cuts were outlined, beyond a vague commitment to finding around £4bn in government 'efficiencies' - and apparently raising an, astonishing, £12bn from closing tax loopholes.

From a progressive perspective, one thing that the budget did reveal was Osborne's attitude to government. The Conservatives have felt comfortable pitching themselves as supporters of limited government, the private sector and even pitching themselves as rendering the Liberal Democrats obsolete.

But the Chancellor's decisions reveal something different, highlighted in the way that he framed tax cuts for small business. In his statement, Osborne said they were made possible by higher revenue coming in from big business.

But what Osborne could not resist was to also take higher receipts as a signal to cut taxes. What this highlights, and the Chancellor himself alluded to, is the Conservative view of taxation as an incentive or disincentive. A mechanism to be used to manipulate social behaviour toward the governing party's interpretation of the 'national interest'.

What hasn't been asked by those handing out successive tax cuts is whether tax in itself has a role to play as a civic contribution, that goes towards the serving of the public good. Whether there is a contribution that ought to be made, back into the community, for the extraction of wealth in your own interest.

As Osborne cuts back government spending and the public sector he reveals something else. A vision of a small state, one that does little itself but interferes a lot: meddling and social engineering through the tax system, trying to shape society through supply and denial of small but crucial funds to devolved institutions largely bereft of funding.

The sum so far of Osborne's approach is an increasingly divided and unequal society. Taxes have come down but the economy remains weak. Burdens continue to pour onto the more vulnerable. Osborne will get the headlines, but they are only a mask that disguises a weak economy and a fractured society.

Budget 2016 Preview: Will the Chancellor again produce an ace in the hole that lets him to put off unpopular cuts?

George Osborne's Autumn Budget Statement promised the UK a bright future. Osborne took the chance offered by predictions of an economy looking more healthy to be a little less conservative with the national finances and drop controversial cuts to the police budget and to tax credits (ITV, 2015).

This time around Osborne is warning of dark clouds and the need to prepare for the worst (BBC, 2016). The Chancellor has been at pains to stress that there will be cuts in order to meet his fiscal targets. There might be some sugar coatings, but the medicine is still predicted to be sour.

However, the Chancellor will surely be hoping to be able, once again, to defy all expectations and match his Autumn reprieves. Yet those reprieves were themselves only temporary. They could only be delays of self-imposed hard choices that Osborne had undertaken to make.

Theresa May stressed that the police would still be expected to find efficiency savings (Travis, 2015) and the dropping of Tax Credit cuts were a diversion, as they were still set to come in later with the Universal Credit (Kuenssberg, 2015). They were also a gamble.

Osborne's Autumn Statement took positive forecasts as an opportunity to not make the unpopular choices, while still working on closing the deficit - betting on the forecasts panning out and with slight tax increases, around the fringes. Attempts were also made to temporarily ease the way for the middle class with the Conservatives' colourfully branded array of saving and house buying assistance - that buys time for much delayed house building (Wright, 2016) by siphoning homes from housing associations, depended on by the least well off, to increase competition in the private markets.

Wednesday's budget might reasonably be expected, by the opposition, to be the overdue reality check for those who voted Conservative last May, with the implementation of all of the delayed austerity measures. All of Osborne's public comments certainly seem to be preparing the ground for the further cuts - 50p in every £100 of government spending as he put it to Andrew Marr on Sunday (BBC, 2016).

Yet its hard to ever be too sure what the Chancellor is planning. Osborne managed expectations in the Autumn towards his plans for cuts to tax credits (Kuenssberg et al, 2015). Yet when the time came, he still found a way to avoid what would have proven a deeply unpopular cut.

This time around, with so much riding on the EU referendum including his own chances of succeeding Cameron as Conservative leader, Osborne is again unlikely to go antagonising voters if it can be avoided. Yet time is undeniably running out to meet his own deadline for eliminating the deficit (Verity, 2016), and small shifts in forecasts could lead to the need for drastically larger cuts to meet those goals.

Hints being dropped about new policies, to be announced on Wednesday, at the least suggest a wish to dampen the impact of announcing cuts. Yet the proposed new savings top-up scheme for the least well off seems to be little but a thin veneer (Mason, 2016) - as it's only likely to help a sixth of those who are supposed to be eligible, with Labour criticising the policy for its unrealistic appraisal of what people can actually afford to save.

Across the floor, Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has said he wants to see more investment (BBC, 2016{2}) - putting money into building up domestic industry as a way to rebalance the economy. McDonnell's advisors, like Mazzucato and Stiglitz, have certainly been making the argument that the state has a role to play in rebuilding the economy.

It is certainly hard to see a way forward without a lot of investment from somewhere. Osborne's own hope has been for investment in Britain to come from 'emerging markets', like India and particularly China (The Economist, 2015). For these private and foreign state investments to take the slack and pump money into sectors of the UK economy and infrastructure, according to market needs, so that the Chancellor can cut government spending.

Considering that, while defending the European Union, Osborne argued it was the UK, not the EU, that was responsible for the 'red tape' that puts off investment (Bloom, 2016) - and the Chancellor's desire to stimulate these private and foreign state investments - it might not be a long shot to suggest some sort of deregulation will be included in the budget. It would certainly offer some 'efficiency' cuts in terms of reduced bureaucracy.

If George Osborne has an ace up his sleeve, he has yet to let slip what it will be. The implementation of the National Living Wage (a higher minimum wage for over 25s), very limited savings assistance and the regular increase in the Personal Income Tax Allowance (introduced by the Liberal Democrats), do not amount to much of an offset to the expected large departmental cuts.

Will the Chancellor play some hidden card, or will the full weight of his targets finally begin to fall? He doesn't have much room for manoeuvre. His fiscal deadline is approaching, neither deficit nor debt are under control and his own outlook sees global economic struggles. And yet, after so many other sleights of hand, it would be foolish to rule out the possibility of one more gamble.

Basic Income is the first step to a more fair, just and free society, where all can enjoy the benefits of technological progress without the fear of dispossession and poverty

Thousands of protesters march the streets surrounding the Conservative Party Conference in support of trade unionists, and against austerity, in Manchester, 4 October 2015.

The basic income took a huge step towards being a reality in the UK last Tuesday night when John McDonnell mentioned that the Labour Party where considering a basic income policy (Sheffield, 2016). During a speech, at the latest stop on his New Economics tour (Sheffield, 2016{2}), in which McDonnell spoke of Labour's commitment to a more decentralised and democratic economy, the Shadow Chancellor acknowledged the interest Labour had taken in the policy - heretofore, only advocated for by the Greens (Wintour, 2015).

The basic income will be one step towards making society more fair, the economy more just, and giving individuals more liberty. Right now, with the European business community readjusting to technology, as well as competition from businesses employing workers for virtually no pay in other parts of the world, a defined shift towards fairness, justice and liberty is needed.

Certain principles, like the value of work in exchange for the means to live, continue to be imposed despite the possibility of a secure job, that pays a fair wage for a fair day's work, threatening to disappear (Foster, 2016). Zero-hours contracts are taking security away from the most vulnerable, eating into their lives in ways that leave them filled with stress and anxiety (Fleming, 2016).

Right now the advances in technology are very much in the favour of business and those in positions of established wealth, enriching some few while most see their livelihoods taken away and their lives made more precarious. There seems to be a coalition, one part fearing for workers and the other an elite fearing a form of socialism that eat into their status, that takes the rather unflattering opinion that this third industrial revolution should be avoided for fear of "mass unemployment and psychological aimlessness" (Mason, 2016).

Discussing the earlier and more famous industrial revolution, which saw the rise of the machines in Europe, Oscar Wilde argued that it was not a matter of the emergence of the technology itself that was the problem, but rather the way it was being controlled (Wilde, 1891).

"Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community."

To avoid this kind of dispossession, may mean accepting that it is time to reconsider social values relating to work (Srnicek et al, 2016), and to contemplate the possibility of a post-work society - where all could benefit from the technological automation of our age (Mason, 2016). That shift would begin with reductions in the length of the working day, embracing job sharing and introducing the basic income. In all, loosening the connections between work and the right to life.

British Liberals in the 1920s argued (Yellow Book, 1928), under the strong influence of David Lloyd George and John Maynard Keynes, that the aim of "political and economic action", wasn't to perfect or perpetuate machines and social orders, but so that individuals "may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly". Their methods were popular share-ownership and progressive taxation - in essence, cooperation.

Rising public interest in the Basic Income presents a chance to pursue those aims in earnest. Along with more economic cooperation and a better work-life balance, it is possible to use these ideas to build a more humane economy. An economy that is fair and just, that protects and promotes liberty, within which progress will be wired in to the general benefit.

Labour need to start winning battles on the airwaves if their anti-austerity policies are going to win on the ground

At some point John McDonnell has to turn his academic focussed New Economics tour into well publicised campaign events, for audiences both live in the flesh and live online, if his counter-narrative is going to take hold. Photograph: John McDonnell MP with Grow Heathrow in London in 2012, by Jonathan Goldberg/Transition Heathrow (License) (Cropped)

Yesterday evening, Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell made the latest stop on his New Economics tour at the London School of Economics (Kirton, 2016). As with previous events, the audience was packed out to hear his arguments, not just against austerity but for an alternative.

The first New Economics tour stop saw Mariana Mazzucato argue, at the Royal Society, for a smarter state (Mazzucato, 2016) - defending the state as an often abused innovator that takes the risks that the private sector won't, but which shares little of the rewards. The second saw several speakers tackle how technology will affect work in the future (Srnicek et al, 2016).

At the LSE event, McDonnell spoke directly against austerity as an ideologically motivated policy - as a choice made by Conservative politicians in pursuit of a their own political goals (Kirton, 2016). The Labour Shadow Chancellor said that his priorities were to put democracy and decentralisation at the heart of his economic approach (Sheffield, 2016) - and positive statements that Labour were giving serious consideration to backing a basic income (Sheffield, 2016{2}).

What has been missing, however, is promotion. Beyond those in the loop or paying close attention, there has been little pomp and ceremony to draw attention to the Shadow Chancellor's efforts. In the face of apparent media hostility to the Corbyn-McDonnell project, the low key approach might well be understandable.

The trouble is that these are precisely the battles that Ed Miliband lost as Labour leader. Labour lost control of their own message, of their own identity, and left it to others to define them.

Economics has been the outstanding issue. The key to getting Labour back in power, according to many commentators both internal and external over the last six years (Umunna, 2015; Eaton, 2015), is to rebuild Labour's reputation as an effective and reliable manager of the economy - to regain their economic credibility. The Shadow Chancellor himself has acknowledged that reality (The Herald Scotland, 2016).

John McDonnell's idea of bringing on the world's most famous, rockstar, anti-austerity economists as advisors was a bold move. Taking them on tour to make their arguments, to build a counter-narrative in opposition to austerity, was bolder still. But the low key, low profile, approach can only reach so far.

Right now, the Corbyn-McDonnell team is fighting battles within small circles of onlookers. Scrapping for party policy positions, introducing an alternative narrative by increments to interested and sympathetic audiences at cosy events. Yet, sooner or later, the boots of campaigners will have to hit the ground and bring them face to face with the voters who live far outside of those circles.

The Corbyn-McDonnell team have shown that, within their own party, they have a pitch that appeals to a broad cross-section of society - from young to old, from poor to wealthy (Sayers, 2016). As with Bernie Sanders in the United States, there is the potential for a winning coalition. But that won't automatically translate into public sympathy.

To reach those people, New Economics will have to start winning battles on the airwaves. Promotional ideas like the New Economics tour will have to be prepared to put a spotlight on its rockstars, promote them and get them playing to bigger crowds - crowds that are maybe more sceptical and who need the grand ideas distilled and condensed.

John McDonnell and his advisors are presenting a compelling vision of a very different, more humane, economy and society - not least in their acknowledgement of the basic income. The next step is to turn up the volume and stop conceding control over the airwaves.