Mandates and Majorities: May's abuse of the FTPA to protect her minority government has broken the Parliamentary system

Theresa May continues to cling to power. Despite promising to resign to retain hold of the leadership of her party, despite being defeated on her Finance Bill, despite a historic defeat in Parliament, May utterly refuses to compromise or alter course.

You would think, from her actions, that the Prime Minister sits on an electoral majority with a clear mandate. She doesn't. She heads an internally divided minority government, with no electoral majority - which means she has no mandate, let alone a clear one.

And the arithmetic of Parliament is divided too. Parties are divided and across a number of different lines, not just Brexit vs Remain. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to accept the fundamental fact that Parliament is right to rein her in and take a leading role - instead calling them rebels and traitors.

The big question is how can Theresa May act like she has so much more power than she does? That would be the disastrous affect that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act (FTPA) has had on the constitution.

When it was first introduced, there were positives. A useful restriction on executive power, such as limiting government abuse of it's executive powers over calling elections brought by setting fixed dates for elections - and how restricting how they could be called.

During the Coalition, this was intended to keep the alliance between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats stable - with neither party, especially the Lib Dems, able to hold the other hostage to an election over policy squabbles.

But there have been unintended consequences. The act has extraordinarily empowered minority governments, changing the conditions of a government's fall to make it overwhelmingly difficult for Parliament to vote out a minority government.

This has become a crucial factor in the present consitutional crisis. Theresa May cannot govern, especially on the key piece of her legislative agenda, and yet cannot be toppled. Using the FTPA, she has near single-handedly brought the functioning of the Parliamentary system to a halt.

The ridiculous nature of what the FTPA and May's use of it have done is shown in how her government survived last week: despite the largest margin of defeat for any government on Parliamentary record, a critical and embarrasing disaster, she survived the vote of no confidence the following day.

How? Thanks to the Act, she was able to separate her key legislation from confidence in the government - literally, separate being able to competently govern from whether or not they should govern. As a result, her own MPs rejected her Brexit deal in a humiliation, demonstrating their inability to govern, but then voted to keep themselves in power.

This needs to be addressed by future governments. It cannot be that a government can stand, despite dmonstrably being unable to govern. While that is a common occurance in the American system, it is not in the Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy - where the fundamental principle has always been that a government that cannot govern, does not.

Without a majority, Theresa May doesn't have a mandate. She doesn't have the authority to force through her deal - especially when it has been rejected multiple times. However, unfortunately, the Parliamentary system has been hindered and restricted in it's ability to prevent her pursuing this course.

May calls on MPs to get on with Brexit and move on - but it's her government's own doing that it's consumed all political space

This afternoon, Theresa May addressed the Commons to present the terms she has negotiated for Britain's exit from the European Union. As may well have been expected at this point, it did not get a warm reception. All the big hitters were queued up to get in their licks.

After yet another hostile session, the Prime Minister may very well have been feeling like the constituents she has now taken to quoting: ready to just get on with Brexit and move on. But it's the PM's own approach that has brought us to this Parliamentary impasse.

A referendum, a snap election and two years of legislative time have been poured into Brexit - along with billions from the treasury and repeated knocks taken by the economy with the instability caused by each new jarring announcement.

In that time, domestic policy has taken the backseat. That has been a disaster both in terms of scrutiny and delivery.

The government's flagship welfare 'reform' the Universal Credit has rolled from one crisis to another. Supposed to be the consolidation of a number of different welfare programmes into a more efficient and affordable system, it has faced ever mounting problems.

The minister who had been the driving force behind it quit when he was severely undercut on funding. The attached fitness assessments have been derided as cruel. Even a rapporteur for the United Nations has deeply criticised the misery inflicted upon the most vulnerable by a government pursuing ideological ends.

The government has claimed that Universal Credit has driven people into work, but this welfare system - underfunded, misadministered, and leaving vulnerable people at the mercy of growing debts - can only have motivated people in the worst way, with employment statistics covering an explosion in working poverty.

And those are just the headlines. The government has not done enough on housing. It has not done enough to meet environmental and energy targets. It has not done enough to encourage an economic system that can lift ordinary people out of poverty - on welfare or in work.

When Theresa May talks of constituents telling her to get on with Brexit, she may be reframing disgruntlement. It's May's government that has turned politics in Britain into nothing but Brexit - and in the process has managed to deeply divide the country.

With so many domestic issues in need of attention, Brexit needs to be settled. But what Parliamentarians can't do is make a hasty decision under pressure - for which the Prime Minister is pushing.

May's government has put us here and shouldn't be allowed to use it to sneak out from under their own mess.moving towards resolving the deeply important and long term domestic issues that have gone unattended under May's watch.

Election 2018? May government has backed itself into a corner again and again, only to slip away to fight another day

Will there be an election this year? That's the big question on the tongues of everyone interested in British politics right now.

Theresa May's big effort to bring together her party - to bring it into line with the 'Brexit mandate' she claimed and coopted for herself - with a plan for Brexit backfired spectacularly. There have been big profile resignations, rumour of a leadership challenge and a divisions are now as wide as they have ever been.

For their part, Labour are raring to go. They're ahead in the polls and full of the belief that their poll lead will only be the starting position for another election campaign that will gather steam and see another surge.

However. Theresa May has so far managed to steer her government through one crisis after another - into and out of one corner after another - and cling to power. Even as each time pundits say a leadership challenge is brewing, and perhaps an election is not far away.

In fact, this government has lasted far longer than expected and predicted, considering it's disastrous election campaign, it's weakness, it's divisions, it's lack of a majority. But clinging on in that state surely cannot last.

There have been other minority governments that have limped along like this. John Major's minority government, as Tory seats were whittled away in by-elections and defections, lasted just four months. With a series of pacts with other parties, the Callaghan minority government kept going for two years, but lost heavily when it finally reached an election.

Theresa May again faces divisions that seem insurmountable - her Brexit white paper having exposed, rather than resealed, the cracks. Tory Brexiters are unhappy and so are the Tory Remainers, with one wing preparing to challenge May's leadership and the other starting to call for a second referendum on the final Brexit deal.

But the May govt still has, for the moment, it's deal with the DUP intact. And she has another thing on her side. For a year, May has survived by defusing crises with dsitractions, often simply waiting it out until everyone gets bored and moves on, and with a sheer stubborn refusal to accept the reality of her government's weak position.

Yet it is that weak position itself that may very well be what helps her fend off the threat of an election. The Tories see the polls and know that Labour is so close to taking power - and the one thing the Tories can unite on is not letting Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell into No.10 and No.11 Downing Street. And their internal squabbles are making their dread outcome a realistic prospect.

What weighs in favour of the Tories is that there can be a change of Prime Minister, even of the government, without an election. It is a fact that the Tories will lean upon heavily in the coming months, if a leadership challenge emerges. They will be eager let everyone know that a new leader is to ensure continuity, rather than to change direction, to minimise claims that an election must surely follow.

The reality facing progressives is that, even as weak as the May government is, it's fate is still in the hands of the Conservatives themselves. With a defiant vote by Tory rebels to force an election unlikely, it will take a sustained swell of public pressure to force the Tories into a premature election.

Corbyn and McDonnell are victims of their own success. They have gotten Labour so close, and leading in the polls, that whatever else the government does, it knows it can't risk an election. The weakened government can do nothing but limp on.

Government turns to finger-pointing as it puts pressure on firms and councils to deliver on it's new homes promises

Photograph: Scaffold Repair Construction from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

It seems that the government has woken up to the need to act on domestic issues. And yet, with the pressure on, the government has decided to start by pointing the finger at others.

Theresa May's ministry, and it's predecessor, have made some major pledges on housing that have not been met. Pledges of several hundreds of thousands of new homes a year that have not been delivered - as admitted by Housing Secretary Sajid Javid last year in a review.

So the government has laid it's plan to tackle this. On Sunday, the Javid issued a warning, via The Sunday Times, that the government would be putting pressure on councils to meet it's targets - prefacing plans to change up it's framework to push even higher targets, set against affordability of local homes.

The aggressive tone was complemented by the threat of stripping from councils decision-making power over what is built in local areas. The threat of intervention is not one that will be taken lightly.

The Prime Minister, today, followed up on Javid's set up to issue a warning to home building firms. She criticised the practice of 'land banking' and announced that firms could be penalised for delays with refusal of planning permission for future projects.

While she acknowledged that young people had a right to be angry - and that, without the 'bank of mum and dad', many would find it impossible to get a foothold on the property - she has answered that anger by shifting the blame to local councils and building firms.

There are real questions about the actual impact of land banking, why firms take so much time to build after planning permission has been received and whether supply is throttled - against which the industry defends itself vigorously.

But even more important are the big questions, that are being ignored, about the government's role in this present crisis. There have been deep cuts to local authority funding. Schemes like help-to-buy have drained social housing stock without adequate restitution or replacement - and driven up prices.

Will pressure on councils and firms to hit higher targets within narrower time frames deliver on policy promises? Or will it just increase the risk of corners being cut?

The Local Government Association (LGA) responded to the government's announcement, and threat of intervention, by saying it was 'misguided' and that the basic block on progress for local authorities was lack of funds with which to build their own homes - for which borrowing powers were needed.

As with Chancellor Philip Hammond's budget, these measures are just tweaks and salves. The Government's blame game isn't addressing the core problems - it's finding scapegoats. That isn't good enough.

There are bigger questions to ask about long term investment, about the role of land and the capture of it's value by a class of rentiers. The government is avoiding these problems in the hope that they'll go away. They won't.

Italian Election 2018: Can progressives settle their differences and work together? The heavy right-wing leaning of other possible governments makes cooperation a must

The Palazzo Montecitorio, home to the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Photograph: Palazzo Montecitorio by Nick Kenrick (License) (Cropped)

On Sunday, Italy goes to the polls. Considering how turbulent the past few years have been, it is astonishing that the last election was a full five years ago now. In 2013, with help from the electoral system, the Partito Democratico - led by Pier Luigi Bersani - came out on top.

Things did not go to plan for the Democrats. Without enough seats for a majority, the three way division of Italian politics became an insurmountable obstruction. Bersani failed to form a government and stood down. With tentative agreements, successive Democrats have been Prime Minister: Enrico Letta, Matteo Renzi and Paolo Gentiloni.

It was Renzi who had the longest run at the head of the government, but his popularity waned as he kept pushing for reforms and he was toppled by his own constitutional referendum - to change the electoral system - which he staked against his own position and lost.

Since Renzi left office in the December 2016, Paolo Gentiloni has led the government and has proved fairly popular, with good approval ratings, back by most centre and left parties. However, he is not running at the head of the Centre-Left on Sunday.

In his absence, it is instead the centre-right, that look most likely to gain enough seats to form a government. The question for the centre-left, and the leading Democrats, is how to recover to the position they had early in Renzi's tenure, when they topped the European Parliament polls with 40% of the vote.

The Centre-Left

Matteo Renzi speaks at a university in October 2015. Photograph: Matteo Renzi a San Giobbe by the Università Ca' Foscari Venezia (License) (Cropped)

The 'centre-left' is led by Partito Democratico (PD), with Matteo Renzi returned as leader. A dispute over methods led to an ultimatum from left-wing Democrats, including stalwarts like former leader Bersani and former Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema, that if Renzi ran to return as leader of the party, they would leave.

Renzi ran again, and won. So they left - leaving the party largely in the hands of the Renziani faction, as many of their followers went with them. As a result, the party's more left-wing factions departed, and gone with them are a number of small left-wing parties that the Democrats previously counted on for support.

The PD's main allies this time around will be centrists and liberals, such as radical Emma Bonino's +Europa and Beatrice Lorenzin's Civica Popolare list of the centre-right Alternativa Popolare. These allies reflect the reality that the Democrats have found themselves under the consolidated control of the Renziani faction.

For the Renziani, this election is about defending their policies in government. Under his watch, civil administration was reformed, labour laws were relaxed and taxation simplified - it was these policies, a typical neoliberal agenda, that their left-wing critics found intolerable.

However. While economic reforms they oversaw are broadly accepted by the Centre-Right, they were accompanied by social measures, such as same-sex civil unions, which are likely to be targeted by the Centre-Right if it returns to government. It is also possible that Italy's fidelity to European commitments may also suffer - especially where they require unpopular fiscal sacrifices.

In the name of protecting such policies, a small part of the dissenting left has stuck around. As a result, the PD will get a little support from the left through from 'Italia Europa Insieme', or Insieme (Together), which gathers parties including Partito Socialista Italiano (Social Democrats), Federazione dei Verdi (Greens) and others from the recently faltered Campo Progressista.

The Centre-Right

Silvio Berlusconi, through controversies and legal battles, has intermittently held the post of Prime Minister of Italy during nearly a quarter century on the political frontline. Photograph: Silvio Berlusconi by paz.ca (License) (Cropped)

The name 'centre-right' is a bit of a misnomer, as it is composed of parties ranging from right-wing to far-right. Silvio Berlusconi is still there (or back, if you prefer) with Forza Italia, his vehicle of some twenty five years, leading the right.

He is joined once more by his long time, on again off again, allies, though they have expanded their appeal to all of Italy, quietly dropping their call for Northern separatism. Also in tow once more are Fratelli d'Italia, Brothers of Italy - the successors on the far-right to the National Alliance.

Despite everything, the octogenarian Silvio is still in the middle of everything. But he isn't having it all his own way. He faces strife within his own coalition list, with Lega leader Matteo Salvini - the influence behind taking the party national - not happy to play second fiddle. How that power struggle plays out could have a huge impact.

It wouldn't be an election featuring Silvio Berlusconi if there weren't some wild promises. The Forza Italia electoral pitch includes a basic income of E1000 for all Italians, along with free vet treatment for pets. Silvio has also promised tax breaks for adopting pets and to cut VAT on pet food.

It would be unwise for progressives to be seduced by these trinkets. These are pitches to win over any supporters of the populist party M5S who aren't looking too closely at the rest of the centre-right agenda, which - with the influence of FdA and Lega - would be terrible for virtually anyone except white male Italians pleased by tax breaks.

That is reinforced by Berlusconi's commitment to cutting income taxes across the board. Italy has a top rate of tax well above the European average and Silvio's solution is the darling of right-wing libertarians: a flat rate income tax set at 23%. As ever, the question arises as to how any of these promises can be paid for.

The particular driving force behind the campaigns of the right-wing parties is immigration. While tensions of been heightened by murders and revenge killings in recent months, the refugee crisis has been feeding anti-immigrant, nationalist rhetoric for some time.

Matteo Salvini and his party Lega, slogan 'Italy First', have been allowed to set the tone on the immigration debate and their tone has been aggressive. Salvini refers to a 'tide of delinquents', 'drug dealers, rapists, burglars' and says he 'wants to send them home'.

That aggressive, oppressive tone has been softly mimicked by Berlusconi, as you might expect, but also been followed by the Five Star Movement - the populist rival to the two main coalitions. The Democrats have not shied away from appeasing this stance either.

The Populists

Beppe Grillo talks to the crowd at party event in 2015. Luigi Di Maio stands in the group behind him, second from right. Photograph: Italia 5 Stelle at the Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari - Imola by RevolWeb (License) (Cropped)

Movimento 5 Stella were the surprise of the 2013 election, presenting themselves as a true third force in Italian politics - much to the dismay of the centre-left and centre-right. Founded by comedian and blogger Beppe Grillo, the party built a following that came for the establishment with a fire for tearing it down.

Or at least, that was the impression they liked to give. Led in the Italian Parliament by the 31 year old Luigi Di Maio, they present themselves as Anti-establishment, almost anti-politics, Eurosceptic and outspoken against administrative corruption. Di Maio has tried to professionalise that outline, in order to steer the party into government.

The M5S quest for respectability included an attempt last year to join the pro-EU liberal group in the European Parliament. The liberals gave them a hearing, but declined their application after members of the group objected (the other groups in the parliament had quietly turned them down, while the Greens overtly stated their mistrust of Grillo).

Yet they are a party filled with contradictions. M5S has found itself mired - from laughable amateurishness, like their programme apparently being copy-pasted from Wikipedia, to being itself caught up in corruption. Virginia Raggi's time in office as Mayor of Rome has been dogged by corruption allegations. And nationally, delegates were forced to resign after it was discovered they had fiddled commitments to donate parts of their salaries and expenses.

The party, or Movement, has also been linked to the spread of fake news, and propaganda from Russian sources. The party leadership has been accused of making money off the back of a fake news aggregator. This shouldn't come as a tremendous surprise.

The party itself is a spawn of Grillo's blog, and the party's branding remains his property. That makes it as much a controversialist media business venture as a political movement - much like that of a certain president in North America, with his penchant for crying fake news of mainstream media journalism included to boot.

But what are the controversialists standing for? They have been described as an anti-representative democracy movement - calling for direct democracy through digital means. But Di Maio has focused on more practical measures in his campaign.

Their policies include a basic income, which Berlusconi has felt the need to copy, but also cutting public debt and simplifying many laws. The left should be concerned with just how much common ground M5S has with the parties of the so-called 'centre-right' grouping.

Dissenting Left

The outspoken Pier Luigi Bersani, pictured during his time as leader of Partito Democratico, was instrumental in the breakway of the Movimento Democratico e Progressista and the formation of it's coalition Liberi e Uguali. Photograph: Floris e Bersani, Non stop Banda Larga PD venerdì 18 giugno 2010 by Bee Free - PGrandicelli (License) (Cropped)

The dissenting left has, after it's recent exodus from the Renziani dominated Partito Democratico, gathered a number of like minded parties in an alliance by the name of Liberi e Uguali (Free and Equal) - under the rather familiar slogan of "For the many, not the few".

It's leader is the former antimafia prosecutor Pietro Grasso, at present the President of the Senate. It's leading figures include former Premier Massimo D'Alema, former PD leader Pier Luigi Bersani, former leader of the left-wing Sinistra Ecologia Liberta party Nichi Vendola, and Laura Boldrini who is currently the President of the Chamber of Deputies and formerly the spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The LeU groups unites the breakaway factions of PD in the form of Movimento Democratico e Progressista, with other left-wing groups gathered into Sinistra Italia (Italian Left) - that acts as a successor to the Sinistra Ecologia Liberta party that has been a significant left-wing block in recent years.

The joint programme for LeU promises that the group will fight to turn the tide of globalisation, to counter the trend towards precarity, to put education and work back at the centre of people's lives. While the reforms under Renzi increased jobs by one million, they haven't arrested the slide of 18 million people into poverty, with most new jobs being on a part time basis.

In practice, the LeU programme comes as a pledge to restore 'good employment' with a Green New Deal, an investment programme to convert and expand the economy across many areas; to undo the 'blackmail' of precarity by restoring restoring Article 18; to undo recent school reforms and boost investment - along with abolishing university fees; to reorganise taxes to be more progressive and close loopholes - with the money being used to fund reformed health and welfare provision; and to shore up inclusion of LGBT people, particularly couples.

It may be that this pitch is more about shifting the position of the Democrats back in their direction than expecting to implement these plans in government. But it is an ambitious programme which has brought together a number of left-wing, democratic socialist parties and factions - not an easy task in Italian politics.

But what unites LeU as much as politics is a deep mistrust of Renzi and his methods. Pier Luigi Bersani - former leader of the Democrats and one of the founders of the breakaway Movimento Democratico e Progressista that formed LeU - has taken particular exception to Renzi's tearing up of the root of what Bersani considers his party.

Bersani has gone as far as expressing the belief that Renzi plans to form a government with Berlusconi - the old enemy as far as the left in Italy is concerned. It is perhaps notable then that the party's main objectives require largely dismantling the changes to job security and pensions that the Renziani faction oversaw.

Polling and Possible Governments

Despite spending since 2013 in government, and even riding high in the polls during that time, the Centre-Left has a lot to do if it wants to end up in government. The Democrats have fallen to around 22% - with their allies +Europa on 3%, and their whole coalition list sitting at just 27%.

Even if the dissenting left could be reconciled, that would at present add just 5% more support. Bersani is optimistic that Free and Equal can take double their poll numbers - perhaps hoping their borrowed slogan brings a little of Corbyn's campaigning fortunes. But even if the party reaches towards 12-15%, they will still need allies. Can they work with Renzi?

Unless there is some serious turn in favour of the Democrats - such as winning well in FPTP constituencies - it may be that forcing a fresh election might be their best outcome. With support for a progressive government struggling to crest 30%, things do not bode well for other options.

While the LeU want nothing to do with Renzi, would it be possible to attract the support of sufficient centrists to cobble together a (very) broad centre-left government under someone like Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni? It seems unlikely at this point.

As a result, the Centre-Right finds itself perhaps best positioned to form a government. But it would be a government of fractious interests and hostility to otherness. However, collectively at 38%, they hold the strongest position - though who will lead such a group after the election is another question - it is too close to call in the polls between Berlusconi's Forza Italia and Salvini's Lega.

For Berlusconi's part, he has ruled out both a grand coalition, or national unity government, and even a limited confidence & supply arrangement between the Centre-Right and Centre-Left. He says there will be a new election if his coalition falls short of a governing majority. Renzi has agreed with this - but such proclamations may be taken with a pinch of salt, as pragmatic dealmaking rules in Italy.

So the renewal of the Centre-Left/Centre-Right grand coalition should be considered very possible. The denials of the leaders of both coalitions have been offset by voices among the allies of both, who note that a grand coalition is the most likely outcome. But will it be a long term option or just a stop-gap until a fresh election?

It could presented as stop-gap but run as long as needed. What is clear is that neither Renzi nor Berlusconi could lead such a government (in Silvio's case, because he is still banned from holding political office). That would mean the appointment of some third figure - such as current Premier Paolo Gentiloni.

The current Prime Minister Gentiloni is, personally, Italy's most popular leader. But people know he isn't the leader of the PD, and so his polling has yet to figure into the election. With his record - at present overseeing Italy's GDP up on 2010, while both deficit and debt are falling, thanks to reforms that have received praise in Europe - he might assemble a stable government, for a time.

But it will likely be seen as another stitch up. Stirring up the pot will be the M5S, and the share of votes and seats they are able to capture this time. Contrary to previous elections, M5S seem keen to get into government this time. But the question is: who with?

The nightmare outcome for the left is M5S throwing it's lot in with the right-wing parties. It does not seem like a big leap for M5S to work with the Centre-Right in a small state, Eurosceptic, socially conservative government.

There is an outside prospect for M5S, in the form of fleeting hints that the dissenting left group 'Free and Equal' might be prepared to work with them in government. It seems unlikely with so much ground between the two - but it would certainly be considered change. It is more likely that M5S will tip the centre-right into government.

Advent of Populist Government?

However, from our perspective, the prospective government for progressives to be most concerned about  is some sort of tie-up between M5S and Lega. It would, of course, require both to have particularly strong elections - though they are currently polling at around 26% and 15% respectively, and Lega particularly may punch above their weight in seats thanks to regional concentration.

Both parties have a history of being aggressively anti-establishment. That is not, in itself a reason for dismay, but it is something they may find common ground on. But what is worrying are their common ground on pushing anti-immigration stances and their criticised ties to the wider populist and nationalist waves that have been backed by Russian interventions in Western democracy.

If these two were able to patch over their differences - and Grillo has shown himself to be very flexible about making friends, allying with Farage and UKIP in Europe, praising a certain US President - they might assemble between them the kind of low tax, protectionist, nationalist and hostile-to-difference socially conservative agenda that will spook every country around them.

More pressing is that this toxic brew - the mix of Grillo's anti-representative democracy, Salvini's 'promotion of the family' at expense of LGBT people, and both party's scapegoating of refugees and immigrants - might do significant damage to the rights and wellbeing of a lot of people.

Salvini has certainly indicated a desire to shake off Berlusconi and assert his own leadership. An alliance with M5S could give him an outlet to pursue a government built on the exploitation of the kind of unrestrained nationalism and disaffection that a certain US President rode into office.

Don't expect a clear result on Monday morning

The complicated electoral system will play a role in which of the possible governments Italy ends up with and a lot will ride on the performance of the smaller parties. The election has two components: a third of seats are first-past-the-post constituencies, while two thirds are proportionally distributed according to the popular vote - above a 3% threshold.

It is important to note that just reaching the popular threshold delivers a substantial number of seats: just 3% would award 11-12 seats. Meanwhile, the FPTP element, just as seen in Britain with the SNP, favours small but regionally concentrated parties and rewards them very heavily.

For instance, the smallest of the parties allied to Berlusconi is Noi con l'Italia, which is standing locally known candidates, against very little opposition, in the poor Southeastern region of Apulia. Standing in just 34 seats, if it were to win even half that would be 17 seats - even if it took less than 3% of the vote.

It will take days to sort through the permutations. But whether Italy has a functioning government will be in the hands of many competing factions, across the spectrum, doing deals long after the distribution of seats is decided.

For progressives, there is no clear route to building a government and everything depends on a big shift come polling day. If voters turn out to give the Centre-Left and the dissenting left sufficient seats, they must sort out their differences and work together, because the other possible governments do not bode well for progressive values.

Tories finally return to an Energy Price Cap with measure that is tentative first step on road to easing cost of living burden for many

Photograph: Twilight power lines from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Finally, a piece of domestic legislation from the government emerges. After a year of prevaricating, the government's promised energy price cap seems to have at last begun it's journey through Parliament.

The energy price cap had been a feature of the Conservative manifesto at the last election, but was jettisoned along with most of their agenda in the aftermath - sacrificed on the Brexit altar.

The opposition has been pressing the government of late to return to the measure. There are many households burdened by the high cost of living and any help extended to them is to be welcomed - and hopefully that is what the Domestic Gas and Electricity Bill will do.

The government had chosen to pursue a less interventionist, less confrontational, approach in the form of promoting how customers could switch tariffs and companies to get a better deal. But customers just weren't playing the markets.

So, with prices continuing to rise more than wages, squeezing households month on month, the government has been forced to take action to tackle the cost of living. But it won't be an easy sell to either the energy industry or to all Conservatives.

When the Tories first announced their interest in a energy price cap, the government's approach was to follow the system for capping pre-payment - with a maximum figure, an absolute cap, based on the lowest regional price that is reviewed biannually.

Energy firms have already expressed discontent. When the layoff of two thousand workers in Britain was announced, Centrica blamed them on the impending prospect of a price cap. Others have been calling for any cap to have 'headroom' to allow competition.

Such arguments are accompanied by the opinion of right-wing think tanks like the IEA, who argue a price cap will give minimal help to those who don't switch, end the benefit that switchers get, and entrench the Big Six - who benefit from the support of government subsidies - at the expense of their smaller competitors.

The progressive view on energy costs anchors on the essential nature of energy - along with other utilities like water. People simply cannot live without their utility supply. That creates an easily exploitable monopoly that must be closely monitored - at the least.

However, there isn't always agreement on how to actually run these services among progressives. But there are plenty who are unconvinced by either extreme - nationalised or privatised. Making switching suppliers easier and capping prices is a sort of middle ground.

So too is the Corbyn-era Labour proposal, to reconstitute municipal and regional public run - whether by cooperatives, non-profits or local authorities - utility companies to establish a basic, baseline affordable supply for everyone to compete with the corporate Big Six.

With Theresa May's admiration for Joseph Chamberlain, she should have little consternation at the prospect of municipal services. As the mayor of Birmingham, he was among the pioneers of local government as an active participant in improving the services for local people.

And for all the arguing back and forth, there is a lot of common ground between Labour and the Conservatives here. In fact, the Tories have pretty much adopted the policy wholesale from Ed Miliband, who had campaigned hard for an energy price freeze.

For this reason, when it comes down to it, the Domestic Gas and Electricity Bill may have a quick passage through Parliament - with the govt able to rely on opposition support to fend off any backbench concerns about interfering with markets.

What is clear is that households are under a lot of pressure - not least those forced to pay upfront for utilities because of poor credit scores. This situation just reinforces the absurd debt-traps that surround those with insecure work and low pay.

Drastic reductions in the price of a basic supply of energy is one move. Making that permanently available through a municipal energy supplier would be a complimentary second. A third would be removing the credit score entry qualifications, to help people get away from expensive, exploitative, pay upfront deals.

Pay caps may very well not be a long term solution. But the more pressing concern is to, on every front possible, unpick the nets cast into the churning water surrounding the poorest and most vulnerable.

Half Term Report: Must do better

The Commons continue to play a bigger role, but mostly because the government remains disengaged from domestic matters. At the February half term break, Ministers will return to their constituencies with report cards that read: must do better.

Is a government technically doing a bad job if it isn't doing anything at all? This is a pertinent question as Parliament heads into the February half term recess. That's because it's hard to report on how on the government is handling it's main job - that is, managing the legislative programme - when it doesn't seem to have one.

Back in January our preview of 2018 pointed out that last year, little of the government's legislative programme made any progress. Some was dropped, some was delayed, some disappeared into consultation never to be seen again.

So far, 2018 hasn't been much better. Theresa May's recent, and criticised, announcement of a new electoral offence of Intimidation received much fanfare - but turned out to only be a pledge to consult on the recommendations of a committee report.

A promised update to domestic violence legislation, touted last year in the Queen's Speech, has still yet to appear - despite a similar bill passing the Scottish Parliament in less than a year with bipartisan support.

What about the policies already passed? Those being overseen by ministers either already in place or being implementation? In short, the core elements of the Conservative agenda are besieged as major Tory policies are failing on all sides.

The government's restrictions on Personal Independence Payments for those with mental health conditions have been successfully challenged in court and now all claims are now under review with bigger payouts expected.

The rollout of Universal Credit has been a rolling disaster, stumbling from one mess into the next. At the end of last year the government was forced to concede ground and make some changes. Now, a committee report has questioned it's overall feasibility.

Whether the government's devolution agenda is working might be a matter of perspective. Last week a Conservative county council, Northamptonshire, effectively declared bankruptcy. Even earmarked reserves are being eaten away and council taxes are set to rise across the country.

The strain of funding poor needy neighbourhoods is shifting away from redistribution at a national level, and towards communities trying to support themselves. That might seem like a win for Conservatives uncomfortable with redistribution and what they term 'dependence'.

But it is grinding down communities that need resources for essential frontline services - and councils will know exactly were to point fingers when angry locals come knocking. It also plays right into the hands of Corbyn's pitch for a renewal of municipal socialism.

And that isn't helped by the collapse of outsourcing giant Carillion, the trouble facing other outsourcing firms like Capita, or the fact the government had to take the East Coast Mainline rail franchise away from Stagecoach, who had got their numbers wrong and were losing large amounts of money. These are all simply embarrassments for the government.

While the government seems to have largely abandoned legislating while it pours it's focus into Brexit, backbenchers and the opposition are doing their best to keep things moving forward.

In a remarkably constructive day for the Commons, two private member's bills made it through the second reading gauntlet on 19th January. There was the Fitness for Human Habitation Bill, sponsored by Labour's Karen Buck, and the Stalking Protection Bill, sponsored by Conservative Sarah Wollaston.

Layla Moran of the Liberal Democrats also made use of the final Prime Minister's Questions before the break, to promote a campaign to abolish an old law Still used to criminalise homelessness. It's a push with a good chance to gain traction, thanks to some recent controversy - such as in Bournemouth.

The opposition, as a whole, has also been very effective at forcing issues onto the agenda, with motions on matters like rail franchises and the NHS winter crisis passing. This has continued on from last year when the government stopped taking part in opposition motions - a decision for which they faced criticism even from the Speaker.

While it is good to see the Commons having an impact in political life - plurality should be at the heart of how we make the law - backbenchers picking up the slack, while the government is too busy, is not why we should be seeing it.

Is the government taking it's time? Is it seeking means other than legislation to achieve it's aims? The lack of transparency from the May Ministry makes it difficult to tell the difference between inertia and working around the limitations of a minority government.

However, one of the main arguments for having a standing government is leadership - and being seen is a necessary part of that. It is one thing for the government to give the Commons a spotlight, to let it take the lead on legislation. It is another to let it through absence and abstention.

In January, we argued that there were big issues that needed tackling. That hasn't changed. Neither has the government's lack of engagement with domestic matters. The government remains more talk than action.

When government ministers return to their constituencies for the February half term break this week, they'll do so with report cards that read: must do better.

Last year, May let Brexit overshadow much bigger priorities - that can't continue in 2018

Theresa May's government scraped through 2017. After so very nearly sinking themselves with an unnecessary and opportunistic election, the May Ministry survived a number of crises and scandals to make it into 2018.

However, all of that minority government firefighting leaves little time for governing - and what little time the May government had was gobbled up by Brexit. In 2018, it seems likely that this pattern will continue and Brexit will deny sorely needed attention to far more pressing matters.

The government made it clear this was how things would be when they announced their unambitious Queens Speech, with their pledges now just watered down versions of their manifesto and spread thin over two years - so the government could focus on Brexit.

Even those pledges that did survive have made little progress.

The proposed Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill has yet to make it's appearance - while a few elements are cropping up in other bills, like issues affecting tenancy. The draft Tenant Fees Bill was only published in November, with the Committee of Communities and Local Government still gathering evidence.

Both of these will have to wait until 2018 is well underway before they see action and - the Tenant Fees Bill in particular - is going to be a hit with a lot of lobbying before it reaches its final form. It already largely conforms to present market standards that align far more landlords interests than tenants.

Promises on electric cars made it into the cutdown Queen's Speech, but only translated into £500m for charging points in the budget. A High Speed 2 rail pledge followed on the heels of an announcement to cut rail works plans for Wales and the North. Electrification estimates tripled in cost from £900mn to £2.8bn, so were pushed back, and are now cancelled. They were not offset by the less than £2bn in the budget to be split between the transport budgets of six city regions.

Repeated promises of action on homebuilding have born little fruit. The budget offered little but work arounds and tweaks, all attempts to nudge the housing sector rather than take action. It's unlikely anyone will be holding their breath that this will change in 2018.

Even the government's deeply prioritised Brexit made slow progress.

Negotiations were a tortuous embarrassment, with the government talking itself in circles of redlines - that could do nothing to change the fact that, despite having ruled out accepting the EU's position, they had little option other than to accept it.

And was only the preliminaries, getting the UK government to honour its word and its commitments. Concerns will be high as the UK government moves into the next phase, which includes trying to push through the Brexit Bills - domestic elements of the exit process.

Concern is rooted in the unending determination of the government to limit oversight and transparency in everything they do. May's team particularly want a free hand to negotiate future trade deals, awakening fears of shady deals with human rights abusers that undercut basic standards of workers' rights and quality of goods.

Fears have not been assuaged by the obvious lack of planning. Are there impact studies, or not? The government has gone out of their way to avoid reassuring anyone with any kind of data or fact.

One of the few part of the government's plans for post-Brexit to have been discussed was for agriculture post-Brexit - previewed over the Christmas-New Year week by Michael Gove. He made a pledge of funds to incentivise environmentally friendly land management, but concerns remain over trade deals undermining farmers.

The Tories made a huge mistake becoming embroiled in Brexit and Theresa May doubled down on it. Now, important domestic matters have been deprioritised. A second consecutive winter of the NHS in crisis should be considered an omen of what to expect in public services in the year ahead.

While the Tories have been playing at being 'statesmen', pouring their attention into Brexit - a policy that is epochal for all the wrong reasons - they have let domestic matters slide into chaos.

The NHS is cash starved and stretched beyond capacity and the best that the government was able to say was that the tens of thousands of cancelled operations 'were all part of the plan'. What kind of planning is that? Why would that be reassuring?

It is worth remembering that while Churchill led Britain through the war and the Tories held the outward-looking Great Offices of State, they lost the election held at the war's end. They were beaten by Clement Atlee and Labour, who had busied themselves on the Home Front - in the Home Affairs Ministry, with Agriculture and Fisheries, Education, Fuel, Labour, Pensions and the Board of Trade.

It is a dangerous move for any government to get caught playing statesman and forget to tend to the mundane matters of governing.

Housing, healthcare, welfare. All of these matters need determined attention in 2018 - and all of them are intricately entwined with rights, conditions and pay in the workplace. Domestically, Britain has become an anxious and precarious place under the Tories' idle supervision. How much longer can a blind eye be tolerated?

The Breached Cap: Austerity wavers as the pressure on the Tories mounts

A hole has been burst open in through wall of austerity built by the Tories. The demands of NHS staff threaten to widen that breach and bring the prospect of toppling the wall altogether closer to reality.

Since the impromptu 2017 general election - where the Conservatives were the biggest losers, foiled by their own arrogant power grabbing scheme - the austerity regime has been badly shaken.

Austerity has depended upon Tory swagger, and myths about Labour's profligacy, and the election punched holes in both of those. Their majority lost, the Tories have been under mounting pressure to scale back. To compromise.

Last week they finally cracked. The public sector pay cap was breached. Now, on paper, it is a very small breach. In fact, there was anger as the breach was not even enough to prevent a real terms pay cut for those receiving it. But it is the first sign of austerity finally wavering after seven long years.

So, last Tuesday the Government took the decision to rescind the public sector pay cap for the police and prison officers. It was only a small breach of their long term policy. In fact, half of the 2% has been designated a 'reward' and won't be permanent.

The fact that it was only for a selected few was deeply criticised. Unions were obviously upset at what appeared to be an attempt, from their perspective, of pitting public sector workers against one another - undermining their collective bargaining stance.

The Government followed up with more announcements that didn't help to assuage the Trade Unions. The Government departments would now be allowed to make some discretionary decisions about where to breach the pay cap for it's public servants - but within a limited purview of managing recruitment issues.

The breach of the cap is not, however much the Tories would like to advertise it as such, a pay rise. In reality, the rise in prices, with consumer price inflation hitting 2.9%, will leave the less than 2% pay increase (for the select staff the Tories deigned to give it to) as, effectively, a pay cut. As with any good Tory policy, there's always a way to get out of actually funding it.

The Tories did win some important votes last week. They just about edged their key vote on the second reading of the exit bill, but with expectation even from Tory benches of huge changes to prevent a massive Government legislative power grab. The Government also won the vote to control the key legislative oversight committee.

But from the Tories there came a tangible sense that the wagons were being circled. Defeated on a non-binding motion, which they ultimately chose not to oppose, calling for a fair pay rise for NHS staff, they announced they would take no part in other non-binding motions. NHS staff immediately called for a 3.9% pay rise.

While the votes have no practical effect, they represent the will of Parliament. While for the Tories it will be about avoiding any fights that might provide the possibility of a perceived defeat, it doesn't look good for them after their power grabbing actions over the last few months - from the election, to the exit bill, to the legsilative oversight committees.

The Tory backdown on the pay cap, even if slight; it's incessant grasping after legislative power; it's choice to avoid fights; these are the signs of a Government on the backfoot, with the tide against it. The limited lifting of the cap is a first big breakthrough for anti-austerity campaigners in a long, long war.

The Tory's loss at their power grabbing election may prove to have been the first nail in the coffin of austerity. And it's long overdue. The most vulnerable in Britain have been put through seven years of pain. And for what?

More debt, a Government spending millions taking disabled people to court to cut their welfare, no recovery, the cost of living still outstripping wages, a 'light touch' approach to welfare that has driven homelessness.

There is light coming through the breach. But austerity is not yet toppled. The next big fight against austerity will be on the rollout of Universal Credit. The Commons Work and Pensions Committee heard testimony from a range of contributors from charities and councils, who all warned of impending disaster.

Failures in the set up of previous rollouts, failure in project delivery, claimants facing a cliff edge on rising rents. The Tory failure on other rollouts doesn't bode well either: the 'free' childcare expansion was underfunded and is falling short.

This is the Britain of austerity, where the impact of policies, and approaches implementing them, on ordinary people is seen as less important than headline announcements and the artificial balancing of numbers for moralistic ideological reasons.

We can do better and progressives need to come together to oppose austerity, to get hands into that breach and bring down the wall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theresa May has fatally undermined any Conservative claims to moral authority

Theresa May decisions as a leader, to do deals with the DUP and keep out of the public eye after he Grenfell fire, have severely undermined any Conservative claim to moral authority

When talking about British politics, there is a note of caution to keep in mind about the Westminster system: the rules are more like traditions that can be interpreted to suit the situation and that this happens mostly to protect the status quo.

It's that favouring of the status quo that Theresa May will be clinging to right now. Even though May won the most seats and votes, she staked the house on winning a majority and she failed. That result hurt her hopes of remaining leader, but it shouldn't have fatally undermined the party.

Yet the Tories are teetering. Theresa May's leadership has taken the party from dominance amidst struggling opposition, and it has been the result of poor decisions and poor leadership.

There were the absurd decisions on the campaign like avoiding the public and staying away from debates. But her failures have been most stark in the past ten days since the election.

The decision to seek a coalition for the DUP has antagonised, divided and provoked - even putting the Good Friday Agreement at risk. In fact it has done everything except what the forming a coalition is supposed to do: bring stability. It's also a choice in stark contrast to her own, and her supporters', rhetoric.

Then came the Grenfell fire, symbolising everything wrong with the austerity creed that May has continued. The working class left in unsafe homes by profiteering landlords protected by Tory deregulation. And her response, in this moment that cried out for leadership? Absence.

Theresa May's administration has form when it comes to disappearing. When the Right-wing press launched an attack campaign on the entire principal of judicial independence, the government went quiet. It would be days before a small, quiet statement of support for the judiciary would emerge.

As the working class died or were left homeless, Theresa May was working on a working on a reponse, undoubtedly. But she was invisible. Moving about under the shelter of police protection. Hidden behind closed doors. Hidden from the people suffering through the tragedy.

As the poor response of the Bush Administration to the disaster left in the wake of Hurricane Katrina undermined confidence in the GOP, Theresa May has damaged public confidence in the Conservative & Unionist Party with her very public absence during a time of crisis.

Combine that with the divisive decision to try and go into government with an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, morally extreme party with historic connections to paramilitaries, and you have a toxic brew.

As hard as it is now for May to lead, she has been left little other choice. The Tories made their election campaign one dimensional. It was all about the leadership qualities of Theresa May. That may well continue to backfire well beyond the present crisis.

May campaigned for a personal show of support. The largest number of votes and seats in Parliament was won, not under the brand of the "Conservative & Unionist Party", but under the brand of "Team May". As difficult as May's position is now, it's hard to see anyone else from the Conservative benches having an easier time. They could not even claim to represent the mandate, however limited it may be, won on 8th June.

If the Conservatives see sense and listen to concern about the DUP deal, and if Theresa May stands down, the most votes and seats may not be enough to keep them in government. Their poor response to the Grenfell fire has done more than hurt public confidence - it has fatally undermined their claim to hold moral authority.

Without it, no ministry can hope to govern for long.

Theresa May's leadership has weakened the Tories profoundly, but her personal mandate and her negotiations with the DUP is all that's keeping them in office. They still need her - and as long as they do, the Westminster preference for the status quo may yet save her and her party.

However, from the morning of 9th June, Labour have told anyone who would listen that they were ready to run a minority government. They may soon have to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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