Asylum distribution scandal less about immigration and more about inequality

Photograph: The clock tower of Rochdale town hall from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Over the weekend, there were reports of anger at the way those seeking asylum in Britain were being distributed across the country. These people were being sent to the poorest communities, while the richest communities often took not a single person (Lyons & Duncan, 2017).

One town particularly affected was Rochdale, a small town with an outsized history as a progressive beacon. It was the birthplace of the co-operative movement and, against the grain in Britain, supported the Union and the abolition of slavery during the American Civil War (Keegan, 2010; Cash, 2013) - despite the pain of the loss of cotton imports from the Confederacy.

Even in a town with that historical backdrop, there is anger that is framed and understood through the lens of anti-immigration sentiment (Lyons, 2017). But that misses the point, as much of the distracting immigration anger has done so far. The real issue is inequality.

As the figures show, without the funding to match, the burden that comes with caring and including those people seeking asylum is being dropped into the hands of the country's poorest communities (Lyons & Duncan, 2017).

Communities that have already been hit hard by cuts to local government budgets (Butler, 2017) - services have been stretched and funds are scarce. It has been Conservative policy for some time to shift responsibilities away from central government without funding.

All the while, the Right seeks to misdirect the anger at this situation onto 'immigrants' - to those fleeing danger and murder, or the refugees of war. But the figures clearly show the real problem: Britain's wealthiest communities are not pulling their weight or sharing the burdens.

This isn't isolated to asylum. Look at the energy and the environment. Communities, particularly Conservative constituencies, have refused green energy technology, like wind farms, as 'eyesores' blighting their communities (Hennessy, 2012). But where is their outcry against their energy coming from dirty plants in poorer neighbourhoods?

While this unequal distribution of burdens paints Britain in a bad light, . Part of the opposition to the expansion of green energy has been the unequal distribution of its financial benefits (Mason, 2012) and in every community there can be a found positive and charitable support for those seeking asylum from danger.

From Saffiyah Khan, the woman who stood up and peacefully faced a nationalist group when they surrounded a counter-protesting woman (BBC, 2017); to the peaceful and charitable disposition found in communities across the country (Lyons, 2017); there are innumerable examples that Britain has broad shoulders and can make light of its burdens.

But not when all of the burdens are dropped on the poorest communities. Not when the wealthiest communities exempt themselves, sending the unfortunate and desperate somewhere else without even the support funding to match.

It's one rule for conservative Britain and another for everyone else. Like in ancient Athens: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". That adage is not good enough and should be left buried in the past where it belongs.

Fear and hatred have found fertile soil amidst the artificial scarcity of austerity

Today sees the latest in a sustained run of demonstrations in the UK since Donald Trump was inaugurated President of the United States. For many progressives, his election has crystallised their anxieties.

They have watched, maybe even supported under the banners of New Labour, years of exclusionary conservative neoliberalism. That system reaped unequal rewards and ultimately unleashed widespread consequences. The austerity that was imposed to manage them has created an artificial scarcity.

Those actions, results and reactions have left some quarters of society - not few in number and faced on all sides by shortfalls and cutbacks in the name of 'scarce' resources - deprived, disregarded and ultimately disaffected. The political disconnect is tangible.

As wary progressives have worried, this fertile ground for fear and anger - prepared under the inattentive rule of those who were too busy enjoying the fruits of the good times to tend or care for it - is now being exploited.

The most virulent of the poisonous crop that has been sewn is xenophobia. That dangerous weed is being grown deliberately in some places and spreading all by itself in others - though it is perhaps reassuring that it must first be dressed up and sold only through distorting and distancing filters, that shows blatant hatred of outsiders, without an 'excuse', is not accepted.

But people are bringing it home. Making it part of their everyday. It would be a toxic mischief to allow the mistrust and hatred of outsiders to be normalised. The frontline against that threat is challenging the negative attitudes towards people seeking refuge or looking for a better life in a new land.

A major part of events will be the 'One Day Without Us' event, a 'labour boycott' by migrants, and those standing in solidarity with them, to demonstrate the value of migrants to our economy - an event months in the planning (Garcia, 2017; Taylor, 2017).

The day was chosen because it coincides with the United Nations World Day of Social Justice. It theme for 2017 is "Preventing conflict and sustaining peace through decent work":

"Social justice is an underlying principle for peaceful and prosperous coexistence within and among nations. We uphold the principles of social justice when we promote gender equality or the rights of indigenous peoples and migrants. We advance social justice when we remove barriers that people face because of gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, culture or disability."

Therein lies the inclusive message that has so far run through the opposition to Trump. The exclusivity that the new President stands for is being opposed by a movement for a more egalitarian and inclusive society.

But to create such a society, equality and inclusivity needs to be achieved on an economic as well as social level - and the times seem to be making clear that you really cannot have one without the other.

The anger that stewed within those who felt discarded or ignored, even during the so called 'salad days' when the global economy was booming and Labour was in office, is now fueling a desperate turn inwards that public policy has frequently, if often unwittingly, aided.

Austerity, by slashing public spending, has imposed an artificial scarcity. That sense of a finite limit is being used to fan fears that were more easily assuaged during the years of plenty. Fears of shortage, of limited places and supplies, are forcing people into adopting a triage mentality.

While conservatives talk of austerity in terms of of doing things efficiently to save tax payers some money, myths are spreading, and being spread, about the skivers and the cheats that is feeding sectarian and segregationist mentalities.

These are lines being drawn - borders, classes, and talk of the deserving and the undeserving - and with the fear of scarcity at their backs, no one wants to be on the wrong side of those lines.

After years of exclusion from the gains of globalism, austerity has turned a economic setback into desperation and a society-wide scrambling retreat. Those gathering at today's protests must think carefully on how to reach out with their message, beyond the progressives who will gather around them.

The rise of xenophobia and the rising fear of scarcity have gone hand in hand. Progressives must poke through the propaganda that surrounds the supporters of their opponents and find the desperate people within that noxious cloud and let them know: the choice between aiding our kin and aiding a stranger is a false choice.

Progressives must see the common ground between refugees and the precariat and press for holistic compassionate action

The Calais 'Jungle' is to be broken up, with its ten thousand inhabitants to be dispersed to smaller centres scattered throughout France. Photograph: Calais Jungle on 17 January 2016 by Malachy Browne (License) (Cropped)

Immigration returns to the headlines today, across Europe, as the French Government sets about the final break up of the Calais 'Jungle' camp (Chrisafis et al, 2016). After what is now years of being the last stop for refugees headed for Britain, the camp's inhabitants are to be dispersed in small groups to smaller processing camps scattered right across France.

For Britain's Conservative Government, seeing the Jungle broken up means showing some sort of progress on crude pledges to tackle migration. For the French Socialist Government it means breaking up the most visible of symbols of immigration that Far-Right parties twist into provocation.

The desperation of the French Socialist ministers to avoid provoking the Far Right speaks to the deep trouble progressives are having with the issue of migration. In the UK, the Labour Party became so desperate during the last election campaign that they virtually wholly swallowed anti-immigration rhetoric and produced a commemorative mug to prove it.

The truly progressive position on migration is to take an internationalist view. To see people in a broad, humanitarian way that rejects the sectarian thinking of nationalism - that degrades people by categorising them into those for who we can and cannot care, shutting out the world that lies beyond narrowly defined and jealous borders.

From the internationalist perspective, there are two facts. First, there are a large number of people displaced and facing homelessness and absolute poverty. And second, there is another large number of people who live precariously and see danger in an influx of more poor people on their life chances and opportunities.

For an internationalist, that is the state of things across the whole of Europe, not the unique problem of any one country alone. Whichever administrative division they may be found in, both matter and both must be addressed with care.

One thing that is notable is the absence of any particular effects upon those more well to do and secure. Therein lies an implication that a commonality exists between the two groups, the precariat and the refugees. Both find themselves caught between the hammer and the anvil: extremism and war on the one hand, and an exclusionary economic system on the other.

Embracing the sectarian, nationalist and conservative approach of dividing people, particularly the poor, does nothing but force them into competition with each other for basic dignity. That is inhumane - and doesn't even solve the problems. Instead, it just moves the problems around, pushing them into the shadows or handing them off to someone else.

Progressives must fight the divisive pitting of the precariat against refugees, and dispel the idea that refugees are being cared for at the expense of the precariat. An holistic vision that alleviates the pressure on both groups is essential.

In all of this, respect for the dignity of refugees and the precariat is imperative. Exclusion has bred fear and that has to be fought with hope. The first step in that is compassion - reaching out, listening and offering positive steps that are inclusive and respectful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humanitarian government is under attack and progressive opposition can no longer afford to be weak, scattered and resigned

The humanitarian crisis signified by the proliferation of food banks is a controversial legacy of the coalition government. Photograph: Woodcock St food bins in 2013 by Birmingham News Room (License) (Cropped)

The financial crisis and the austerity that followed exposed a vein of deep conservatism in Europe. Prodded in this raw spot, Europe has become defensive, closed and mean (The Guardian, 2015). That has been most apparent in the attack that has been launched, across the continent, on humanitarian government.

Everywhere, there is an eagerness for the throwing up of fences to separate us (Colonnelli, 2015), as nationalism has reared its head. As it has risen, it has brought with it a creeping fear and a deep mistrust of otherness. Those tensions have become so obvious, and so threatening, that the question of whether the Jewish people of Europe are still safe on the continent has even been asked (Omer-Jackaman, 2015).

All the while, internally, the community safety nets are being torn down in the name of austerity. The harsh and narrow terms set for what little support remains has left it in the hands of individual insurance, food banks and personal philanthropy to 'handle' those who fall behind or fall outside of the system (Snow, 2015).

By advocating the protection of the poor from their poverty, openness towards - and acceptance of - outsiders, and the protection minorities from the tyranny of the majority, humanitarianism is flying in the face of these, the dominant political values of the time. As a result, the idea of a humanitarian government is being besieged upon all sides and is slowly being deconstructed.

One place where it would be tempting to lay all of the blame for this, would be upon the ascendency of conservatism.

Conservatives, taking the opportunity presented by government institutions weakened by taking on the debt of private firms to allay the financial crisis, have shown an aggressive determination to strip back the state in the name of 'fiscally responsible' austerity and balanced budgets.

Yet, a large part of the blame must go to a damp progressive opposition that has failed to stand up for humanitarianism. This has been particularly stark in the UK, where the Labour Party so spectacularly failed to oppose the Conservative's coercive restructure of welfare (BBC, 2015).

The largest factor in this weak response seems to be a loss of confidence in positive government action. The financial crisis damaged the reputation of government - even despite government having been the mechanism with which the original crisis, that the private sector catastrophically caused, was tackled.

Without confidence and trust in government, and its ability to tax and spend to act positively, the Left - liberal and socialist - has lost its traditional tool. That has left progressives stranded, caught between accepting the popular conservative austerity narrative and trying to resurrect the old statist one. The lack of fresh ideas has been astounding.

That lack of conviction, and ingenuity, is proving disastrous for the progressive vision of civil society, where something not far short of a class war is playing out.

Even as conservatives have taken away 'dependence' creating government organisations, withdrawing the state's helping hand, around the world NGOs - Non-governmental organisations - are facing regulations and crackdowns that hinder their work supporting human rights and humanitarian aims (Sherwood, 2015). Control over civil society is being consolidated by those in power and it is being reshaped around their own competitive agenda.

This is leading to a kind of class consolidation, reinforcing the social hierarchy with meritocratic competition. Individuals are being pitted against each other in order to generate innovation and end the 'dependence' of the individual upon society. However, the deconstruction of humanitarian government is burdening, predominantly the poor, individuals with the prospect of a life of servitude.

For the Left, communitarians and individualists alike, these factors aught to be acting as a rallying flag. This is a common humanitarian cause which strikes to the heart of what progressives cherish most: justice and liberty.

The old welfare state served as holding pattern, a bastion against conservatism. As the stronghold began to show cracks, in the UK the Liberal Democrats arguably held back the worst of the flood in government (The Guardian, 2015{2}). However, that party has been cast out to the fringes and the walls of the fortress have crumbled.

So new barricades are needed.

As the argument of Oscar Wilde goes: charity is an insufficient and insulting partial restitution to the people of what was taken from them; and the ethical aim is to reconstruct society so poverty is impossible. That is the kind of radical thinking that is demanded from progressives if they are going to defend humanitarian government.

From political reform, to economic reforms like the Citizen's Income, co-operatives and mutuals, to policies aimed at ensuring sustainability and addressing the cost of living like green energy and housebuilding plans, the necessary ideas exist. The task ahead of progressives is to construct a reformist program for government with these ideas, rooted in strong evidence, and to assemble around it a formidable alliance to stand, both in civil society and at elections, for the common good.

Local and provincial communities are showing the chief internationalist value of empathy in the face of the refugee crisis

The Greek Island of Lesbos, where locals have voluntarily rescued and cared for refugees. Photograph: Mytilene, Lesvos Island by Anna Apostolidou (License) (Cropped)

The past decade has seen the rise of two forms of nationalism in Europe. One is a vaguely Left-leaning provincial separatism and the other is a Right-wing nation-state sovereigntism. Both of them have found support expressed both at elections and in popular protest.

For internationalists, who have struggled for fifty years to open up Europe and break down its borders, the return of nationalism - of any stripe - has been seen, and treated, as a threat. In that mindset, no differentiation has been made between these different kinds of nationalism.

This isn't particularly surprising. To an internationalist, a return to nationalism represents a retreat into a closed-minded, closed society. The fear is that such a closed state would only further the alienation of people from others living elsewhere in Europe and so result in a substantial decrease in common understanding and empathy.

In light of the Eurozone's imperious attitude towards Syriza and Greece, it isn't hard to see why internationalism has struggled to make its case. The European Union, the great internationalist project, has been hijacked by national conservatism as a means to spread and enforce its social and economic beliefs. But, more than any other factor, it is migration that has exposed the tensions that Right-wing nationalism feeds upon: the fear of the other, the anxiety of difference.

Those anxieties have found particular expression in the UK, where the Foreign Secretary and even the Prime Minister have made dangerous and dehumanising references to migrants - humans travelling to escape poverty and war - as 'marauding' 'swarms' (Perraudin, 2015; Elgot & Taylor, 2015). It is the pinnacle of internationalist fears that people who are safe in settled stable societies, though scared and rattled by an ongoing financial slump, could show such a lack of empathy for the plight of those whose lives and homes are torn apart by violence, terrorism, war and poverty.

From refugees to migrant workers, exploited for everything from farming to prostitution (Lawrence, 2015; Harper, 2015), there is a painful tendency to blame these victims rather than those exploiting their desperation.

In the UK, part of that comes in a gross overstatement of the scale of the 'threat' posed by migration. Contrary to the opinion of UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, the overwhelming majority of migrants are not 'economic', but refugees fleeing from dangerous situations (Kingsley, 2015).

With a continental population of 750 million, and a European Union population of 500 million, it is unsurprising that a United Nations expert - Francois Crepeau, UN special rapporteur on the humans rights of migrants - believes it would be not only feasible but practical and desirable to offer resettlement of one million Syrian refugees, across the continent, over a period of five years (Jackson, 2015; Jackson, 2015{2}), as a way to end the present humanitarian catastrophe.

However, his recommendations seem as if they'll fall on deaf ears as national governments, retreating deep into sovereigntist nationalism in the face of the financial crisis, aggressively reaffirm national borders and national control over decision-making.

And yet, even as governments, like that of Greece, have struggled under the weight of debt and austerity and have been stretched to breaking in managing the refugee crisis (Kingsley & Henley, 2015), or have turned inwards to exploit anger and mistrust, there are still beacons of hope for those who champion commonality beyond borders.

Where governments are failing, volunteers, local activists and communities have taken up the responsibility. On Greek islands, even in the midst of their own crisis, locals have saved refugees from their stranded boats, taken them in, fed them and provided them with supplies and shelter (Kingsley, 2015{2}; McVeigh, 2015).

In such actions, in their wilful choice of empathy in defiance of the establishment, there is hope for internationalism. What there is for the internationalists still to see, however, is how to comprehend that this empathy, this pursuit of self-determination and anti-establishment opposition to hegemony, has also been at the root of the Left-leaning separatist 'nationalism'.

These ideals are what have differentiated the Left-leaning separatism from the Right-leaning sovereigntist nationalism. The open, reformist, pro-European attitudes, so deeply connected to internationalism, can be seen in the motivations of voters electing separatists - particularly in Scotland where the SNP want to break away from the UK, which is itself rapidly turning inwards, in order to remain an integrated part of a wider Europe.

That pattern has been repeated from Catalunya to Greece to the Green Party in the UK, where Caroline Lucas had called for reform of the old establishment - nationally and continentally - in pursuit of Europe's founding principles of co-ordination, co-operation and solidarity (Lucas, 2015).

The current crisis has internationalists, like the Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, calling for more compassion and more positive action to alleviate suffering during this crisis (Leftly, 2015).

But in order to address the crisis in full, the difference between nationalists, retreating in fear to the shelter of the old institutions, and the separatists who want self-determination, reform and progress, has to be comprehended. In the one, nationalism, is national, social and fiscal conservatism that is driving a wedge between people. In the other, separatism, there are radical and democratic ideas to which internationalists are instinctively drawn.

To build a comprehensive movement that supports internationalism and human rights, across borders, with a broad empathy, means understanding all of the different strains of local, provincial and international activism that are so closely interlinked in their values. With such an alliance, in the spirit of the solidarity that has been seen in the anti-austerity movement, the compassionate empathy of Greek Islanders could be turned into a general, political and even economic campaign for human dignity and the common good.

Crisis after crisis from Greece to Calais and the Mediterranean have dented the Left's belief in a European future - but they show internationalism is needed more than ever

The agreement between Greece and its European creditors has sent ripples spreading outwards across the continent. Greece, despite its comprehensive referendum rejection of austerity, has nonetheless been forced to accept harsh terms and without debt relief will still face more trouble in the long run (Smith & Stewart, 2015).

That forced capitulation has dented the belief of the Left, and of the radical Left in particular, that it can challenge and overcome the dominant neoliberal austerian narrative. That feeling of powerlessness has clearly shaken the Left's commitment to a future in Europe - though there are those such as Caroline Lucas who are argue that reform, not surrender, of the EU is still the way forward.

In Spain, Podemos - the radical Left party seen as equivalent to Greece's Syriza - has suffered from a slump in the polls (Nixon, 2015), while the mainstream Left, across Europe, is stumbling. Even Denmark's Social Democratic government, under Helle Thorning-Schmidt, has fallen (BBC, 2015). That leaves just eight EU countries with Left-of-Centre governments (Nardelli & Arnett, 2015 - including Italy and France.

There are those who have begun to argue, in the UK, for a 'Lexit' campaign, focussing upon a Left-wing scepticism towards the European project (Jones, 2015) - on a campaign critical of 'European' austerity politics.

The trouble with that assessment is that it ignores how 'Europe', and its institutions, have simply been the vehicle, rather than the originator and pusher, of the neoliberal agenda (Chessum, 2015).

"European project has been used by capital, and national governments which represent that capital, to make the poor pay for the economic crisis, and to bring down left wing governments where they seek to prevent this. With European politics at a crossroads, it is vital that the British left focusses on the real task at hand – building a radical political alternative that can challenge these forces – and not just on building an obsession with fighting the super-structure of the European Union."

National, social and fiscal conservative governments have used their positions on the European Council - the assembled representatives of the EU member states - to roll out their austerian economic scheme (Lucas, 2015).

"With the European council made up of ministers from each member state, it often simply reflects the prevailing currents in European politics. The imposition of austerity in Greece – forcing a population to pay the price for a crisis they didn’t cause – is simply an extension of an economic logic that spans our continent."

Caroline Lucas has argued that simply lashing out the EU itself isn't enough and isn't directing the blame where it really lies (Lucas, 2015). Lucas argues that the aim should be, instead, to reform the Union.

Amongst Europe's mainstream Leftists too, there are still those who are arguing for more European integration. Pier Carlo Padoan, Italy’s finance minister, wants new movement towards EU political union to be seen as the solution to the problem of national conservative member-state governments using the EU to impose their terms on Greece (The Economist, 2015).

That 'stay and fight for reform' mentality has been also been picked up by anti-austerity Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn (Watt & Wintour, 2015). After being pressured to make his position clear on Europe, Corbyn said that Labour should work with European allies for reform.

In a Europe where the dehumanisation of migrants and refugees (Elgot & Taylor, 2015) and Far-Right rhetoric (Mudde, 2015) are on the rise, the answer cannot be to retreat. For the Left, walking away means giving up on internationalism and solidarity.

Instead, the priority must be to reclaim Europe. To reform its institutions, around internationalism and humanitarianism, and return to Europe a spirit of coordination and cooperation - an energy that desperately needs to felt, all across the continent, from Greece to Calais and the Mediterranean.

The Labour leadership election begins in earnest. But what will the candidates stand for?

With the nominations counted and the candidates confirmed, the 2015 Labour leadership election campaign has begun in earnest. The day was marked with the first televised debate last night in Nuneaton, which had been a prime Labour election target seat where the party had failed spectacularly (BBC, 2015).

For the position of party leader the candidates are Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall (BBC, 2015{2}). At the same time, there will also be an election for the deputy leadership. Standing for the position of deputy leader are Ben Bradshaw, Stella Creasy, Angela Eagle, Caroline Flint and Tom Watson (New Statesman, 2015).

The most pressing issues for the leadership candidates will be to address what they believe went wrong in 2015 (Wintour, 2015), and to find answer to those beginning to ask what the point is of the Labour Party (Jones, 2015; Todd, 2015).

Amongst the prospective leaders, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper most represent continuity with the New Labour project, having both been deeply involved with Blair and Brown governments and regular frontbenchers over the last Eighteen years. Both Burnham and Cooper announced their candidacy with an appeal to the party not to move Left or Right, but to make a broad appeal with an emotional connection to everyday lives (Wintour, 2015{2}; Gayle, 2015).

Liz Kendall was the first, and is both the youngest and most right-wing, candidate on the list, having made it clear that she believes the Labour Party did not 'do enough to appeal to Conservative supporters' (Chakelian, 2015).

The final candidate, who just scraped onto the list, is Jeremy Corbyn, representing the old Socialist Left-wing of the party. His candidature has been commended for opening up the leadership contest, turning it into an open, public debate between the Left and Right on the future of the Labour Party (Kelner, 2015). Corbyn declared his candidacy by mocking the other candidates' obsession with 'aspiration', by declaring his aspiration the close the inequality gap (Corbyn, 2015).

At last night's debate in Nuneaton, all four had their first chance to connect with an audience (Wintour, Watt & Mason, 2015; Watt, 2015). What was most starkly remarkable about three of the four candidates was how very little seems to have changed from the 2015 general election campaign message. The leaders in waiting are still talking about immigration, work as a responsibility to work, of leaving Labour's past behind and embracing business.

There is a growing consensus that Labour is going to need something more from its next leader if it is going to get into government after the next election. A big idea (Robinson, 2015). Conviction (Behr, 2015). The Green Party MP Caroline Lucas even offered her thoughts, proposing that Labour finally embrace multi-party politics (Lucas, 2015). All of these things will factor as decision time approaches for Labour. It awaits to be seen whether the party will the party stay in the Centre-Right, hoping to beat the Tories at their own game, or if they will try to come up with a real, progressive, alternative message?

Election 2015: The European Union - is the UK's future in or out?

The pressure applied by UKIP and the rest of the Conservative Party's Right-wing has succeeded in putting the question of the UK's membership of the European Union on the table. If those parties succeed in gaining enough seats at the next election, then a referendum on the UK's place in the EU will be on its way. Then, if a majority vote to leave, the UK will sail off into the Atlantic. Sounds simple, doesn't it?

The simplicity is, however, restricted to the actual decision to leave - which itself can be done with an ease that a lot of world leaders find quite disturbing, especially as most of them think the UK and the EU are better together (Preston, 2015). The potential ramifications are much greater and more complex.

Reports suggest, in a best case scenario, that everyone in the EU will lose out economically if the UK leaves, but no one more than the UK itself (Grice, 2015). While there is apparently a quiet acknowledgement even amongst Eurosceptics that - at least initially - the UK will be less well off outside of the EU, there are those who see big business opportunities away from the European system (Preston, 2015).

Amongst Eurosceptics there is talk of the UK's Financial Services industry being 'freed' from the EU Financial Transaction Tax - which was pressured into existence in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis by the campaign for a Robin Hood Tax; 'freed' from the EU cap on bankers' bonuses; 'freed' to pursue new trade deals with 'emerging markets', like India, where some feel the EU failed to negotiate a good enough deal; and even to pursue the marketing of UK agriculture to the world (Preston, 2015).

The trouble is, those arguments all seem to depend upon a lot of 'if'. If the UK is able to negotiate a substantially different deal while still maintaining its trading links (Behr, 2014). If it is able to successfully renegotiate better deals for the UK than it could get when it was able to advertise free access through Britain to the whole of the European Market - at a time when the UK's trade relationships are already very lopsided against the UK (Peston, 2015).

On that particular point: the UK would also have to convince the potential investors that they would be getting a good deal from pouring their money into the products of one of the most expensive places in the world to live and work. With a high cost of living, wages have to keep up, which means businesses fork over large sums of money on labour costs. While the EU is a free market, it nonetheless encourages protections of workers rights and measures to raise the standard of living across all member states, and trading partners, up to the same level to try and avoid anyone being undercut.

Are the UK's workers going to receive those same assurances when they are competing in a global free market against the workers of India or China? It's more likely that they will face the same calls for measures aimed at increasing 'competitiveness' - levelled at countries with high debt like Italy - which, under talk of lowering prices and increasing flexibility, ultimately demands cuts to wages so reduce the cost of labour (Sinn, 2014).

None of this is, of course, to suggest that the EU is perfect. The European Union is subject to the same pressures from globalisation as anywhere else in the world. It needs serious reform, such as the need to make the management of the European economy, and particularly of the Euro, more democratic (Garton Ash, 2015).

But achieving these reforms means getting into the spirit of internationalism. As Nick Clegg said during the BBC's Question Time Election Leaders Special on Thursday (30th April), the main issues facing us today are continental, not just national. The solutions to problems like tax dodging corporations and human traffickers will be continental and international in scale, not confined to particular countries and nations.

There are ideals in the make-up of the European Union - mostly constricted to being merely undertones in these times when ideologically conservative economics is riding high - grounded in internationalism, solidarity, commonality and liberty. There is a sense that, with reform, the European Union could be a positive progressive force for the common good.

The European Parliament has campaigned for equal pay for men and women and for the rights of pregnant workers. It derailed the ACTA treaty, which lead to most European nations refusing to ratify it, and it has also forced the TTIP treaty negotiations to be open and transparent (Robinson, 2015).

The European Globalization Adjustment Fund provides compensation when jobs move abroad, and funding for new training and start-ups. The EU even pursued the capping of bankers bonuses (at an obviously stingy 100% of their salaries) in the face of opposition from the UK government (Robinson, 2015{2}).

The cost to the UK of being part of all this is a net contribution to the EU budget £6.5bn to £8.5bn per year, less than 0.5% of British GDP. That figure extracts from the gross contribution what is spent back in the UK itself, on supporting everything from agriculture and scientific research to grants for local councils. For this investment the Confederation of British Industry suggests net economic benefit of EU membership to the UK is £62-78bn/yr (Robinson, 2015{3}).

As for immigration there is evidence that it has limited impact on wages, even coinciding with a boost in wages in the long term (Preston, 2015). While the 5% lowest paid can be disproportionately affected, the solutions lies in tackling low pay with minimum and living wages, with better education and training, and by addressing the disparities in the quality of life and levels of pay to be found across Europe - once again, continent-wide solutions. In terms of numbers, at present 2.2m British citizens live elsewhere in the EU, balancing out the 2.4m EU citizens living the UK. Less than 5% of the EU migrants claim jobseekers and less than 10% claim other working age benefits (Robinson, 2015{3}).

Are these arguments likely to dissuade fervent Eurosceptics? Probably not. There is a certain sense of Nationalism to Euroscepticism that makes talk of negotiation and reform, rather than abandonment, likely to fall unheard.

That does necessarily not mean that some satisfactory compromise cannot be reached.

A number of leading European figures have for some time been talking about a two-speed Europe - the tone of which might be seen in David Cameron's 'veto' in 2011 (Curtis, 2011). While trying to negotiate policy for the single market, the EU faced opposition from Cameron who demanded protections, exemptions and concessions for the City of London's financial sector. However, instead of actually blocking the move - as would be required for it to actually be a veto - the UK merely removed itself from consideration on the issues being discussed and the rest of the EU went on with its discussions.

Romano Prodi, former Italian Prime Minister and former President of the European Commission, has argued that the move towards a two-speed Union is well under way as a practical response to the realities of the situation (Tost, 2012). Prodi stressed that Europe is taking steps towards a common financial policy without the UK - the next big step in integration - and that Cameron's policies have only moved Britain to the fringes where they will have less influence.

The reality will be a UK that tries to opt out of what it doesn't want - within limits which will still mean much the same situation if the UK wants to trade with Europe - but will remain, in principle, a member of the Union and UK citizens will keep some of the benefits of being EU citizens like free movement and access to European Courts.

Meanwhile, the rest of Europe will continue to grow closer, gradually building a continental federation and reforming it to become more democratic. There are alternatives that would see Britain more involved or holding the EU at arms length, but this approach, of a two-speed Union - seems the only one likely to strike a balance between pro-Europeans and Eurosceptics.

Election 2015: UKIP and the Right

UKIP - the United Kingdom Independence Party - are not likely to receive an endorsement from progressives. National conservatism, social conservatism, and economic conservatism are hardly a mix likely to attract those looking for a radical alternative.

It doesn't help that the party's Euroscepticism clings close to an anti-internationalist position, deeply contrary to the ideas that run through the liberalism and socialism of the Left. While UKIP talks of national values, national services and national sovereignty, the Left have historically looked out at the world with broad visions: to unite people in grand communities across cultural borders and to find consensus for the protection, whoever or wherever people might be, of individual civil liberties.

So UKIP's aggressive campaign - rocking its way through scandal after scandal, from racism (Stockham, 2015), to sexism (Newman, 2015) and homophobia (McCormick, 2014) - presents pretty much the antithesis of the ideals of those across the political Left and Centre. According to its founder, however, it was not always supposed to be like that.

UKIP was founded in opposition to the 1993 Maastricht Treaty that created the European Union. Alan Sked, the founder, was in origin, a member of the old Liberal Party who opposed what he saw as a Union that was undemocratic and flawed. He later left the party he founded feeling it had become Frankenstein's Monster, and a harbour to racists (Jeffries, 2014).

He and other originators of the party left after an influx of new supporters to the party who had broken away from the Conservative right-wing, and from other right-wing groups, including the National Front. Since that point its main figures have been Conservative Party breakaways and rich businessmen.

UKIP became the vehicle for pressuring the Conservatives from the Far Right on the one hand, and on the other opposing the existence of the European Union and Britain's membership. Yet it has consistently had members sitting in the EU Parliament and claiming expenses - and not without controversy (Jeffries, 2014). Nigel Farage, the party's very visible leader, himself was criticised over his boasts of claiming millions in expense from the EU to fund UKIP (Helm, 2009), and other MEPs were variously criticised for poor attendance and jailed for fraud (Randall & Brady, 2013).

"The party I founded has become a Frankenstein's monster. When I was leader, we wouldn't send MEPs to Europe because we didn't want to legitimise it. My policy was that if we were forced to take the salaries, we would give them to the National Health Service – they wouldn't be taken by the party or individuals. Now UKIP say they're against welfare cheats coming from eastern Europe, but in fact they're the welfare cheats." (Jeffries, 2014)

The party has not given a great account of itself. Mired in scandals involving bigotry, racism and homophobia, focussed on Europe and Immigration beyond the point of obsession, holding 'public' meetings that are closed to the public and the press, and having political campaigns run by former National Front organisers (O'Loughlin, 2015).

The party is fueled by scapegoating (Milne, 2014). They even scapegoat their own supporters, making excuses for them when they can, or cutting them loose when they get caught with their intolerance out in the open (Mason, 2013). It seems even HIV sufferers are considered legitimate targets (Mason, 2015{1}).

And yet the party has seen its support expand. At the European elections in 2014 it claimed around 10% of Britain's voters, and polling has seen them stay steadily at that level. That has demanded a fleshing out of the party's policies. An earlier manifesto was threadbare, pushing low taxes for the rich, and a clearly conservative pro-business attitude - complete with opposition to the EU, immigrants and their rights (Randall & Brady, 2013).

In the quest to be taken more seriously, UKIP has revamped its policies for 2015. That process seems to have involved just skimming off the most popular policies of their rivals - in a way that has made it all that much harder to get to the core of what the party believes in. Yet there is a clue in the way this mimicry has focussed particularly upon the Conservatives - including a commitment to see through the Conservative Party's 'long term fiscal repetition' and the implementation of austerity (BBC, 2015).

The party's complicated position on healthcare gives an idea of the forces at work within the party. Farage admitted to having supported a system of privatised insurance (BBC, 2014), but that a different position was decided on within the party (Cook, 2014). Yet Farage has been challenged for his deriding criticisms of the NHS, and recommendations that people should go private if they can afford it (Lamport, 2015).

In reality, it is likely that UKIP realised that it could not get a privatised healthcare system past a public very fond of the NHS, and so just popular public opinion - with the de rigueur conditions that foreigners should be excluded (Mason, 2015{2}).

As for the party's predilection for clamping down on immigration and leaving the European Union?

Fiscally, immigrants are net contributors to the public treasury (O'Leary, 2014). And the real solutions when it comes to low pay aren't in locking people out, but in having proper minimum and living wages and enforcing them against those who would try to undercut workers' rights (Taylor-Dave, 2014). From a cultural perspective, nationalism and sectarianism do little to diffuse tensions. A happy, open and confident multi-cultural society is the better facilitator of the kind of 'integration' that UKIP claim to want (LBC, 2015).

As for the European Union, for a net contribution of about £6.5bn - £15bn (0.5% of public spending) contributed to Brussels, with £8.5bn being spent back in Britain through various grants for local government, farmers and scientific research amongst other things - the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) reckons a return for the British economy of £60-80bn, and access to a $24tn market with a say in the rules and regulations that govern it (Robinson, 2015{1}). All of that, before we even consider all of the good that EU regulations have actually done (Wallace, 2015; Robinson, 2015{2}), make clear that the problems of the European system - like the need for more democratic oversight of economic policy - are better reformed than abandoned.

When it comes down to, for all the attention poured over Farage's 'People's Army' - the right-wing insurgent - and UKIP's rollercoaster grand tour of gaffes, shouting, bigotry, racism, homophobia, apologises, retractions and excuses, the party is not likely to pick up many seats. Considering how much the party has come to rely on the public image of Nigel Farage, the party is likely very worried about his pledge to resign the party leadership if he fails to win the South Thanet seat (Mason, 2015{3}).

In the end the party will more than likely simply split support between themselves and the Tories, picking up a few seats where their opponents are weak - perhaps fitting. Then they will hope to be in a position to do a post-election deal with the Tories (BBC, 2015).

---

Prospects: 14%, 4 seats (gain 2).*

Coalition Partners: Conservatives (271 seats).

Verdict: Absolutely not progressive, not radical, and not an alternative. UKIP are Far Right conservatives, covering it up with populism - offering up whatever happen to be most popular policies that can be pinched from the other parties. Committed to Conservative economic policies and to cutting the UK off from Europe.

---

And the rest of the Right

Beyond UKIP, the visibility of right-wing politics has otherwise subsided - perhaps having been caught up in that party's nationalist wave.

Election 2015: Labour Party

In 2010 Labour sagged to a narrow loss under the weight of thirteen years in government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Two wars, an assault upon civil liberties, and the financial collapse of 2008 had burnt out many supporters on the New Labour brand.

Amongst Ed Miliband's tasks in 2015 has been to face the legacy of Blair and Brown. So far he has approached that task by claiming that the Labour Party of the past was wrong (ITV, 2015). The trouble is that not much has changed from the New Labour days to make the party more progressive.

The party's five key pledges for 2015 are:

1. A strong economic foundation
2. Higher living standards for working families
3. An NHS with the time to care
4. Controls on immigration
5. A country where the next generation can do better than the last

Beyond that very vague language is very little drama. The pledge to raise living standards comes with a new regulator for energy suppliers and a rise in the minimum wage - though only to £8 by 2020, which is only a slight advance upon the already expected yearly rise (BBC, 2014).

Labour's pledge on the NHS largely amounts to a recruitment drive, albeit much needed, but there has not yet been a commitment to the funding that the NHS has claimed will be needed. Even Labour's announcement on the election campaign's opening day that they would cap private profits made from NHS contracts is tantamount to admitting that Labour is not interested in ending the creeping privatisation that expanded so much under the party's watch (Wintour, 2015).

As for the pledge to build a strong economic foundation, analysis of Labour plans seems to suggest that they will borrow some and cut less in order to eventually open up a £39bn spending gap over the Conservatives (Peston, 2015). Yet Labour seem to be determine to convince people that they are sticking to the Conservative austerity script, scrambling to offer confusing reassurances to critics regarding whether they will, or how they will, borrow for spending after 2015 (Eaton, 2014{1}; Hope, 2015).

But the pledge that best represents the problems with Labour's thinking heading into this election is its commitment to 'controls on immigration' - complete with its own mug (Perraudin, 2015). It is on immigration that Ed Miliband thinks his predecessors have gotten it most wrong. A look at their proposals is even more disconcerting for progressives. They place a heavy focus upon allowing the rich and influential to move how they like, while denying access to the poorest. For those already driven away from Labour by the party mimicking the Far-Right in their language on immigration during the Blair and Brown years, or those that agreed with Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems in their opposition to child detention, Labour is doing itself no favours (Hasan, 2014).

Their lurch to the Right on immigration is matched by the party's shift in position over welfare (Eaton, 2014{2}). The party's proposals include a 'return to the contributory principle', which would mean the introduction of further conditions for access to welfare (Byrne, 2012). Nowhere will that weight be felt more than by those aged Eighteen to Twenty-one (Wintour, 2014), who under Labour would have extra conditions, including means-testing, placed upon them at a time when unemployment amongst young people is already threateningly high all across Europe (Tse & Esposito, 2013). The fact is that those supportive of generally accessible welfare for those in need are fighting a losing battle against public opinion (The Guardian; 2014).

Commentators have for some time been calling for Labour to come out with a strong and hopeful, passionate progressive message (Jones, 2015) - but what they have gotten is at best pragmatism - and at worst a rather cynical appeasement of the Far Right.

All of it amounts to one painfully obvious thing. Labour just don't really seem to understand how to shake off the disaffection that saw Labour finally lose its majority in 2010.

For progressives, alarmed by austerity being driven by social conservatism, Labour - historically the party representative of the centre-left - aught to be the safe and obvious port of call. But the party has leaned so far to the Right, with so few concessions towards radical, socialist and liberal Left-wingers, that it is hard to see Miliband's Labour Party as much in the way of an alternative to the current coalition.

That reality is particularly sad because there are positive ideas out there, such as profit-sharing proposals from the party's partner Co-operative Party (Boffey, 2015). But they seem to have found little public traction in a Labour party that seems to be allergic to trying to reform their pro-establishment attitudes - and determination to siphon money out of corrupt institutions to remedy the wrongs they have caused, rather than attempting to reform them.

Much as the Conservatives are struggling just to consolidate their position, Labour too seem to be lacking a positive spark. The difference is that Labour should have everything going for them. They are the supposedly left-leaning opposition to a government imposing unpopular austerity. Their nearest competitor for left-leaning votes, the Liberal Democrats, have largely burned themselves out through coalition with the Conservatives.

And yet Labour seems incapable of taking the initiative. The fact is that the polling suggests they will lose votes and seats to other progressive parties, and pick up votes and seats from the governing parties - but that is unlikely to be thanks to anything more than a negative vote, a reaction against austerity - regardless of whether or not Labour actually intends to end austerity.

---

Prospects: 34% for 273 seats (a gain of 16).*

Possible Coalition Partners: SNP (51 seats), Liberal Democrats (28), SDLP (3), Green Party (1).

Verdict: While they can likely expect some voters to return to due to the party representing a historically symbolic vote against conservative austerity, Labour have yet to do enough to win back progressive voters who went away looking for better alternatives. Like the Tories, they will do well to simply consolidate their position.

---

Election 2015: The campaign has started on Labour's terms, but beneath the surface there are negative undertones

After the first not-debate of the 2015 UK election campaign, the Labour Party is probably feeling like it has had the best of the opening exchanges. But not everything smells of roses just yet.

During the not-debate Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, showed himself to be at least credible. Now the party has staked out its territory on the NHS by committing to restricting private company profits taken from NHS contracts and to the repeal of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Wintour, 2015{1}).

Furthermore, the Conservatives were forced to be defensive over leaks purporting to be their proposed welfare cuts for the next parliament (Wintour, 2015{2}) - which would involve the end of industrial injuries benefit (for £1bn), restrictions on child benefit (for £1bn), taxes on disability benefits (for £1.5bn), and reducing eligibility for carer's allowance (with 40% to lose out for £1bn).

The coverage of the leak largely overshadowed David Cameron's own announcement - accompanied by insults aimed at Labour, describing them as ''hypocritical holier-than-thou, hopeless, sneering socialists" (The Guardian, 2015) - to expand the NHS to a full-time 24/7 service (BBC, 2015{1}). He was hardly helped by a British Medical Association warning that an expansion of services would require extra funding (BBC, 2015{2}).

This will all have been precisely the start Labour will have wanted. Labour looking credible on the NHS, and the Tories looking nasty with their cuts agenda.

And yet. While everything may look rosy for Labour and progressives, there is a negative undertone bubbling away just beneath the surface.

Nowhere is that negativity shown best than in the debate on immigration. The latest outrage has come courtesy of the Labour Party itself. Diane Abbott, Labour MP, has expressed her anger at the party's merchandising of a 'Controls on Immigration' mug. The party is using it to promote one of its key election commitments, itself a platitude to cover themselves with voters for whom immigration is a concern (Perraudin, 2015).

The Labour Party's attitude on the matter of immigration shouldn't really be a surprise at this point. Their language during the European elections, at the possibility of a UKIP threat to its working class base, made clear their turn towards appeasement of anti-immigration rhetoric (Watt & Wintour, 2014; Cooper, 2014).

In many ways, Labour and the Conservatives have become mirrors of one another. Both have tried to court the voters of Britain's broad Centre-ground, and in doing so forsook some of their native territory - and they have both underestimated the level of resistance that they would face from their old, alienated, supporters who would refuse to move with them.

When the Conservatives couldn't keep their house in order while trying to modernise and claim centre voters it spawned an ugly offshoot. Those Right-wing voices have since been allowed to dictate the terms of the debate, and to tie together, in people's minds, their agendas with the insecurities people fear. The sad thing is that the solutions to insecurities of work, or to the lack of homes, are not to be reached by the Right's favoured response of shutting themselves in. There are far more open and progressive solutions.

A strong minimum wage and a citizen's income. House building and social housing. More money made available to the less well-off to create their own start-ups. More support and funding for workers to take over their workplaces as co-operatives when big companies pull the plug and reek havoc in communities. The publicly funded public healthcare system supported by health professionals and service users alike.

There is also support for these ideas. Labour, and the Greens and Lib Dems, are all on board with a rising minimum wage, with house building and with co-operatives. The three main parties of the left and centre are all half way there. All that tends to stand in the way is a commitment to an effective public sector, around which there might be an equitable redistribution of income for health & welfare, and for housing and public investment like co-operatives - whether centralised at Westminster or decentralised to regions and localities.

And yet. Once again Labour has found itself against a wall of public opinion and has not found a voice with which to cut through the propaganda. Instead, feeling weak and set upon, it has paid lip service.

Labour's health proposals are part of a similar theme. They have offered a check on privatisation which, by definition, precludes an end to PFIs (Private Finance Initiatives) in the NHS - which expanded first of all under Labour's stewardship (Dathan, 2015). While it would certainly raise more funds for the NHS, it is still only an attempt at making capitalism work for socialism - or at least democratic socialism - rather than a means of addressing or responding to the fundamental mistrust of private business becoming involved with public services.

Labour's attitude to healthcare and immigration are problems with a common root. On healthcare they have their same old idea - of using private investment to raise public funds - and are just looking for a new way to sell it to people redressed in new packaging. On immigration the party has a fairly positive core - one focussed on a minimum wage increase and working conditions - which it has now encased within a language and policies of anti-immigration scapegoating.

In each case, Labour has come to its own position but has not tried to win the debate over the fundamental ideas underlying them. They have merely looked for how they might sell the idea. That has produced the inconsistent result where the party has resisted public pressure to end NHS privatisation, and yet has caved to it on immigration.

Labour's mix of aloof policy-making and aggressive populism alienates them from the people they should be debating with, trying to convince them of the benefits of progressive alternatives. While the political Right scraps for dominance, Labour needs to wake up to the fact that the Left doesn't have to play the game the same way.

There is so much hunger on the Left for more engagement and less half measures. There is so much room for more co-operation, more optimism and more positivity. Diane Abbott speaking out against Labour's immigration policy is a positive constructive step. People are crying out for a radically positive vision and Labour, as the biggest party on the Left, have the responsibility to facilitate it.