Church and State: Archbishop leads Church of England into newly interventionist stance

In the past fortnight, the Archbishop Justin Welby has adopted a particularly outspoken stance. Unusually for the Church of England in recent times, Welby has taken a series of - very public - interventions in mainstream politics.

The trend was kicked off with the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report on economic justice, which called for greater public intervention and higher taxes on the rich, of which Welby was both a signatory and public advocate.

Next the Archbishop took the stage during the Trade Union Congress 150th anniversary conference, to give a speech in which he compared Jesus to trade unionists, favourably, and likened the mission of trade unions and Christians.

And then, finally, Welby announced that the Church was looking to financially intervene - the Church holding numerous major financial investment in a considerable portfolio - in the collapse of Wonga, a major pay day lender, in order to protect those with debts from being preyed upon.

As might be expected, these interventions have raised eyebrows and annoyed people on all sides of the political spectrum - from the The Guardian to The Telegraph. On the one hand a line was drawn between addressing spiritual need and addressing economic hardship, and which the Church of England should be concerning itself with. On the other hand it was felt that Welby had waded in with too crude and analysis. And there were, of course, the criticisms of the Church's own stake in Amazon - itself accused of workers rights violations and poor working conditions.

So what kind of active role can the Church play?

For secularists in Europe, there was a long fight to get the institutional powers, including the churches, out of the public business. In Britain, however, that was more muted struggle, as the Church largely stepped back in time with the Crown.

But the Anglican Church remains a State Church which still has a stake in political power and seats in the House of Lords - and an undemocratic say in political decisions. Then there is the issue of public funding for the Church's listed buildings.

In all, that makes for a complicated position from which to intervene in public life. As a kind of independent social enterprise, there is absolutely a role the Church could play - much as any other charity or civic body should have the right, and perhaps the responsibility, to speak up and contribute to the public discourse.

But the Church is not independent and that does need to be carefully weighed and considered.

For progressives, there is a dilemma when progressive ideas receive the support of a big establishment body. It is nice to hear that alternative ideas have made their way into the halls of power. But the establishment remains an impediment.

Achieving progressive change, pushing for an alternative, means at some point winning over the establishment. But eventually even the reformed establishment will need to be overhauled as well - and the State Church is about as establishment as you can get.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring sovereignty: Syria executive decision shows that restoring powers, a core Brexit promise, is less about Brussels than Cabinet government at Westminster

The central promise of Brexit was that it would restore the UK's sovereignty. That political process in Britain would be 'reclaimed', for the people. Yet the central organ of political sovereignty, Parliament, continues to be sidelined.

The executive decision by the Prime Minister to order the Syria strikes, without Parliamentary approval, shows we're still a long way from restoring Parliamentary Sovereignty. At Westminster, the centralisation of power is still the rule.

For years politicians of all stripes in Britain spun the illusion that Westminster was shackled. Europe, largely without a voice in the British political media, took the blame for the intractability of Westminster.

Saying goodbye to Brussels means it can no longer be used as an excuse. Politicians will need to either find a new scapegoat, or finally get on with much needed reform - like turning back the tide of centralisation, that has concentrated power and money in Britain a long, long way from the hands of the people.

Reluctance to reform remains. The Conservatives in government under Theresa May would rather use contemptible words like 'betray' about their opposition - officially titled, it should be noted, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition - and accuse them of 'doing down Britain' when they dare to criticise the government.

Brussels may be swapped out for a different scapegoat - whether it's Brexiters calling opponents 'enemies of the people' and 'undemocratic', or the Labour right-wing painting Corbyn, Momentum and the Left in much the same light - but the result is the same. The people are told: there is no alternative.

This is the theme behind all of the scapegoating. The centralising, globalising, marketising, status quo must continue. There is no alternative. In Europe or out, Westminster won't brook the fragmentation of the political power that keeps us on that path. It can't be considered, because the status quo might also fragment.

The decision to take military action without a Parliamentary debate is a whole matter unto itself. Two previous debates on bombing in Syria were split. Action against Assad was rejected in 2013, but action against Daesh was passed in 2015 - though not without criticism from the Foreign Affairs committee over the evidence base.

This time, the process was ignored - perhaps because it could not be counted on to give the 'right' answer. The dangers inherent to the choice to avoid a debate are real enough for the Syria issue alone - there is a clear consensus that military interventions come with substantial risk of creating ungoverned spaces that open the door organised criminals and terrorists.

But there is an underlying point of deep importance for Britain and the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Executive power was used and Parliament was left out of a critical decision - and with it, so too was democratic oversight. Again.

It is easy, and perhaps tempting for some, to pin this all on Theresa May. She has pursued a path in power of taking advantage of every executive privilege, every obscure power. She avoids oversight. Denies transparency, at every turn.

But Theresa May is a Prime Minister inheriting a system and exploiting it, working in a narrow political moment. The problem is bigger than her and is the legacy of her predecessors, with no distinction for parties and historical circumstances.

It does not bode well that Parliament again finds itself frozen out of a critical debate. The wielding of unchecked executive power is not the restoration of sovereignty. It is that from which sovereignty must be restored.