The Alternative Election 2019: The Labour Party, 'Real Change'

There are headline grabbing, radical changes in the Labour manifesto. And yet in some policy areas, like welfare, they're less progressive than the Lib Dems - that is the paradox long at the heart of the Labour Party, that will stay hard to challenge so long as they remain simply the best shot at ousting the Tories from government.

For Labour, their priority is how they are pitching to people that they can take back control of their lives. The starting point for that in the Labour manifesto is for the wealthiest, those earning more than £80,000, to pay more in tax and for the government to borrow a sum of around £500bn, at the historically low interest rates available, to fund some hugely transformative policies - including the ambition to "make Britain’s public services the best and most extensive in the world". 

How does Labour plan to do that?

Well, public ownership is a big feature of their manifesto. On that front, in all parts, this manifesto goes further than in 2017. From bus networks returning to public ownership, to rail as the franchises expire, to water and energy, and putting workers on company boards, this is a manifesto that wants to undo the privatisations overseen by the Tories in the 1970s and 1980s.

Together with a boost in priority for environmentalism, the twin themes of Public Ownership and Green Industry run through this manifesto, bleeding into most of the policy ideas and frequently being tied one to the other - expressing the idea that the profit motive is destructive to our community and environmental wellbeing.

You can see this in their response to the first of the key progressive priorities: addressing the climate crisis.

On the climate emergency, Labour are promising a Green Industrial Revolution. Of the £400bn that Labour is going to borrow to form it's National Transformation Fund, £250bn is to be directed to Green Transformation - with additional funding coming in the form of lending from the proposed National Investment Bank.

This plan, that appears to be founded entirely on borrowing and lending - with an unspecified amount coming from a windfall tax on oil companies - is how Labour intend to provoke a shift to renewable and low-carbon energy and transport, that delivers net-zero carbon emissions by the 2030s.

Part of the Labour plan to deliver this Green Revolution is to nationalise the energy companies. This goes a step further than what they offered in 2017 (a low-cost rival state-owned supplier), though how this will be funded is left to the reader's assumptions. Readers will likely infer that the money will come from the tax rises on the rich and the intended borrowing - though it is worth keeping in mind that with any nationalisation, the government gains an asset that may ultimately be able to pay for itself.

On health, cutting out private provision is the headline that fits the broader narrative of public control before private profits. Labour promise a 4.3% a year rise in the budget for the health sector - and clearly expect ending outsourcing to private providers to save a significant, if hard to verify, sum of cash to help fund ambitious promises.

There will also be a National Care Service for social care, although the specifics are lacking in the party manifesto - beyond the intention to impose a lifetime cap on personal care costs.

On education, the Labour contribution to the progressive spur of lifelong learning is the National Education Service. At it's core, it represents a massive recruitment drive, with huge numbers of new educators needed to deliver the expansive promises on everything from preschool to adult retraining. These plans come with a lifelong, entitlement to free training up to certain standards and the return of maintenance allowances.

However, the manifesto focuses more on criticising the state of education under the Tories, instead of actually clarifying the detail of changes or how any of this will be paid for - beyond, it is assumed again, that this falls under what Labour hope to pay for with it's tax rise on the richest.

The theme of public ownership is present here too, as Labour promise to abolish tuition fees and engage in a clampdown on private schools - even going so far as to look into integrating them into the comprehensive education system.

Public ownership runs into housing too, as Labour are saying they will build 150,000 social rent homes a years - 100,000 council homes and 50,000 housing association - by the end of a five-year Parliament. And the party commitment to reducing energy consumption, and thus energy bills, by making homes to a greener standard keeps the key Labour themes entwined.

Conclusions

The theme of public ownership and green revolution run through these plans. They are the foundation for an, at times, deeply radical offering.

But there are flaws. The focus on simply undoing the Tories destructive welfare plans, results in Labour offering what is ultimately a less progressive than pitch for welfare reform that what the Lib Dems have offered.

On welfare, however, Labour are promising to run a basic income trial - which is a welfare policy with revolutionary potential should it be implemented, and implemented well.

And then there is the wider context. Labour and Jeremy Corbyn in particular have been besieged by the right-wing press and have found themselves unable to wade out of the antisemitism scandal in which they have sunk.

And Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn wants to stand neutral on the matter, taking no side in a second referendum between whatever he can negotiate in Brussels and the choice to cancel Brexit and remain in the EU.

The reality, however, is that for voters the controversies and flaws will simply play a part in a sadly two-dimensional election fight.

Rather than choosing between nationalisation and privatisation, or between radical funding boosts and more austerity, it's likely people will choose between whether they can tolerate more Tory government or can take a chance on what may seem like drastic change.

The fight between Labour and the Tories, Corbyn vs Boris, will dominate the election - and which of them you don't want to win will probably dominate your voting strategy, in a very tactical battle.

A deficit of leadership in Britain, where compromise is a dirty word

May and Corbyn, two leaders trapped by their unwillingness to compromise.

Parliament returns to sitting this week after the Summer Recess. Barely is the week underway and the sheer lack of effective political leadership is again on display. In her latest attempt at stamping some authority on proceedings, this weekend Prime Minister Theresa May announced that she was taking a stance of "No Compromise" with the European Union on Brexit.

This is an extraordinary thing for a Prime Minister to say about a negotiation - not least a negotiation with an ally, to work out a positive future relationship. Where is the leadership is no existent vetos? Theresa May's "We shall not budge" attitude serves no purpose in a two-way negotiation - especially not when the 'No Deal' outcome is so filled with uncertainty and tipped towards unfavourable outcomes.

Yes, leaders need to stand up for the wellbeing of their communities. To represent their views and their wants. But that also means sitting down with the representatives of other communities to find common ground. How can that be done without compromise?

This isn't the first time that Conservative leaders have waded into these waters. David Cameron tried to veto a European Union decision during his tenure and they simply carried on the conversation without the UK. Yet it speaks to the deficit of effective leadership in politics in Britain that Theresa May's Premiership goes on without effective challenge - a deficit both within her party and across on the opposition benches.

Which brings us to Jeremy Corbyn. It's hard to write a long hard sigh into an article.

The anti-semitism scandal is drawing some stark lines, producing some very divisive responses. Leaving aside the questions over the validity and seriousness, and the origin, of the accusations - which range in people's perceptions from legitimate outrage by nervous communities, to opportunistic misrepresentation by disgruntled factions - there has been no redress.

What is unarguable is that Corbyn has not handled the accusations and the barrage of press. Neither well, nor poorly. He just hasn't handled it. He has an ongoing approach to the media of non-engagement. That is a part of his leadership - a rejection of a mistrusted mass media. But all the Corbyn leadership has done is vacate the space. They haven't sidelined it.

Labour has distinct internal divisions and opponents of Corbyn's leadership keep finding mud to sling - or, perhaps, stories that look enough like mud. And every media space the Labour leadership leaves vacant,  is another waiting to be filled by those driving a wedge into the party.

It is a game they don't want to play, and it is possible to appreciate why, but politics isn't just about what you believe - in some raw statement of ideology. It is also about what you are seen to believe. And this second one is that which people frequently remember, and shapes the headlines they read - the breaking news that hits their feeds, which they see but don't read.

On both sides there is an unwillingness to compromise. An unwillingness to take a seat at the table and play the game. Yes the game is treacherous and probably rigged. But refusing to engage does nothing. Refusal just leaves the game just as it is. Refusal to lose prevents any chance of winning.

In isolation lies only ruin and hollow honour.

The Opposition: The progressive parties have begun to look outwards again, but cooperation is still far away

The opening fortnight of Britain's political conference season was all about the opposition. First the Liberal Democrats and then the Labour Party took their turns to gather, talk policy and present their priorities to the country.

There were two notable currents: the first was a focus on calling out others for their failings, rather than presenting plans that can fix those problems; the second was the lack of some common progressive goodwill.

The Liberal Democrat conference came first. The most prominent product was the acceptance by leader Vince Cable, on behalf of the party, that they must do right by students, with a plan now in the works to back a graduate tax to replace tuition fees.

That aside, the Lib Dem conference was policy light. The focus turned instead to establishing who the party opposes, which it turns out is a long list - and included Jeremy Corbyn and the supposed 'hard left' that surround him.

What Cable did however do, was put forward an outline of a government committed to the fair taxation of wealth, to public & private sector cooperation, and a government prepared to intervene to correct market failures - laying out a centre-left stance for the Lib Dems that leaves plenty of room for progressive cooperation.

The Labour conference provided a little more in the way of policy. However, the announcements didn't stretch far beyond the limits of the 2017 manifesto. John McDonnell said that Labour intend to tackle PFI and end it's siphoning of public sector resources.

There was also a plan announced to tackle credit card debt, along the same lines as pay day loans - by capping the maximum interest that can be accrued on debts owed.

In his leader's speech, Jeremy Corbyn followed Cable's lead and had criticism for many - including the right-wing press and the US President. He said that the country had become more brutal and less caring under this Conservative 'regime'.

Corbyn too stated values on which progressives can work together. On froeign policy, Corbyn argued that rhetoric must be wound down, that dialogue must be opened, that peace must be pursued and cooperation must be at the heart. He argued that the British values of democracy and human rights could be deployed selectively.

However, the leader speeches of both Corbyn and Cable focused on laundry lists of people deserving criticism. Cable even took shots at Corbyn and his leadership, criticising the 'hard left' drift of the Labour Party under the long time Islington North MP.

Corbyn didn't bother to mention the Lib Dems, but - from Labour's point of view - that's hardly a surprise. Labour still see the Lib Dems as rivals and, at present, vanquished rivals that are beneath their notice.

The continued lack of some sort of common goodwill between progressive parties is disappointing, though not surprising. No one ever said that building a progressive alliance would be easy. But taking shots at each other is a waste of breath.

It is also doubly negative. On the one hand it serves to divide opposition to the Tories. While on the other it also ignores how close on policy the two largest (historical) progressive parties are to one another.

The division between their manifestos in 2017 was as just thin as it has been since the 1920s. The Liberal Democrats and Labour pursue similar goals and even take a similar economic approach, rooted in Keynesian thinking.

Herein lies the fundamental problem of the left: the inability to prioritise what we have in common, over what would be a cause for division - a failure to develop a dialogue that allows for dissent to live alongside cooperation.

It is good to see the opposition parties looking outward again, rather than turning in on themselves. The narrative around Corbyn has already begun to shift, to morph into something that accepts him, and crafts a place for the movement in the conventional order.

However, the long term future of the left, of progressive politics, lies in building dialogue. And, hopefully, upon that foundation then cooperation and ultimately an alliance between progressives.

General Election 2017 - Labour Manifesto: Stepping up the role of the public sector

Labour's manifesto, For The Many, Not The Few, proposes a major rethink of the role of the public sector.

At the core of Labour's 2017 manifesto is the role of the public sector. It has a place at the centre of all the party's ideas on how to rebalance Britain's economy.

Labour has promised to be "radical and responsible", to end the years of austerity but to do it "within our means", to address a "growing sense of anxiety and frustration. For the Labour leadership, as represented in this manifesto, that means rethinking the government's approach to public and private, and to restore the public element.

That puts Labour in stark contrast with the Conservatives, and fundamentally questions the government's approach - that would strip away the public in favour of the private. As Labour announced its plans in parts over the past couple of years, there was a surge of criticism for the idea of any policy that would see more public spending. The austerity thinking that public debt, government debt, is a burden that must be lessened has been wielded against Labour at every turn.

There remains a strong current, despite the slow discrediting of austerity economics, that clings to a fawning infatuation with the idea that public debt, not underinvestment, will blight the future and that the market is the great innovator. But, as the economist Mariana Mazzucato has argued, this is at best a half-truth.

In reality, public sector plays the role of innovator and risk taker, not just shaping markets but opening them. Meanwhile, private actors are aggressively risk averse, even stifling innovation, all while opportunistically exploiting the publicly-funded advances - taking the credit and returning little of the wealth created.

A New Public Role

This Labour manifesto seizes upon that idea: an innovative public sector that can take the initiative and intervene, without overbearing state management, to invest and promote growth and support innovation in the name of the common good.

It proposes a National Transformation Fund, for instance, that will invest £250 billion over ten years in improving the country's infrastructure, aimed at promoting and speeding along future economic growth. It pledges improvements to transport links, for renewable and low carbon energy, and an industrial strategy that invests in creating and enabling a high-skill economy.

And, of course, there are the pledges to 'renationalise' energy, rail and water. Having come upon this word, a moment needs to be taken to reiterate something. The word 'renationalise' has been used for Labour's plans, but isn't entirely accurate. The Left (as a positive) and the Right (as a negative) have both used the word, but to be clear: Labour's plans don't propose costly industry takeovers by the state.

Remember: state-ownership is just one form of public-ownership, but it is not the only form. There are municipal, community and co-operative models that are also public options that do not require or propose centralised state management - whether you think that would be a good thing or too overbearing and inefficient.

As for the cost of 'renationalisation'? Well, a rail franchise will lapse at no cost and new public rail and energy companies, while requiring startup, would have the capacity to be self-supporting. In short, 'nationalisation' is a crudely charged word that hides a lot of potential nuance.

In Labour's actual manifesto, the focus is on democratic ownership of the economy. For instance, the party propose a "right to own" policy that makes "employees the buyer of first refusal". So when the party says it wants publicly-owned regional water companies, there is scope to think co-operative and community, rather than state.

As for rail returning to public ownership: it's already publicly-owned. It's just franchised out in pieces for companies to turn a profit from it. Returning these franchises on expiry is not a major outlay, though it could take time, and they could become self-supporting, employee-run services rather than being state-run.

Likewise, the party's plan for public energy is much smaller in scale than the 'renationalised' headlines suggest. Rather than wholesale takeovers, Labour have announced their intention to set up local, decentralised, publicly-owned energy companies to compete with the big energy corporations and lower prices.

The new role for the public sector doesn't end there. The party propose a National Investment Bank, that will work with private investors, to make £250 billion available to lend to "small business, co-operatives and innovative projects" across Britain - offering "patient, long-term finance to R&D-intensive investments".

The NIB's work in getting credit flowing again may be assisted by breaking up the publicly-owned RBS into a series of smaller, "local public banks" - pending a consultation on the proposal.

In housing, there is a public role too. Half of the one million new homes that Labour are promising will be housing association and council homes for affordable rents, promises the manifesto - with higher standards being set for the quality of homes.

The clear purpose behind this is to restore a sense of social security and of communities owned by the people who live in them.

That is why a rethought public role goes hand-in-hand with promises of new rights and protections for renters, a National Education Service that brings childcare, comprehensive education and free higher and further education under one coordinated heading, putting more funding into social care, and taking steps to protect workers by tackling insecure and precarious jobs.

It also chimes well with the proposal to make active use of the national and local spending on procurement of services from the private sector. That means using a bill amounting to £200 billion a year to promote, and invest in, good jobs based in local economies at businesses run to high standards.

A £10 living wage, four more bank holidays, increased paid paternity leave and more secure contracts at work, indicate an intention to create a less precarious everyday environment. While funding ten thousand more police officers and strengthening laws around domestic violence and violence against women and girls, demands that these rebuild communities be safe spaces.

There is even a nod to restoring some judicial oversight to investigatory powers - though the word 'surveillance' does not appear - to ensure than individual rights and civil liberties are not weakened.

And the NHS, Labour's crown jewel, will also see a large injection of new money. The party's plan involves additional funding of more than £30 billion into the service "over the next Parliament", with the NHS also benefiting from the National Transformation Fund to make much needed upgrades to buildings and equipment.

To put Labour's ideas into action will require funding. Te main source for Labour promises will be a tax rise for only the top five percent of earners, all earning over £80,000. There will be higher corporation tax, with small businesses protected by a lower rates and less frequent paperwork.

In all these measures are estimated to raise the extra £50 billion the party needs for it's policies - though the IFS stresses that some of that is conditional on somewhat unpredictable factors.

There is one glaring ommission: the absence of a pledge to end the Tory working age benefit freeze, which has led to deep cuts with further restrictions to come. With the deep impact that welfare cuts have already made it is a remarkable gap.

At the manifesto launch, ITV's Robert Peston raised this point. He asked Jeremy Corbyn why, when there is clear evidence of the coming impact, that ending the welfare freeze isn't mentioned. It isn't in the manifesto, but Corbyn responded that there will be a review of the situation and there will be no benefits freeze. But the lack of costing here is notable.

There are provisions, though, to repeal cuts to the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), implement the court decision on Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) to protect those with mental health conditions, scrap the Bedroom Tax, scrap the sanctions regime and restore housing benefit for young people.

The Co-operative Party

And let's not forget that Labour is part of a century-long electoral pact with the Co-operative Party, with whom it stands joint candidates. Running and sitting as Labour and Co-operative Party, or Labour Co-op for short, the alliance has had and continues to have a number of well known MPs, such as Ed Balls, Gareth Thomas and Stella Creasy.

In addition to the Labour manifesto that these candidates will be judged against, the Co-op Party has also published its own priorities. These include expanded detail on both employees and consumers having a place in the shake-up of boardrooms, more localism and public services and utilities that are tied closer to their communities.

But there is very much something for the co-operative movement in the Labour manifesto. Along with backing for more democratic public ownership, there is a commitment to doubling the size of the co-operative sector with targeted investment - matching a Co-op Party aim.

In fact, there is a strong sense of the co-operative movement and of co-operative influence running right through the Labour Manifesto proposals. Everywhere the new role for the public sector come appended with 'local', 'regional' and 'democratic'.

Progressive Alliance

This election will not be, however, be a straight contest between the Conservatives and Labour. So the question is, what crossover is there between Labour and the other progressive parties on policy?

Well, there are plenty of crossovers, though cooperation at the party level will be unlikely. The leadership has made it's position clear and that sticks to Labour's longstanding attitude that it alone is the progressive party of Britain and everyone should rally to its standard.

There are, of course, also issues of disunity behind the scenes within the Labour Party itself - never mind between parties. There are many an "independent-minded" Labour MP who in 2017 are standing virtually as independents, disavowing Corbyn, and they look like they may finally be ready to split away - perhaps even to form a new party.

On one level, it might actually be a breath of fresh air, perhaps even making it easier for the two groups to work together in a more amicable fashion. But Labour's relationship with the Co-op Party and with trade unions could make a split a bit messy. And the party's legacy is something over which fights have been bitter.

However - all of the factionalism aside - on housing, on tax, on welfare and healthcare, there are plenty of crossovers and a lot of compatibility to be found between the Left and Centre parties.

For housing, their is a common consensus that Britain needs more homes that are more affordable, and that renters need far more protection and longer term contracts. Both Liberals and Greens match Labour in these ambitions.

As for public utilities, even the Liberal Democrats - seen by some on the Left as too far to the economic Right - maintain a strong vein of support for co-operatives and democratic ownership.

Local, community-owned utilities are no hard Left socialist experiment (as the Right would demonise it). They're a tried and tested system, with broad progressive support and proof of results.

And on health and social care there is broad support both for reversing Tory cuts and for taxation to pay for increased spending - which includes restoring dignity in welfare for people with disabilities and difficulties both physical and mental.

For a grassroots progressive alliance to work, voters need to be able to find common cause across party lines. Labour's pitch is clearly anti-austerity, clearly wishes to restore the public sector, and clearly wants the rich to pay a fair share.

Whether you like Jeremy Corbyn or not, there are plenty of reasons in this manifesto for progressives to vote Labour. But perhaps of more importance, there is plenty to make voting tactically for Labour more than palatable.

References

'For the many, not the few: The Labour Party Manifesto 2017 - A manifesto for a better, fairer Britain'; from the Labour Party; as of 16 May 2017.

'General election 2017: Corbyn launches Labour manifesto'; on the BBC; 16 May 2017.

Mariana Mazzucato's 'Let's rethink the idea of the state: it must be a catalyst for big, bold ideas'; in The Guardian; 15 December 2013.

'General election 2017: Labour pledges to build 1m new homes'; on the BBC; 27 April 2017.

Shehab Khan's 'Labour to pledge an additional £37 billion of funding for the NHS: Jeremy Corbyn is hoping to improve A&E performances and take one million patients off NHS waiting lists'; in The Independent; 15 May 2017.

'General election: Labour's '£7.4bn a year extra for NHS''; on the BBC; 15 May 2017.

Jessica Elgot & Peter Walker's 'Labour looks at new tax bracket for those earning £80k-£150k: Shadow chancellor says highest increases would be for top 1%, and only top 5% of earners would face rise'; in The Guardian; 7 May 2017.

'Labour manifesto: Extra £48.6bn in tax revenue to fund pledges'; on the BBC; 16 May 2017.

Stuart Adam, Andrew Hood, Robert Joyce & David Phillips' 'Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals'; from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS); 16 May 2017.

Robert Peston's 'Will Labour end the benefits freeze? Corbyn says yes - and no'; on ITV; 16 May 2017.

'A Co-operative Plan for a Britain Where Power and Wealth are Shared: The Co-operative Party’s policy platform for the 2017 General Election'; from the Co-operative Party; as of 16 May 2017.

Paul Mason's 'It’s now clear what Corbynism represents – so what does the centre do next? Labour’s new manifesto is popular on the doorsteps and in the polls, and may accelerate the creation of a new party and new alliances'; in The Guardian; 15 May 2017.

'General Election 2017 - Housing: There is a progressive consensus that Britain needs more homes and more protection for renters'; in The Alternative; 15 May 2017.

Labour policies are popular, but party must still win back confidence on economy

Labour policies are popular and Corbyn is no hindrance to that, but the party must still win back public confidence on the economy if it is to mount serious opposition, let alone return to government.

With the local elections coming up, the Labour Party has made use of the Easter break to make a series of policy announcements in an effort to take back control over its image. Under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, a hostile relationship with the media has made it hard for the party to put across what it stands for to the public.

The way Corbyn has chosen to try and cut through to the public has been to roll out a few major promises. The party has pledged to deliver a £10 minimum wage, universal free school meals and raise standards for the £200 billion the government, central and local, spends on commissioning and procurement in the private sector (Eaton, 2017; Ashmore, 2017).

Yet, if Corbyn is going to breakthrough and recover public confidence in the Labour Party, damaged long before he became leader, he has one main task: he must win the argument on the economy. His problem is the party remain divided on whether that means regaining trust as the credible stewards of the neoliberal economy, or to change minds and develop something new.

The policies Labour proposed have been, on the whole, welcomed by the Centre-Left press (Eaton, 2017; Slawson, 2017; Lister, 2017) and a ComRes poll showed that Labour's Easter announcements were very popular - even when people knew they were Corbyn's policies (Cowburn, 2017). All around, two weeks used well by the party.

However, the poll also highlighted something important. When asked how they regarded the longer standing Labour plans for a National Investment Bank, funded to the tune of £350 billion by the treasury, the response was much more unsure. Herein lies a problem that speaks to the absolute crux of the dispute between the factions within the Labour Party.

The austerity narrative, sown deeply into the public consciousness by the Conservatives after they came to power in 2010, has firmly established the idea that money is short. Further, the Tories pushed hard to make a link between the shortage and Labour's spending in government.

That narrative created a presentation problem for Labour. Whenever Labour pitches a policy that involves spending, they play right into a Right-wing narrative of frivolous profligate - as seen by Theresa May responding to Corbyn's policy pitches with her standard line that Labour will 'bankrupt Britain' (Eaton, 2017).

To this point, Labour hasn't helped itself. In the past five years the party has veered between doubling down on meeting Tory policy pledges, point for point and pound for pound even when it comes to cuts, to promising big uncosted spending - or criticising the Tories for underspending without a costed alternative.

For instance, while the £10 minimum wage will only be a pound more what the Tories will be offering come 2020, there was no breakdown as to how the increased costs would be handled. There will be more pressure on the community & voluntary sector, on social care that is already stretched and on small businesses and low pay employers, to name but a few.

Will there be increased spending to further fund the social sector to cover the costs? Will there be tax cuts for business to protect low-paid work? Where will the money be found to fund these? From increased taxes on the rich that the party has been criticised for mentioning in connection with a whole range of spending proposals?

These questions need to be asked, because at present the collective public consciousness still appears to accept the core of the austerity narrative on economics: that government money is limited, that a government siphons from society when it spends, and that borrowing is a reckless alternative.

And yet, the argument for austerity is weakening. Every day some new story emerges that exposes a little more of its cruel impact - and that impact is starting to be felt by the middle class and not just the poorest. Ahead of the Labour Party is a choice and its different factions need to unite behind one or the other.

To remain hitched to neoliberalism as well-meaning and trusted stewards or to fight for a new narrative that isn't shaped by the Right-wing press. Either way, it is a fight it must win - because while the ComRes poll from the weekend suggests that Corbyn is not the problem he has been cast as, Labour still sit 21 points behind the Conservatives (The Independent, 2017).

There are people searching fora working opposition and, right now, Labour is the second largest party. A progressive movement cannot function without them. Labour doesn't have to do it alone, but as the loudest voice it must start making itself heard - and start setting the tone of economic debate.

Social Security: Winter is coming and the Government appears content to leave the ramparts unguarded

A homeless encampment in Manchester last year, one of the signs of the growing strain on Britain's social security safety net. People are falling through the system into poverty.

The first signs are appearing of the hard times ahead, forecast by the Autumn Statement. It has been less than a week since the Government announced its budget priorities and already it is under pressure over the gaps in social security created by the lower funding brought by six years of austerity.

People are falling through the cracks because, from social care to free school meals, the safety net is becoming porous. In some areas, people don't know they have a right to support and in others there simply aren't places for them in programmes.

At the root of these issues is funding. In their quixotic crusade to tackle public spending, that they sees as an unnecessary waste, the Conservatives have chipped, slashed and removed whole sections of Britain's social security safety net.

As Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has pointed out, the Conservatives have slashed spending even where spending would ultimately save far more money in the long run than cuts will. The onward rumbling housing crisis has proven particularly expensive for the Government.

As a result of a failure to build new social housing, and the determined sell-off of present stock, far more is spent on Housing Benefit to keep people in more expensive, and often less satisfactory, private rented accommodation.

Investing funds in social housing could, in fact, drastically reduce the housing benefit bill, by perhaps billions, all while tackling one of Britain's a major infrastructural problem. The key that the Conservative seem to be missing is the vital role to be played by smart spending.

The Conservatives have certainly tried to portray themselves as embracing the idea of smart spending. When it comes to funds, the Government has been keen to say that it has extended certain tax raising powers to local government to cover the increased cost of social care. And the Prime Minister continues to repeat the '£10bn for the NHS' figure.

Yet their claims are belied by reality. The £10bn figure has been debunked and its continued use criticised. The extra funding for social care, the Social Care Precept - that lets local government keep a 2% greater share council tax receipts - has been dismissed as wholly inadequate. The Chancellor pledge in invest in infrastructure resulted in just 40,000 new homes being promised.

There is even talk today of the pension age being pushed back again. Even as the living standards of all workers, especially the most vulnerable, continue to fall, the Government still whittles away at the public sector and turns to the market.

Winter is coming and the Government appears content to leave the ramparts unguarded - believing perhaps that people should secure their own fences in a market for social security. That is a plan that progressives should comprehensively reject.

Prioritising opportunities for the affluent and thrusting over security for the vulnerable isn't just unethical and economically unsound, its also a social disaster waiting to happen.

It is the very thing that feeds the desperation, that in turn feeds the far right. The neoliberalism of the Centre-Right is laying the shaky foundations of its own collapse.

So what does that leave for progressives to do? Yanis Varoufakis has put it the simplest: first, stabilise and save what we can of value in the present system, and second, develop a real, working and unifying alternative. The costs of letting the house of cards fall - personally, socially, economically - are just far too high to do otherwise.

Labour Leadership: Corbyn returns to the leadership but party still at an impasse as Labour Right remain defiant

Jeremy Corbyn speaking at a CWU event at Manchester Cathedral in October 2015.

On Saturday, Jeremy Corbyn started his second term as leader of the Labour Party. And yet, despite a second large popular vote victory - actually increasing his already considerable mandate - the Labour Right has already marked out their territory.

Even the night before the vote, Labour MPs where making demands. Amongst them, a demand for shadow cabinet roles that have joint policy setting power with the leader (Sparrow, 2016) and for arbitrary deadlines for leadership reviews that will effectively keep Corbyn on permanent probation (Asthana & Mason, 2016).

For Corbyn's part, he accepted his new mandate with a conciliatory speech. He said it was time to wipe the slate clean, to put aside things said in the heat of the contest and strongly denounced hostility and bullying. He called Labour the 'engine of progress' and called for unity around what the party's factions have in common.

Despite paying lip service, the Labour Right has, from the beginning, resisted Corbyn and sought every means of undermining him. And all the while it has demanded that Corbyn must compromise - which, from their attitude, can only be interpreted as saying Corbyn must do things their way.

To be fair, the leadership of Corbyn certainly has plenty of issues - but none of them really offer the Right of the Labour Party any reflected glory.

Corbyn has displayed poor media strategy - which isn't about playing the media's rigged game, but reaching out to the broader public with a coherent message and making a connection (Jones, 2015; Jones, 2016); and, as Billy Bragg expressed concern, there is a worry that he, and the Labour Party as a whole, are offering 20th century solutions to 21st century problems (Bragg, 2016) - expressed not least in Corbyn's embrace of his party's standard issue rejection of pluralism, saying no to the prospect of a broad progressive alliance.

However, while Corbyn may very well not be the party's saviour, Labour without him has nothing constructive to say. All there has been is whinging, that turns quickly into very public tantrums at the slightest provocation - and even without.

There isn't even any particular effort being made to engage with the positives of Corbyn's short tenure. Rallies where tens of thousands turn up to see Corbyn speak and a tremendous increase in membership and engagement - these things are readily dismissed, when they should be engaged with and used as a platform to reach out into communities.

Trying to reduce support for Corbyn to a 'personality cult', even making comparisons to the supporters of Donald Trump (Manson, 2016), is malicious, untrue and counter productive. It blatantly ignores the fact that many of Corbyn's more militant supporters are part of a long ignored faction and are rallying to support and defend their besieged leader, who's public role represents their fragile reemergence.

It is also to act, untruthfully, as if militant ideologists are a thing that has never otherwise existed, is an invention of Corbyn and the Labour Left, and don't form a loud minority of EVERY political movement. The only difference for New Labour or the Conservatives is that their ideologues wear suits and wield greater media savvy - not to mention both connections and influence.

The Labour Right has, from the beginning, fought Corbyn beyond all reason, sense and seemingly self awareness, undermining at every opportunity - crushing their own party's steadily recovering polling just to take a poorly organised shot at toppling him. All the while, they have failed to make any kind of constructive case for how the leadership should be done differently.

As a challenger, Owen Smith offered practically the same policies. He merely stood as not-Corbyn - an embarrassing revelation of the Labour Right's apparent reduction of all the party's problems to be the result of one old democratic socialist and nothing to do with New Labour alienating most of the country.

And now that their latest, large and embarrassing effort to oust him has failed, they're wedged deeply into a corner. How, after such a deep and prolonged an attack on Corbyn's competence, can they proclaim to the public that they stand behind him?

The next move on that front, from a purely practical viewpoint, is an opportunity for Corbyn to take the initiative. To make symbolic gestures of addressing concerns about his poor approach to the media, for example, so that recalcitrant MPs can say their fears have been allayed and so save face - that is, if he really wishes to lead Labour as the broad socialist-moderate alliance it has historically been.

The only other options appear to be continued destructive civil war, that will simply scorch the earth of the Labour brand completely and render it worthless to anyone, or for one or both factions to leave the party - likely the Right, with the party staying in the hands of the significant emergent Left-wing, socialist and radical democratic, faction of which Corbyn is but the face.

As for Labour's future electoral chances? To say that Corbyn and the Left-wing cannot win is to negate entirely the point of party politics. A party organises around a set of common values and seeks to convince the public of their importance.

The reach elected office, a party must find a way of reaching people who do not know, or currently share share, their values and secure their good will. To suggest it is impossible to convince is to say there is now point to holding a dissenting view, or moving in anyway not driven by the crowd.

If a party isn't to stand with a set of ideals, that inform an attitude to policy-making, then there seems little point to having a party. To say - as Labour MPs have - that the party's duty is just to represent the electorate, is not an argument for how to run a party. It is an argument against party politics.

To run an organised party on the basis of just reflecting your constituency's views, is to run a populist machine designed only for grabbing power - turning constituents into passive actors rather than representing them, and alienating them from power.

For the part of the Labour Right, this is just a deeply-ingrained pragmatic reaction to the iniquities of the present electoral system. At every turn there are conflicts of interest that reduce accountability. An MP cannot be held to their manifesto if they must also represent constituents that didn't vote for them - and if they do, thousands of voices are excluded.

The trouble is that playing the game well, within the iniquitous system, produces power. And that is a seductive lure. However, to express a possibly minority and dissenting view, is not supposed to be about 'winning' power. It is supposed to be about representation.

Politics is supposed to be party candidates, representing the full spectrum of beliefs, being sent by their voting supporters as the people's representatives to an assembly where together they will build a consensus. Where they will build an inclusive compromise that reflects the country as a whole. It is not supposed to be about one party supplanting the system itself, to seize power by convincing enough people it is alive to all of their prejudices.

Adversarial politics offers power at a price. That price is currently tearing the Labour Party in two. One solution is to embrace pluralism, with a number of separate parties with common ideals are willing to cooperate - not least to create a more representative and less alienating system.

However, the most likely (and classic) compromise between the party's factions will be a middle ground between the Left's ideals and the Right's demand for 'electability'. The faction that Corbyn figureheads can achieve that - and success heals rifts faster than anything else in politics.

And yet, this inward-gazing uncooperative party-first attitude, that burns within both Left and Right factions, is unhelpful. While to the two groups squabble over power within and for the party, a plural society goes unrepresented and alienated.

Corbyn wins by default in first Labour leadership debate, Smith needs to be clearer: what makes him a better leader?

Jeremy Corbyn faced his challenger Owen Smith for the first time at the Cardiff Hustings on Thursday night. Photograph: Corbyn speaking in Manchester in October 2015.

Last night, Cardiff hosted the first hustings of the Labour leadership contest. Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith took to the stage to answer the write in questions and debate one another on their positions. The debate itself didn't offer much separation between the two candidates, a task made particularly difficult when they continuously agreed with each other all night.

The first question of the night was perhaps the most poignant. Are you the candidate Theresa May least wants to face at an election?

Owen Smith opened the night, saying he believed that Labour needed to offer a more vigorous opposition. But he wasn't particularly clear how he'd offer that. Corbyn defended his work so far, saying he had changed PMQs, to end the 'public school theatre' and bring PM under more public scrutiny - using methods like questions from the public.

However, Smith pointed to the low polling numbers that Labour have posted in the past month to say the party has fallen behind under Corbyn's leadership. Corbyn responded by stressing all the progress the party has made, winning at the local elections, and turns the point on its head to says that the fall in the polls was caused by MPs resignations that have disunified the party and damaged its image.

Smith seemed to take that as a personal slight saying hadn't been part of any coup and instead went to Corbyn looking for a way forward, but was disillusioned by his answers. Smith emphasises that he is running to prevent the party from splitting, that he wants unity, but Corbyn simply asks when then did he quit the Shadow Cabinet?

The audience had been fairly controlled up until this point, reserving just small applause for the answers they agreed with. However, it didn't take long for tensions to rise. When the subject party disunity arose, it was Owen Smith who bore the brunt of heckling, although he handled it well.

Corbyn responded to Smith's interpretation of events, saying that Smith cannot deny that his #ShadowCabinet reached out well beyond his own ideological positions - clear a call from Corbyn beyond the audience out to MPs to recognise that it is they that needs to meet him halfway.

The current leader made repeated reference, to highlight the fact, to how he has worked with others across the party, in particular Owen Smith himself, to fight the Tories. He also took a slight stab at Smith, saying he was glad to see the party in harmony on policy, as Owen Smith's policy announcements were all previously announced Corbyn & McDonnell policies.

Smith took the opportunity to suggest that Corbyn was very much in the back seat on those issues, like welfare, on which he was the true leader. He used lots of "I" and "me", saying "It was me" that took on the Tories on Welfare. Corbyn's response to that was short and crisp: "It was your job".

Next up where back-to-back questions on economics for the candidates. First: What is your Industrial Strategy for making UK competitive?

Corbyn pitched his National Infrastructure Bank and how it might stimulate and rebuild the British economy - investing in education, to develop skills, and investing in well paying jobs. He stressed that it would be British workers skills & innovation that would make the UK a global competitor.

Smith called for reindustrialisation. He pointed to Germany as an example that the Thatcherite, and he admits Labour, policy of deindustrialising the UK was wrong. He argued that the UK could return to being an industrial and manufacturing centre that can provide good jobs and can still compete globally.

The second part of the economic double-header was to ask the candidates what they will do to show voters the party was fiscally credible.

Corbyn says the simple key to credibility was to spend sensibly, starting with smart public investment. As an example he points to the madness of pouring money into the hands of private landlords through housing benefit rather than addressing the core problem by building more social housing.

Smith said, categorically that Tory austerity has failed, having promised not to leave debts to our grandchildren and instead doubling the national debt. He stresses that the anti-austerity position, with public investment, is real path to credibility.

He infers, but doesn't actually say, a line he has been trying out recently - ditching the language of protest, of being against, as in anti-austerity, in favour of a positive position, as in pro-prosperity.

Both candidates comment on their similar pitch and emphasise their agreement. But Owen Smith returns to main question, which he hammers ever more as the evening goes on: who is the candidate most likely to convince the voters of these ideas in the key constituencies like Nuneaton?

The only matter on which the two took truly separate positions on the night was on trident. Corbyn received a big ovation for his opposition to Trident renewal. Corbyn stance was clear, that barbaric nuclear weapons offer no solution to the security concerns of the modern day and diminish our international standing.

Smith made the case to the room for multilateral disarmament. Smith argued that none of the 'great powers', amongst whom he sits the UK, is listening to, and following the example of, those who disarm unilaterally.

Smith said that he felt unilateralism was idealistic but naive. That unilateral disarmament put aside responsibility to lead the campaign for global disarmament - for which it was necessary to go the table with something in hand. For his part, Smith was clear that this was simply a difference of opinion, with room for different views.

The candidates fell back into agreement on immigration, both agreeing that it was positive and arguing that the pressures that people feel it is applying were the result of poor support for local government. For both the answer was proper local funding and local investment.

Smith and Corbyn also agreed that putting limits or caps on immigration are not the solution. Smith added that Tories proved that putting finite numbers on immigration doesn't work, while Corbyn argued that the humanitarian way to manage European migration was to work on getting conditions more equal across Europe.

The next question, on anti-Semitism in the party, raised tensions in the room significantly. Corbyn calmly laid out the measured steps he had taken as the leader to combat it, his position even coming with a note of caution to his opponent to respect due process, as Smith said he would take a zero tolerance stance.

Smith then got a poor reaction when he repeated his previously made claim that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is a thing that has only happened and risen in the last year. Corbyn was markedly calm, stating in a measured way that many cases were much older and pre-dated his leadership.

While Smith tried to back down slightly, saying he didn't personally blame Corbyn, the audience didn't respond well. However, Smith then tried to turn the point, attempting to equate the hostile atmosphere in the room, with the hostility within the party, with the issue of anti-Semitism and a fall in the civility of party's internal dialogue.

If there was any point on which Smith clearly lost last night, then this was it. He looked every bit the candidate of MPs, rather than members, looking graceless as he tried to pin anti-Semitism to his opponent and petulant as he tried to pin it to those heckling him.

That brought the hustings to its final two questions. The penultimate was: How will you ensure that the third woman Prime Minister is from Labour rather than the Conservatives?

The host very particularly challenged both candidates. Corbyn was to be responsible for handling party misogyny, a responsibility he accepted. But Smith was more damagingly called specifically to address accusation of his own personal misogyny.

Smith said his positions would show his support for women. He also stressed that any plans to make a difference for women ultimately needed Labour in power, in government. Corbyn was clearer, saying glass ceilings needed to be tackled even at the roots in education, with encouragement for women to go into the sciences, technology and business, and then supported on their way up through legislation that ends social and workplace discrimination.

Finally, the candidates were asked what they would do for Wales? Both Corbyn and Smith answer that more funding is justified, but Smith adds - as was quickly becoming his tag line -  that the best thing for Wales is having Labour in power.

By the end Smith had repeatedly and overwhelmingly stressed the line, pretty much the key element of the Labour Right philosophy, that Labour has to be in government, has to have power, as soon as possible. When asked about making a difference for women, he said the answer was Labour in power. Asked what can be done for Wales, the answer was Labour in power.

That theme carried into the closing statements. Smith said the UK was in crisis and the answer was a Labour government - and he would take party back to power. Corbyn argued that Labour not only can win, but are - pointing to the mayoral victories at the local elections in may. He said the way to win was to mobilise & enthuse people by presenting a real alternative.

In this first debate, neither candidate did anything decisive to put themselves clear. But the reality of the leadership race weighs more heavily on Owen Smith, who needs to prove himself to be clearly the better leader than Corbyn. Otherwise, what would be the point of changing leader?

Last night, Owen Smith focussed heavily on the need to get Labour into Power. But he didn't say enough about how to get there and or it is that makes him the candidate who'll get the party there.

In an honestly close debate, Corbyn nonetheless wins by default for that one simple reason: Owen Smith didn't do the one thing he had to, which was show or tell why he is a better leader than Corbyn.

Never mind policy, never mind showing Corbyn's supporters that he can represent them as well as MPs. If Owen Smith wants to be the next Labour leader, he has to decisively show the skills and planning that clearly marks out his distinct path, from where Labour are now, to Labour in government.

PMQs in Review: How have the government and opposition fared in Corbyn's first year?

The strike of Twelve on Wednesdays heralds the beginning of PMQs, a contest it is hard to say that progressives have been winning over the past six years.

Since Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader last autumn, PMQs has had an extra layer of attention paid to it. After Corbyn offered a new politics, kinder and more reasonable, commentators wondered at how that could be translated to the hostile cauldron of PMQs.

On the whole the answer has been a barrage of criticism of Corbyn's performances opposite David Cameron. At the top of the list has been his apparent lack of aggression and persistence, that has been accused of letting Cameron's ministry off lightly. It has also been said that there has been a simple lack of professional preparedness (Hazarika, 2016).

Part of Corbyn's problem, at least initially, was an unfocussed approach, where each question would press on a different subject. While that approach allowed for the covering of more ground, it also meant that ground was covered more thinly - or occasionally not at all in the face of a persistently aggressive Cameron, who frequently turned the format upside down by firing questions of his own back.

Others who stepped up to lead PMQs received a warmer response from critics. David Cameron is considered almost universally to have PMQs firmly in his grasp and to hold a position of confident control over the proceedings that makes life difficult for any opponent - Ed Miliband just as much as Jeremy Corbyn.

Cameron's and Corbyn's deputies George Osborne and Angela Eagle also had chances to take on PMQs. Osborne comes from the same PMQs school as Cameron, so his confidence comes with little surprise. But Angela Eagle's turn standing in for Corbyn had to be considered within the context of Labour MPs dissatisfaction with Corbyn.

Angela Eagle herself was a competent performer. Yet she also received much better support from her own benches than Corbyn is often afforded, which can only have made life easier. It also clearly suited the Commons that Eagle also went back to the old bantering approach.

While some of Corbyn's difficulties might be put down to his own flaws, there where early innovations. The use of letters from members of the public to add a new dimension to a question, which might force the PM to answer more straightly - something much needed within the format.

And that format itself aught to carry some of the blame. The Prime Minister is under no real obligation to give straight and clear answers to questions and there is no arbiter of the factual accuracy, relevance or suitability of an answer. It is left to the questioner to persist - a privilege that only two MPs are afforded.

Could changes to the format help? First Minister's Questions at Holyrood adopted a new longer format this year, giving more time to press for detail, and all of its opposition party leaders get a chance to ask a couple of questions. But whether adapting to that format or more likely remaining within the current format, co-operation between opposition MPs to coordinate questions alone - to hit a consistent tone and plant follow ups - would at least go some way, in the short term, to forcing the PM to give more specific answers.

September, when the recess ends, will see the new Conservative leader Theresa May return for her second appearance - and presumably further ones - but it isn't yet settled who her opponent will be. Whoever prevails in the Labour leadership election has to look back seriously and methodically at Corbyn's first year as opposition leader.

Regardless of whether it has been the fault of Corbyn or not, the opposition has struggled to get its message out and PMQs is one of the few opportunities for free, unfiltered, media coverage. The next leader of the Labour Party, as effective leader of the opposition to the government, needs to have a clear answer to the question: How can we make best use of those six questions and thirty minutes?

Labour Leadership Contest: Corbyn's year in charge has already changed Labour's policy debate, but will it be enough to heal the rift?

Corbyn speaking, just a month after his election, to a crowd of ten thousand people - inside and outside - at Manchester Cathedral, for a Communication Workers Union event.

The Labour leadership contest got under way in earnest on Thursday as Jeremy Corbyn launched his campaign. Evoking the memory of Beveridge, in his speech he promised to lead Labour towards ending the 'five greats evils' of our times (BBC, 2016): inequality, neglect, prejudice, insecurity and discrimination.

Having seen off Angela Eagle in the nominations race, Owen Smith has also stepped up his campaign (Asthana & Elgot, 2016). Unlike Corbyn, who has a - not really of his own making - hostile relationship with the media, Owen Smith is actively courting the media, making TV appearance after TV appearance to increase his exposure amongst audiences who probably don't know who he is.

Smith's key line through these appearances has been to try and present himself as able to be the intermediary between the radical membership and the more pragmatic party. He has promised to be as radical as Corbyn, but more competent at making the practical pitch to the wider country (BBC, 2016{2}).

Owen Smith, in the event of his campaign being victorious, has even pitched a job for Corbyn, offering him the position of Party President - though the proposition was rejected by Corbyn as being the equivalent to a 'Director of Football' (BBC, 2016{3}).

The launch of Corbyn's leadership defence had the appearance of an act of defiance (Sparrow, 2016). Affording no time to his detractors and opponents, he focussed instead on making a Beveridge-esque promise to combat the five great evils and called for Labour MPs to take the hand of friendship, get behind the party and work together.

In fact, the Labour leadership campaign may yet be beneficial for Corbyn. It might well give Corbyn the platform to calmly propose and discuss policy that his leadership so far failed to - conducted as it has been under a concessionless, constant barrage, of media negativity (Cammaert, 2016).

However, his support will be under strain, potentially squeezed by a candidate like Smith - if he can put his message across - with the polls showing trade union members have become less enthusiastic about Corbyn's leadership (MacAskill, 2016).

Smith has already made some promises. The set piece of which was a promise to boost public investment, with a £200bn New Deal for Britain (Edwards, 2016). The proposal has already enthused some Labour MPs, such as Louise Haigh who said she was excited to see anti-austerity turned into practical proposals.

There was a bit of oneupmanship to the campaign though, when a day later Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell announced a £500bn investment plan (Pope, 2016). McDonnell's plan included a National Investment Bank, to have regional sub-sects, for instance a Bank of the North, to manage investment to local needs.

Whatever the variations, both candidates are though confirming support for ending austerity with a big increase in public investment - a move that sits well with what the experts are arguing that the British economy sorely needs to move forward (Blanchflower, 2016; Elliott, 2016).

That alignment between Labour's Left and Right, with economists, is a good sign for the Left, signalling that thinking has shifted away from austerity - making conditions perhaps somewhat easier for those on the Left friendly to public spending.

It might also be a sign that Corbyn supporters, and those on the Left wing of the party that have long felt ignored, even an Owen Smith win in the leadership contest will be far from a defeat to the hated Blairites. Corbyn and his supporters have changed the party and Smith's approach has proved that - they can't ignore the Left anymore.

Contained within the pitch Owen Smith is making is an acknowledgement of the impact that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters, who put him into the leadership, have had on the party. Their values cannot be ignored.

And yet, tensions remain high. Claims of abuse have come from both sides, of which there is plenty, but those valid claims are undermined at times by claims of abuse by thin-skinned public figures who, earnestly or cynically, mistake criticism for something less legitimate (BBC, 2016{4}).

The question that provokes is whether the breach had already been widened too much. Though concessions are being made in terms of tone and policy, if Corbyn doesn't retain the leadership - and even if he does - the hostility of the party's establishment to the Left still really doesn't make it look, however, like the long term future of the Corbynistas, and their well wishers, is in the Labour Party.

Proportional representation cannot come soon enough.

Speech from the Throne: Conservatives use Queen's Speech to try and rebrand their efforts in government

By way of the somewhat ludicrous annual spectacle of a grand procession to bring the sovereign to the House of Lords to read it out loud, the government has announced its legislative programme for the year.

The main drive of the 2016 Speech from the Throne was a big rebranding attempt by the government, even against the distracting backdrop of the impending referendum, to try and reframe its political agenda as a 'life chances strategy'. There where elements of it throughout the speech.

The speech featured a number of policy ideas that had already been announced. There was Help to Save, a government aided savings scheme for low paid workers that was announced by the Chancellor that is similar to a Labour scheme previously cancelled by the government. There was also the Chancellor's tax on sugary drinks, mention of infrastructure investment like broadband roll-out, the Northern Powerhouse local devolution project and the controversial push to a seven day NHS.

New announcements along the lines of 'life chances' included new measures to improve education for prisoners, overhauling the prison system to focus on how to give prisoners a second chance. The focus on a new strategy meant that other matters were pushed to one side.

Though bullishly promised, forced academisation seems to have slipped down the order and became a promise to ensure excellence in schools. Considering the negative reaction that the policy has received, it's absence is unsurprising.

More surprising perhaps is that the government has made no definitive move in its wrestle with the House of Lords. The lords has rebelled against government policy numerous times since the last election, yet the so called Sovereignty Bill was reduced to just a reference to a commitment to "uphold the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons".

Of course, talk of austerity was pushed aside as well. No new measures were announced but the speech did include the now familiar claim that the government will "continue to bring public finances under control so Britain lives within its means".

Back in the Commons, the debate on the Speech was started by a Conservative backbencher who was perfectly on message, making sure to repeat the phrase 'life chances'.

Jeremy Corbyn, in his response, was sure to pick up on the theme of 'life chances'. He set about listing ways in which austerity has completely undermined any strategy to improve life chances - from the bedroom tax to cuts to disability allowances.

What is clear is that Cameron's circle is trying to reframe its time in government, digging up phrases like 'One Nation', to try and recast new policies like competition in higher education as improving 'life chances', even as 'progressive', through justifications like greater choice for consumers.

In the Commons today, Prime Minister David Cameron was at his most smugly comfortable at the heart the Westminster establishment on a day of extraordinary ritual and pageantry. He wielded the word progressive like he meant to claim it and rebrand it as well - a chilling signal of revisions to come.

True progressives need to be wary of these efforts. The Conservative media machine has proved itself very effective in the past, so it isn't hard to see them finding success pursuing a revision of history to emphasise, or de-emphasise, events as they see fit. The reality of hard times should not be forgotten by progressives and they should not let the reality of those times be lost in public debate.

Local Elections: An alternative look Labour's election result, where it leaves them and where progressives go from here

The progressive pitch of the three parties, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green, who may have in places tripped each other more than the Conservatives in the 2015 UK general election.

"It's a disaster", run the stories. The worst performance in half a century (Rawnsley, 2016). A disaster that, conveniently, demands that Labour change direction away from Corbynism and back toward Blairism.

The trouble with that assessment is that the context is all wrong, and so the conclusion that follows is flawed. The reality is that there are few recent historical comparisons that can be made for the present situation.

Up against an almost unbelievable barrage of negative press and critics of every stripe briefing against him, from almost every direction, the results from the local and assembly elections were, all things considered, pretty impressive for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour.

Labour are leading the executive in Wales, London and Bristol - all of which, if publicised well, could be beacons for re-legitimising the idea of Labour in government. The party also topped the national polls on 31%, ahead of the Conservatives on 30% and the Liberal Democrats, recovering to 15%.

Labour in Scotland

The only major 'blemish' in Corbyn's first major election test were the party's struggles in Scotland. But presenting the results in Scotland as part of a 'Corbyn disaster' narrative is misleading.

In Scotland - where Labour have been outflanked on the Left by the SNP, whose blend of Social Democracy and separatism has rendered Labour nearly unnecessary - Corbyn's Left-wing stance is winning, just not really to the benefit of the Labour Party itself.

They have also been outflanked on the Right by the Conservatives, who have unsurprisingly become the banner-bearers for Unionism (it did used to be literally in their name, after all). In fact, Ruth Davidson's Conservatives, who suffer for connections to the Westminster party, are now the Scottish Unionist Party in all but name.

Essentially, the debate in Scotland has moved beyond the traditional UK divisions. For a useful historical comparison you have to reach a long way back, to the separation of British and Irish politics.

The emergence of the Irish Parliamentary Party, out of what had previously been a Liberal Party stronghold, substantially weakened the party in Britain. As it grew, it limited the abililty of the Liberals to win majorities. That led to a period during which Liberals and their Irish allies, and the Conservatives and their Unionist allies, spent two decades trading turns in propped up minority governments.

While in 1906 the Liberals won a landslide majority of nearly 400 seats on nearly 50% of the vote, the emergence of the Labour Party in England squeezed them. The scales tipped decisively when the Liberals became divided, infighting, and protracted war led to a period of National governments that simply coalesced into a new Conservative majority, with Ramsay MacDonald's Labour as a weak and still growing opposition.

Labour has lost its substantial position in Scotland to the SNP, as the Liberals lost theirs in Ireland. But the lesson seems to be that infighting and splits will do far more damage than adapting to the new reality over the border.

Labour in England

The real crux of the Labour-Conservative battle is in England, where Corbyn's party topped the polls. Response to this thin victory, 31% to 30%, hasn't been especially positive. But when it comes to a general election, how do the numbers compare?

In the 2015 UK general election, in England alone, the Conservatives won 41% of the vote to Labour's 32%, for 319 and 206 seats, respectively. In 2010, Conservatives won 40% to Labour's 28%, for 298 and 191 seats. Further back, in 2005 when Labour won an outright UK majority of 403 seats, the Conservatives won 36%, matched by Labour at 36%, for 206 and 278 seats, again respectively.

Corbyn's support in England falls somewhere between the two, between triumph and disaster (Williams, 2016), between a Labour majority and a hung parliament scramble. In 2015, Liberal Democrat support collapsed and both of the two main parties benefited, though the Conservatives more so. However much Labour might have eaten into Conservative support, the Conservatives simply consumed the Lib Dems to keep themselves afloat.

For the Conservatives, everything depends upon their strength in England, particularly in the South. So when a, supposedly, weakly-led Labour wins victories in London, Bristol, and holds Southern councils like Southampton and Hastings, Conservatives should be worried, because when push comes to shove, they have no where else to turn.

It could certainly be said that Tony Blair pressed the Conservatives hardest on this weakness. Blair managed to match the Conservatives for votes in England, while Brown and Miliband did not. And Blair beat them in a general election, while Brown and Miliband did not. However, Blair also had the advantage of facing a weak and disorganised Conservative Party, that Brown and Miliband never did.

In its brightest days, and also the Conservatives darkest, Blair's Labour won 44% of the vote in England to the Conservatives 34%, taking 329 seats to 165 - against weak and disorganised opponents, struggling everywhere except their South and East heartland, and versus weak third party opposition.

Labour's 400+ seat majority under Blair included some 80 seats in Scotland and Wales. A boundary review in Scotland reduced the number of seats, mostly Labour, in Scotland by thirteen. Heading into 2005, the heights of 419 and 413 seats were reduced to 403. 56 seats in Scotland was now approximately 46. And in Wales, where Labour won 34 seats in 1997, support has reduced over time to 30, to 26, to 25.

For all praise for his achievement of eating into Conservative support in England, by even 2005, if Blair's Labour had not been able to rely on Scotland, its majority would have evaporated. The party, even under Blair, would have been reduced to 315 seats - even including 30 seats in Wales - and the party would have had to turn to around 50 Lib Dems in order to govern.

For two elections, 1997 and 2001, Labour were able to win majorities in England, but they almost immediately fell back into large minorities of support as their primary opponents recovered and stronger third parties began to challenge. Labour's brief four years of winning majorities in England came against weak opponents in London, the West and East Midlands, in the North, Yorkshire and Humberside, and by encroaching on the Conservative heartlands where they could.

And in that fact, the Conservatives can usually take comfort in Labour's own weakness in England by comparison. Numbers past past and present make clear that there is a well of potential Conservative support in England, in most parts of the country, that can put the party over the top - even in supposed Labour territory.

Almost decisive since 1997 has been the Conservatives incursion into Labour territory. Between 1997 and 2010 there have been 15 seats in the North West, 10 in Yorkshire, 20 in London, 15 seats and 20 seats in the East and West Midlands respectively which saw a complete reversal of positions - 80 of the 329 won in England in 1997.

Before talking of taking seats from the Conservatives in the South East, in a New Labour master stroke, figuring out how Labour might win its own backyard seems like more of a priority. Ed Miliband won maybe 10 of these seats in 2015, only to lose several others from the same regions back to the Conservatives - with numbers propped up by the Lib Dem collapse.

Reality Check

Harold Wilson, at his peak, only won 285 seats in England to 216 for the Conservatives. Without Scotland, even the headline victory of Wilson's Labour would have been reduced to a majority of just 2 seats. Against the historical background, Blair's approximate, and astonishing, 140 gains in England in 1997 - lifting Labour from around 190 to 330 - looks more the result of extraordinary circumstances than the profits of a particular campaign.

Labour's support has, since it broke out from being the trade unionist representative ally of the Liberals, always been a coalition of fellow travellers - from moderate reformers who might have been liberals in other times, through trade unionists and the industrial working classes the party claimed to represent. In 1997, Blair tried to expand that alliance into the affluent South and East with a pitch to swing voters that did not produce lasting gains and alienated the party's core in the process (Mason, 2015; Mason 2016).

At the moment, Corbyn is maybe only on par with Brown or Miliband in terms of support across England and seems intent on making gains back mainly in areas Labour has lost ground. Without some new political earthquake discrediting the Conservative Party and creating an opportunity to delve into the South East and pitch social justice - smotheringly Conservative in its representation as the South East is, with the second place party now usually UKIP, who are even more conservative -  the best case scenario for the Labour Party in England would seem to be 250 to 280 seats, supported by maybe 25 in Wales.

With a Britain-wide best case for Labour, for now, of 275 to 305 seats - short of finding a way of forcing Britain's provinces to readopt the old two-party politics - the Left, and Labour in particular, has to start taking the prospect of electoral alliances seriously. Even a convenient Blairite rebrand isn't likely to break through the Southern attachment to conservatism without losing ground of its own elsewhere.

There are, however, more than 30 seats - largely in the South - where the Liberal Democrats remain the main opposition to the Conservatives. And the Green Party took 4 second places and around 20 third places in 2015. And in these and many other places, the parties will have tripped each other up to the benefit of the Conservatives.

Where Labour has less chance of winning, they should be actively interested in ensuring that the Conservatives have a difficult time of it too. This means accepting that Green environmentalism and Lib Dem civil liberties pitches will cut deeper amongst some current Conservative voters than what Labour might pitch - all the while building the possibility of forming a working, progressive government later.

Despite the barrage of negative press, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has shown it can win and has secured control of executive positions that will legitimise it as a party of government. But when 2020 rolls around, for reasons far beyond Corbyn's fault or control, that may not be enough. If an alliance with the SNP remains taboo in England, a progressive majority might still be possible without them. But it will probably require progressives of different stripes working together to get there.