Boris is already demonstrating how his government will be all tell and no show

Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister - a phrase that used to sound like a joke - made a lot of promises in his first speech from Downing Street. His announcement of £1.8bn has been reported as the first down payment on these pledges.

Here-in lies a key sample of what we can expect from Boris Johnson and his verbose new government. A big promise and an announcement, with all the PR trimmings to follow, which on inspection fails to live up to the terms.

All tell and no show. The Boris way.

It's also been the Tories way through all of their time in government, whether under Cameron or May. Announcing old funding again as new funding, relabelling and reannouncing, fiscal politics played out in the media rather than in the treasury. And all the while, the cuts go on.

In the present case, Boris has offered up a lump of extra cash for the NHS. But it isn't what it seems. In fact, the £1bn 'upfront' is money that the government had already promised to the NHS - in exchange for three years of trusts slashing their budgets - only to then block hospitals from spending it.

The second half is for what is know as capital spending, long term investment to pay now for projects that will be ready years from now. This kind of spending is deeply important, but does little for struggling hospitals in the present - and even that sum isn't coming right away.

What the government cares about are the flurry of headlines that follow these press releases - often printed wholly and uncritically in the media. While the front pages tell people what the Tories want them to hear, the analysis is buried and with it the debunking of the government's claims.

These headlines are the heart of a long term government strategy, all about governing by telling and not showing. It has allowed them to slash and slash again at budgets, and the services they fund, and to deflect criticism on to others - mostly the vulnerable, exposed by the Tories' own austerity politics.

Don't be fooled by the headlines. Don't let the Tories, as John Harris puts it, sow "discord and resentment via austerity" only to reap the rewards of the chaos with a sharp PR strategy. If we're not sharper ourselves, we'll face the consequences of Tory disaster politics while they profit.

Budget 2018 Preview: Chancellor Philip Hammond will try to patch together competing demands to present a positive vision - which must be closely scrutinised

So, Prime Minister Theresa May announced austerity will come to an end. The Chancellor Philip Hammond told Conservative members they must not surrender the 'party of change' label. Their right-wing colleagues want a bold, positive statement with Brexit just around the corner.

Where does that leave the government ahead of the Budget?

When the Chancellor stands at the dispatch box on Monday, he will have meet a number of commitments and all of them will require him to open the public purse and spend money - something anathema to Hammond's own favoured fiscally conservative approach.

So beware of the narrative. Whatever the Tories in the Treasury have cooked up, take careful notice of how it is being framed. Hammond needs to carefully wrap up his policy announcements in a positive vision, promising a bright future that brings money to spend.

To spend 'sensibly', of course - the note of fiscal responsibility won't be going away. It's how the Conservatives like to paint themselves (despite the way the national debt has ballooned) and they have spent a decade marking it as separating them from Labour.

But something will have to change if the Conservatives are to find £20 billion for the NHS. To find the more than £8 billion a year needed to keep the various taxes and duties from rising. To at least bring a halt to cuts for long enough for it to seem like austerity has stopped - if not been reversed. Is there any room for movement to find this money?

Well there is pressure to bring the tech giants to heel with a tax - though it's not a move without complications. And the Chancellor has already set out his stall, with a brand new narrative, to increase National Insurance contributions from the self-employed - a policy that went down in flames less than a week after last year's Budget.

The other targets for more taxes are only the rich - the main constituents of the Conservatives. From Pensions to private school fees, there are reliefs and loopholes aplenty. But will the Chancellor be willing to close them?

Far more troubling for almost everyone else is that local councils fear even further cuts to their funding are on the way. That would be devastating for essential frontline services, that are already under pressure - as the government forces local communities to raise money in their own neighbourhoods, even those with few resources.

If the Chancellor decides to hold off on these further cuts, it will likely depend more upon halting or deferring various tax cuts, rather than raising taxes in a more direct or conventional sense. But even then, it trimming one advantage for ordinary workers to protect those same people for a new disadvantage. Hardly a progressive pitch.

Hammond will try to dress up these trade offs as the hard-won rewards of decades of hard times and the promise of better to come. Progressives can't let him present that narrative unchallenged, because these measures will be little more than a government that imposed austerity trying to ride the wave of discontent their policies have stirred up.

Ideology, NHS funding and money from nothing: Beware politicians bearing gifts

Under Theresa May and Philip Hammond, the Conservative government has continued on from where it left off under David Cameron and George Osborne. Austerity at the top of the agenda, with all else battered before it's ideological wake.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that the Prime Minister at the head of the party of austerity, this weekend, made a pledge to increase NHS funding by £20 billion a year.

How does this happen?

The Conservatives, for sure, in the majority these days ascribe to a "pro-business" ideology. A belief in private sector growth that boosts tax returns, that in turn cuts taxes, that in turn boosts private sector growth.

That is the ideological belief, at least. One that requires the market to play along with the ideal - particularly when the private sector is required to pick up the slack as the public sector is cut back by the government.

However, these ideological ideas must interact with the real world - and with one of the prime movers of compromise in the political sphere: the point at which politics as ideology meets politics as a competition with a lot riding on it.

The Conservatives in government and Labour on the opposition benches have differing ideologies - though the gaps between the two are at times and in places very narrow, and produce primary outcomes that are very similar.

That similarity comes from politics as a high stakes competition. Each party vying to shape public opinion, or to win over the electorate as public opinion stands - shaping what is called the 'centre ground'.

So even as the Tory government cuts with one hand, it looks to deliver a windfall with the other, to shore up electoral support. And, in this case, that means doing precisely that which the party accuses Labour - making large spending commitments, reckless in the absence of a clearly defined statement as to where the money will come from.

But ideology is never far away. Theresa May followed up her offer of new funding with a cautionary word that the health service much watch and account for every penny carefully. And others have pointed out that this injection of cash only brings the NHS back up to level of funding it had between 1948 and 2010 - when the Tories began imposing austerity.

So long as we treat politics like a game of win or lose in the pursuit of power, we can expect belief to be mingled with ambitious pragmatism. And we must remain wary that what we're being sold comes through layers of motivations - especially when it's a windfall of cash with no obvious source.

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

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

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

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

Even those pledges that did survive have made little progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget 2017: Cautious Hammond has salves not solutions, as Budget falls short of action

Chancellor Philip Hammond was in bombastic mood for delivering his second Budget of 2017, making jokes despite the Office of Budget Responsibility's projections that listed productivity as down and growth falling. He brushed past those figures with lots of Brexiter-placating language and an opening salvo of £3bn put aside to get the country Brexit ready.

In the build-up to the Budget, Sarah Ann Harris in The Huffington Post UK posted an article listing those measures that charities said would be needed to address Britain's varied crises. Together, they would have required at least £10bn of new funding.

In the Budget, Hammond acknowledged the pressures and hardships and said that he was prepared to invest. But when the announcements came, they ultimately offered no more than half of the requested amounts to alleivate hardships.

On the disastrous impact of Universal Credit, Hammond went halfway towards the requests, even of MPs on his own benches, of reducing restraints on claimants - taking one week rather than two out of the waiting time to receive funds. With other easing measures, Hammond called this a £1.5bn package of support. Yet this was step didn't even reach the minimum requests for alleviation.

On the NHS, the Chancellor offered up some large numbers. These break down to smaller numbers, though. The figure of £10bn, for capital spending - infrastructure, buildings, etc - is spread across the five years of the Parliament, meaning no more than £2mn-£3mn a year. Another £2.8bn will be spread over three years, with just £350mn front-loaded to avert crisis this winter.

There was an olive branch to nurses in the form of a commitment to fund a pay rise for nurse, but this was conditional on negotiating a new contract settlement with the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

To address the housing crisis, and in particular affordability, the Chancellor announced a £44bn fund. This was, however, then broken down. This fund would be only partly public funding, with the other parts being loans and guarantees, and was intended to run through to the middle of the 2020s.

That could stretch that £44bn over eight years, or even more, meaning the yearly amount would actually be much lower, at around £5bn-£6bn - of which only a part would be a public funding rise.

At most this overall package, to tackle a range of social crises in Britain, will come to £2.4mn/year, plus only a part of the around £6bn/year package being invested in the housing market. That looks like being a long way short of the £10bn minimum requested.

The Chancellor found some money to invest, with £500m for various areas of tech, a few billion more to extend the Nation Productivity Fund, and a new £2.5bn fund to support new innovative, knowledge intensive, companies. Another £1.7bn was found for cities and city regions for various local infrastructure projects. The reality though, is that most of that will be spread over several years.

The Conservative Chancellor framed this as rejecting extra borrowing and instead using some of the headroom within his fiscal rules. However, there are still questions over how the Chancellor is going to fund these and the reality is there will still be lots more borrowing, with the process of eliminating the  debt and deficit extended over a longer period.

The headline offer made by Hammond was to end Stamp Duty for first time home buyers on homes up to £300,000. While this was trailed as a boon to young people, the reality is that it will serve current homeowners best - likely helping and subsidising current people who are, on the face of it, more likely to already be Tory voters.

The cautious Chancellor had hedged his bets with this Budget. He has tried to appeal to all sides, to make everyone feel like they came out of this Budget with a little something. The reality is that no one has gotten what they wanted, although Brexiters may have been midly appeased by £3bn and adopting their rhetoric.

Social pressures in Britain demand a response, but the Chancellor has decided not to act. Hammond has stuck with cheap salves rather than paying for the solutions. To make real progress, we need more from the Exchequer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Election 2017 - Health & Social Care: Voters ousting Jeremy Hunt would send the Conservatives a very strong message

Health and social care in Britain is under tremendous strain and more Tory cuts won't help.

One of the biggest questions hanging over the 2017 general election is the future of funding for health services in Britain. The Conservatives have overseen one crisis after another over the last seven years.

There is a clear distinction to be made between progressives and Conservatives on how to address them. Under the Conservatives their are going to be more cuts, while the progressive parties have pledged to raise more money.

And this election even offers a symbolic way to reject the Tory approach to healthcare. Dr Louise Irvine - who previously took the government to court and won over the cutting of casualty and maternity services Lewisham Hospital closure - is standing against Health Minister Jeremy Hunt in the South West Surrey constituency.

Tactical Voting

On behalf of the National Health Action Party, Dr Irvine is standing against Jeremy Hunt and the field has been cleared. Local members of the Liberal Democrats and Labour have agreed not to campaign and the Green Party withdrew its own candidate.

The various progressive alliance movements have all offered their endorsement, including Compass - the most well known pressure group for a new more pluralism politics.

Let's be realistic: it would be a huge upset for Dr Irvine to defeat Jeremy Hunt. Last time he took 34,000 votes (with UKIP on 5,600), while Irvine took just under 5,000. However, support for the Conservatives is not innate.

Through the 1990s and into the 2000s, the Conservative-progressive split (led by the Lib Dems) averaged out at 26,000 to 26,000. Only since 2010 has Hunt opened up a significant majority. And now he's among the most well known ministers - for all the wrong reasons.

Voters in Surrey have a chance to reject Hunt's management of the NHS and the air of conflict he has created with doctors. Members and campaigners for the progressive parties have already thrown in their backing for Irvine. Now it's down to voters.

Health in Crisis

And there are a lot of reasons voters can be dissatisfied with Hunt. From strikes, to closures, to year and after year cuts to funding, Britain's healthcare system faces some dire years ahead if the Tories remain in power.

Hunt caused plenty of controversy by deciding to go toe and to toe with junior doctors over new contracts and casting them as unreasonable people taking unnecessary action. Fortunately, the public was having none of it: polls showed the public consistently behind the doctors.

The strike action over contracts goes hand in hand with discontent at the ongoing public sector pay capped, limited to a 1% rise. The policy has led to distress particularly among NHS staff, with pay not rising along with prices and the general cost of living.

Hunt's management of the NHS has also antagonised patients. One in six A&E departments across the country face closure under the Tory drive to find £22bn in cuts from the health budget in the next few years. These emergency units have been under severe strain, with waiting times targets consistently missed.

The problems with healthcare in Britain stretch beyond the Health Secretary to his party's wider approach.

One place from where extra pressure is being exerted on the NHS is social care. With no where to go, thanks to a shortage of places, hospital beds are remaining full. Elder patients are finding themselves stuck in hospitals, unable to be discharged because the social care system is at capacity.

That is in part thanks to Conservative cuts to local government funding, that has seen billions cut from social care budgets - with only token efforts to restore minimal amounts, mostly to be raised by local councils themselves, a move that is clearly punitive to poorer communities.

This failure to display compassion has overtaken welfare too. From cuts to disability benefits to attempts, appallingly, to dismiss the needs of those with mental illnesses. In an effort to cut spending on welfare, Tory policy chief George Freeman said the party wants welfare to go only to the "really disabled".

All of fronts, there appears to more concern about producing an immaculate looking balance sheet, than about the comprehensive quality service that balance sheet is supposed to be providing.

Progressive Pitch

The progressive parties are calling for a change in direction and both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have pledged more funding - and not just for the NHS itself. Both parties are calling for more to be restored to the social care system and for health and social care to be seen and treated as a joined-up service.

Labour have pledged to raise around £6 billion a year extra for the NHS, from higher taxes on the wealthy. They accompany that with investment from their proposed National Transformation Fund to upgrade hospitals and their equipment.

The Liberal Democrats go a step further. They plan to add a penny in the pound to tax, affecting all earners - but hitting the richest hardest - specifically to support the NHS and social care.

Both of these plans are a pragmatic step towards addressing the problems in the healthcare system. So would lowering stress for public sector workers by lifting the pay cap, to which both parties have committed.

Labour and the Lib Dems are also pledging to do away with some of the Conservatives more heinous welfare cuts, particularly those affecting people with disabilities.

Stand up for Healthcare

The idea of a progressive alliance is a rejection of the gerrymandering system that forces people to divide according to tribal loyalties. To bring people together who support common values and work together to ensure better representation.

In this election, the progressive alliance movement has brought parts of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens together around the common values - for which they have stood in most past elections.

But standing aside for National Health Action and their candidate Dr Louise Irvine shows something more: a willingness to put aside narrow interest to fight for something larger. To put a candidate into office who has fought long and hard for the NHS.

Voters have to do two things. To vote for the candidates that stand for their values - not just for a specific party - and they need to be vocal about what is moving them. Healthcare always tops the list of people's concerns in Britain.

Jeremy Hunt has mismanaged the National Health Service. His party in government has sewn division and lacked compassion. Even if you usually vote Conservative, especially if you normally vote Conservative, rejecting Hunt and electing Dr Louise Irvine would be a strong statement.

Choosing Dr Louise Irvine would be a symbolic defence of the NHS and of the principles of compassionate universal care. But it would also put into office a tireless and independent minded local campaigner - who beat the government in the courts to stop closures and isn't afraid to call out any of the parties on their record.

General Election 2017 - Green Manifesto: Openness, compassion and cooperation

The Greens' manifesto must be read as what MPs will stand up for, rather than expect to implement.

At a modest launch, the Green Party put forward its manifesto for General Election 2017. The low-key event aligns well with the party's realistically focused, targeted election campaign.

The party's co-leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jon Bartley, have been at the forefront of calls for a Progressive Alliance and local Greens have worked to unite support behind the best placed anti-Tory candidates across the country.

Their own efforts will focus on a few constituencies, to concentrate on re-electing Lucas in Brighton Pavillion and putting some new Green MPs alongside her - such as Natalie Bennett in Sheffield Central, Molly Scott Cato in Bristol West and Vix Lowthion in the Isle of Wight.

So this manifesto must be understood in that context: these are the things that Greens will put on the agenda, that they will speak up for, fight for and vote in Parliament to defend. Openness and cooperation will be key to that effort.

Openness and cooperation appeared in Caroline Lucas' introductory speech, along with compassion, as the values that the Greens will protect. That theme runs through the pledges the party makes in its manifesto.

The headline pledges for the Greens are their commitment to a basic income trial scheme, a shorter working week and a £10 minimum wage. At the core, there is a lot of crossover with Labour: the living wage, higher tax for the wealthy and support for "small businesses, co-operatives and mutuals".

The party, of course, ranks addressing the environment among its highest priorities. There are commitments to fund a public work programme of home insulation to make energy use more efficient, to end fossil fuel subsidies and replace them with investment in renewables and community owned energy, and to protect green spaces.

There is also crossover with Labour here - who, in particular, have called for local public energy companies, with a focus on renewable energy, to compete with the big energy corporations to drive down energy prices.

The Liberal Democrats also share commitments here, to rolling out insulation, to invest in green energy and, with Labour also, to tackle air pollution and support new energy companies coming in and take on the "Big 6" - with a focus on how these efforts could all boost the economy and be the start of a job-creating clean industry in Britain.

These stand in stark contrast to the Conservatives, whose almost only reference to the environment was to offer its support to energy derived from shale gas - otherwise known by its more controversial name of fracking.

On health, the Greens continue their commitment to fighting against privatisation in, and of, healthcare services. They renew their commitment to passing their NHS Reinstatement Bill that would even restore dental services to public funding.

Their focus on support for matching the status of mental health to physical health matches with the Lib Dems and Labour, along with calling for increasing funding for the NHS and social care.

On other public services, the Greens go further than Labour, calling for energy, water, rail, bus and mail services to all be brought back into public ownership - and for an increase to local government funding to help authorities provide good quality services.

There are crossovers on education as well. Scrapping tuition fees has been committed to by the Greens and Labour - and still has support among Lib Dems. Restoring student grants is a Green and Lib Dem priority.

Restoring young people's benefits is a shared goal across the progressive parties. The Greens stand out on welfare, however, for their headline commitment to the basic income and to rolling out a trial scheme.

The Green Party commitments on house building align with all of the progressive parties and specifically matches Labour's commitment to 500,000 new social rent homes over the next five years. Along with the Lib Dems there are commitments to take action on empty homes and to scrap the Bedroom Tax.

Long shared with the Liberal Democrats, and being newly considered by the Labour Party, there is support for the much needed switch to proportional representation - to make votes matter, by making the votes people cast more clearly represented in how the seats in Parliament are distributed.

And not least there are commitments to the Human Rights Act and to the UK's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights - the Tory attitude to which has made this a high priority concern for liberals and human rights and civil liberties groups.

The Greens have only modest electoral ambitions for themselves. But in the face of the threat of a landslide Tory majority they have stressed the need for a Progressive Alliance - for progressive parties to come together to defend their shared values.

While they may be the most humble of mainstream progressive parties, their approach is grasping best the bigger picture. A Tory landslide would be a disaster - for the poorest, for transparency and accountability, for the values of openness, compassion and co-operation.

Whether a supporter of Labour or the Liberal Democrats, if the Greens are the best placed to defeat the Tories in a constituency, there is plenty of crossover to make voting Green tactically an easy decision.

The same extends in the other direction - Greens can find plenty of policies that align with their priorities in the manifestos of the Lib Dems and Labour. There is a real progressive consensus on many issues.

But it is only through cooperation and working together, by voting tactically and campaigning positively in collaboration with the best placed candidates, that progressives can fend off the latest round of Tory assaults on the rights, liberties and wellbeing of the most vulnerable people in Britain.

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.

Progress is Possible: The facts show that the Tories can be beaten - but it's going to take huge local participation

To defeat the Tories, progressives must rise above their partisan divisions to defend the bigger ideas than bring them together.

The statistics for this summer's UK general election are a sorry sight for progressives. Values shared across the whole of the Centre and Left are being threatened by Theresa May's government, and meanwhile there is infighting, disappointment and partisan divisions to contend with.

Some have taken these as the grounds to say that winning is impossible or to double down on the one party, majoritarian rhetoric. But if the Left and Centre spends all of its time fighting itself, the doom and gloom predictions will almost certainly come true. There is a better way to go.

And, on this, the facts speak for themselves.

Take the West Yorkshire constituency of Shipley, seat of Tory arch-meninist, Philip Davies. Shipley was Conservative, with large majorities of more than ten thousand from 1970 to 1997. Then in 1997, Labour gained nearly 7,000 more votes, while the Conservatives lost around 8,000.

Labour kept the seat until 2005, when after eight years in power at Westminster, the seat slipped back to the Conservative by just a few hundred votes. Since then, the support for parties that are not the Conservatives has largely collapsed, with Labour falling back and the Liberal Democrats nearly disappearing as their vote splintered across the spectrum.

Over a ten year period, Philip Davies has built a majority of 10,000. In 2015, the collective conservative vote, Tories and UKIP, was around 30,000 while progressive votes totalled around 20,000 - on a 72% turnout. But this has occurred over time: in 2010 it was 24,000 to 25,000; in 2005 it was 20,000 to 27,000; back in 1997 it was 20,000 to 31,000.

As the by-election in Richmond Park demonstrated, a majority for any party, save for some very few 'heartlands', is far from safe. Sitting MP Zac Goldsmith was turfed out of the seat by a 30% upswing in support for the Liberal Democrats that overturned a 23,000 majority. Goldsmith himself had previously overturned a Lib Dem majority of 4,000.

To press the point further, Labour's win in 1997 would in fact have been impossible if safe seats were unbreachable. Labour won 329 seats in England alone, almost twice as many seats there as the Conservatives and even unseated a host of safe-seated Tory ministers in the process. There are two important things to take away.

One: a huge number of voters in most constituencies do not 'identify' with their vote - they do not consider themselves Tories when they vote Tory, and see no issue in switching to another party if they see a better pitch or feel they were mis-sold a previous one.

And second: no majority is safe in the face of a damned good argument. Zac Goldsmith ran a horrifying negative campaign against Sadiq Khan for London Mayor, had failed to hold his own party to account on a third Heathrow runway and - however the Tories and Goldsmith tried to distance one another - represented an austere authoritarian government overseeing unpopular policies.

An election can be won seat by seat, fight by fight. The political tide turns nationally and locally, ebbing and flowing one way or another, due to a complex set of factors. If voters are willing and support each other, they can take on the system and usher in an alternative. Even a huge slump can be recovered from in dramatic fashion.

For an unusual example, consider the general election in Canada in 2015 - and example with relevance for its use of the Westminster, first-past-the-post, system. Years of austere, conservative, ever rightward drifting government under Stephen Harper was overturned in dramatic fashion.

The centrist Liberals had become the party of government in Canada, providing most of the Prime Ministers of the twentieth centuries with brief Conservative interludes. By 2011, the party's fortunes had been in decline for a decade. Yet it was still a surprise when under Michael Ignatieff, a respected journalist and professor, the party fell to just 34 seats - the fewest in its history.

That made their victory under Justin Trudeau, who was popular despite being derided for being young and unqualified, in 2015 all the more remarkable. In the biggest swing in Canadian federal history, the Liberals went from third with 34 seats, to first and holding a majority of fourteen.

Trudeau ran an optimistic campaign, making bold policy promises and even making a surprise break from austerity, unexpected from the Centrist party. The contrast was significant to Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who took a stance that might be familiar to Theresa May: pleas to trust, "Proven Leadership", for a "Strong Economy", a "Strong Canada" and a "Safer Canada" to "Protect our Economy".

A stern government, turning harsher with terrorism reaching Canadian shores, campaigned on conservatism and strength. Their Liberal opponents pitched optimism and a way to get things moving forward. In that contest, optimism won.

The question ahead for progressives in Britain is how to beat the Tories in each seat. The contest can't be won in the way that it was in Canada. Optimism is a must, yet broadly accepted and respected leadership at the national level of a kind needed to run a national movement of hope is - to be kind - at a premium just now for the Centre and Left.

It is never simple to say that some votes are conservative and others progressive. People vote for different parties for different reasons. But we can say this: the progressive parties - Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens - share some fundamental positions, against austerity, protecting the NHS and social care, to protect the rights of minorities, and people are willing to vote for parties standing for these values. Voters have even looked for Conservatives to stand by these values.

This is a positive struggle that can gain traction, but if voters want an alternative the campaign must be taken on locally - by local activists, yes - but mostly by voters themselves in their own constituencies. The facts say, however dire the present situation, that the Conservatives and Theresa May's austere authoritarianism can be beaten. But in this election it must be achieved by individual votes in individual seats.

The Tory Facade: The healthcare crisis in Britain belies the Conservative presentation of their party as responsible stewards

The central claim that the Conservative Party makes, its fundamental promise to the electorate, is that it will be a responsible manager of the state. It tries to present its opponents as reckless ideologues, to be contrasted with their own sensible handling of public duties.

The current condition of the NHS exposes this claim as nothing more than a marketing campaign. The NHS remains the single most popular element of the public apparatus in Britain, even as it has descended into a period of prolonged crisis.

A report released today showed that beds have been filled beyond safe levels in 90% of hospitals over winter, with all the results of overcrowding that follow - in long waiting times and cancellations (Triggle, 2017).

It has been the tendency of the Prime Minister Theresa May at recent renditions of PMQs to deflect blame. On healthcare, her response has been to deflect it to the NHS administrators - claiming bad practice in the use of resources for shortfalls and service delivery (Merrick, 2016).

To back up that claim, the government says it has provided the funding the NHS asked for - but that is a half truth at best. The government has been accused by fact checkers, and Parliament's health committee, of fudging their numbers (Campbell, 2016).

While the government repeats its criticised claims of providing "$10 billion" of extra funds - with the reality being half of that - more parts of Britain's physical, mental health and social care service slide into crisis.

For instance: Social care is critically underfunded (Eichler, 2016). It was not protected from austerity and has been terribly withered by cuts to local government.

The Tories have no 'responsible' remedy. Talk of upfront charges for foreign patients (BBC, 2017), claims of bad practice in administration - these are cheap deflections, taking advantage of anti-immigration myths or falling back on tired austerity.

On social care, the Tories have responded with trivial tax powers for painfully stretched councils. But they will raise more in richer areas and less in poorer, and raise little in either case - only £200m nationally - to counteract the deep cuts that have ravaged the social care infrastructure (Merrick, 2016; BBC, 2016).

Standing back and observing the Conservative stewardship of health and social care, brings one of only two conclusions: incompetence or ideologically driven mismanagement. Whether deliberate or due to incompetence, the NHS is being undermined.

The public stood behind last year's strikes by junior doctors. But the pressure remains and continues to build. Progressives must start to dismantle the façade and show people the reality of the Conservative Party behind the marketing image.

The future of health and social care in Britain depends upon the public understanding its worth and seeing with their own eyes the devastating impact that Tory policies have had on this iconic symbol of progress in Britain.

Where is there left to go when politics breaks down into stark and implacable camps? The hidden peril of conflict

The latest junior doctors' strikes breached a controversial threshold when it withdrew emergency care. Ahead of the two days scheduled for the strikes, scare stories circulated talk of the NHS creaking - maybe encouraged by how the polls had previously suggested that public support would weaken.

In the event, support for the strike action actually remained in the majority with only a small percentage fall from before emergency care was withdrawn, with the public still largely seeing the government as culpable, and the NHS appeared to cope with the strain (Triggle, 2016; Broomfield, 2016).

The emergency threshold was breached and support for the strikers remained. That would seem to put matters in favour of the junior doctors. But the big question is - did the full strike change anything?

The short answer is... probably very little.

For those familiar with how things are actually achieved in politics - that is, usually through some kind of compromise - that shouldn't come as a huge shock. What the emergency strikes have not altered are the fundamental positions on either side of the divide.

The government didn't see the weakening of public support for which it might have hoped. And, short of those in other professions walking out in support, more akin to a general strike, the withdrawal of emergency care is as far as the strikers can escalate.

The doctor's duty of care means there are limits to the withdrawal of labour - unless a lingering rumour of mass resignations by doctors has any truth in it (Campbell, 2016). At this point, breaking the deadlock may require different kinds of resignations.

Not least forth in the queue for an exit has to the Health Secretary himself Jeremy Hunt, whose belligerence has allowed and encouraged the escalation of the dispute. The BMA - the British Medical Association, the doctor's union - has also firmly staked out a position specifically counter to that of the Health Secretary due to what they felt was a pointed threat to impose new contracts without negotiation.

On both sides, it seems only a toppling of their respective leaderships could allow for a change of direction while, as is often a priority in politics, saving face. The sides have so committed themselves to their respective courses, enough as to become completely entrenched, that it is hard to envision either being able to back down.

Therein lies the peril of competition and confrontation. Whatever can be said about the American, deeply partisan, political system, it is not a place where things are getting done. Instead, these grand monolithic forces butt heads, shaking the landscape and leaving people divided.

And that is the value of, not only compromise, but of cooperation. The ability to work with others is more than just cutting crude and dissatisfying compromises. It is also about creating a mutual respect that allows for healthy discussion, debate and an arena for grievance with effective means of redress.

A society at odds with itself would have a hard time finding resolutions in which all parts of society feel themselves to have a stake - which, in politics, is the short and medium term aim. Feeling represented is an important aspect of building engagement on the part of the public with the complexity of the challenges that their communities, their societies, face and the trust and comprehension of the outcomes.

That, more than anything else, puts Jeremy Hunt's name at the head of any list of those who need to resign. He has escalated and divided, an we are poorer for it: we have less cooperation, less engagement and less chance of an outcome in which all parts of society feel they are represented.

The Junior Doctors strikes are escalating, largely thanks to Jeremy Hunt's stubborn belligerence as deadlock goes unbroken

At the core of the junior doctors' argument has been that doctor's need to have safe schedules so that they can keep patients safe.

The next round of strikes by the junior doctor's are imminent, set to start Tuesday morning. They will run from 8am through 5pm, rather than the 24 or 48 hours time frame of other strikes, because the strike, in an historic first for the NHS, will withdraw emergency services (Triggle, 2016).

In previous polls, the possibility of the withdrawal of emergency services reduced, substantially, the support for the striking doctors from 59% down to 45% (Broomfield, 2016). Seemingly sensing an opportunity, the government side has been laying the scare factor on thick.

Stories of the apparent dangers posed by the strike have been coming thick and fast. Hunt's spokesperson has said that the strikes are disproportionate, will be damaging and come with huge risks (BBC, 2016), while Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS in England, has said that withdrawing emergency services crosses a line that will damage trust (Keogh, 2016).

This was followed by the General Medical Council warning that hospitals may struggle (Triggle, 2016{2}) and junior Health Minister Ben Gummer saying that patients are being put in harms way and the government is being held hostage (BBC, 2016{2}). Analysis has suggested that there are adequate measures in place, however, to ensure no one is endangered (Triggle, 2016).

The present stand-off is a result of, consistent with Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt's escalatory tactics so far, and despite now admitting no such power in the face of legal action, a threat to impose contracts on junior doctors rather than honour the negotiation process (Campbell, 2016).

Thanks to these clear misjudgements on his part, support for striking junior doctors may be reinforced by the fact that it is Jeremy Hunt who is being seen as obstructive. On Sunday, he rejected a cross-party proposal to introduce his new contract first only as a limited trial, subject to independent review, to determine its affects and suitability (Campbell, 2016{2}) - which will only further antagonise the public.

Hunt is reported to have argued that "further delay just means we will take longer to eliminate the weekend effect" (BBC, 2016{3}). A frankly preposterous position considering the very basis for his 'weekend effect' argument has been demonstrated to be without basis (Cooper, 2015), that he appallingly continues to be allowed use as justification.

Whatever the faults of Jeremy Hunt and the deficiencies in his method, the latest strike will regardless test the limits of public patience. How long can public servants push strike action before public sympathy wanes? Taking with it the essential power behind any strike or protest movement - solidarity.

The NHS has proven itself to be a special case, ensuring broad public support afforded to these public servants that has been more difficult to raise in other parts of the public sector. But this latest escalation is entering new territory. Who will be most affected by the strike and resultant cancellations.

If there is anything that defines British politics it is the resilience of the status quo to anything but meagre and gradual reforms. But right now, the status quo needs to be altered to break to end a stubborn deadlock. It is to be hoped that the impending strike, or the strike itself, restores some sense to the negotiations. Yet the most likely outcome seems to be more deadlock, followed by more escalation, unless the government backs down in the only way it really can - by removing Jeremy Hunt.

Alternative political thinking is alive and well, but Britain's political system makes that hard to believe

Paul Mason gives a lecture in Manchester on the economic downturn, as part of Labour Party Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's New Economics tour.

Last night in Manchester, John McDonnell's New Economics tour came to town with Paul Mason to discuss the global downturn and how to solve the problems that austerity is not and can not. What that lecture showed, as the others on McDonnell's tour - including economists such as Mariana Mazzucato, Yanis Varoufakis and Joseph Stiglitz - is that alternative thinking is alive and well.

Yet Britain's political system makes that hard to believe. When, last month, Caroline Lucas attempted to put forward a bill from the backbenches aimed at putting the opposition views on the NHS before Parliament, a Conservative filibuster ensured she didn't have time (Stone, 2016).

Lucas' NHS Bill was scheduled for a return to Parliament on Friday for another day of backbench, non-governmental, business. During the course of this week, the Commons will have only debated two bills, for short periods of two days - the third reading of Harriet Baldwin's "Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]" and the consideration of Lords amendments to Amber Rudd's "Energy Bill [HL]".

And yet, the NHS Bill sits on a list of more than two dozen backbench bills - including Norman Lamb's "National Health Service and Social Care (Commission) Bill", calling for an independent review into the future of the NHS, and a second by Caroline Lucas, the "Public Services (Ownership and User Involvement) Bill", that promotes "accountability, transparency and public control" over public services - which will not even be debated as Parliament isn't even scheduled to sit on Friday.

Time is monopolised by the government, which receives extraordinarily stacked advantages for 'winning' elections. This smothers alternative thinking, squashes legitimate debate, and keeps Parliament firmly stuck to the narrative set by central government.

But legislatures elsewhere in the UK show that politics doesn't have to function quite so dramatically this way. In Wales and Scotland, the more pluralistic assemblies have allowed for coalition and minority governments, and for a broader kind of party representation.

In these legislatures, under those conditions, alternative voices can make themselves heard. In particular, the Liberal Democrats have shown that a small party can punch above its weight, and make policy achievements (Masters, 2016). These have included securing major investment in education, in the Welsh budget, by working with the Welsh government (Coles, 2016), and speaking up for citizens' civil liberties against increased police powers and identity cards in Scotland (Macwhirter, 2015).

It is the mark of a vibrant and mature democracy that small parties can give voice to citizens' rights, to hold the government to account on matters like civil liberties or the environment and present a narrative counter to that set by the governing administration.

In Manchester, Paul Mason argued that the times may determine that the next government will be a coalition government, a progressive alliance in which, not least the Labour Party, will have to learn to embrace pluralism, cooperation and compromise. But in that necessity, lies an opportunity - a chance to push for a more grown up, more inclusive political system.