There's no such thing as politics without ideology - only policy made in the context of hidden or unexamined assumptions

George Osborne and Tony Blair took some time out of their busy, and well-paid, post-government lives to talk to a conference in Dubai about the "moderate, pro-business, socially liberal, internationalist" gap at the 'centre of politics'.

The centre that both have in the past claimed and which both have claimed to be a non-ideological space. It's a common claim, mostly levelled at Labour and it's Bennite left-wing, which Theresa May has used against both them and the EU.

But the use of 'ideology' as a pejorative misses one crucial thing: there's no such thing as politics without ideology - just policy made within the context of hidden or unexamined assumptions.

So what is an ideology? In short, it it comprised of: a philosophy of what the world is, an ethics of how people should behave in that world, an ideal of how society should function, and a politics laying out how to get there.

Politics is active element of ideology. It represents the structures, or absence of them, intended to shape society in a particular way, towards particular outcomes.

Comprehending this is crucial to understanding the Tories' time in government. While accusing their opponents of abandoning the centre for polarisation they oversee policies that, from a progressive perspective, have impoverished working people amid widening inequality.

When the evidence appears to be staring us in the face, when it seems so obvious to progressives, and yet conservatives do not see it, there has to be a bigger picture. That is ideology.

Consider the government's housing policy, born during the Coalition. The plan was to convert social housing into affordable housing, to support private sector house building with a higher rent threshold, thereby saving taxpayers money by reducing government housing spending.

This came with the acknowledged cost of a rise in housing benefit payouts, but it was believed that it would balance out in the public favour. It was, in basic, an attempt to shift an expenditure off the public books.

Yet the move in favour of privatised house building has not delivered for ordinary people. If there are benefits to tax payers, they are not balancing out the rise in average rents that has come with the collapse in social housing construction.

The government pursued a similar course with tuition fees. The cost of higher education was shifted onto the shoulders of students. This private, regulated, debt burden was deemed manageable by the Treasury and preferable to it contributing to the the national debt.

That demonstrates a rather cavalier attitude to private debt and Theresa May recently promising a review shows the government is feeling the need to moderate it's position against pushback from opposition.

So why continue with such policies - on housing, on tuition, on healthcare, on welfare, on so many core parts of society - even after it seems so clear, to progressives at least, that it isn't working and people are suffering?

The only sensible answer is ideology - the belief that the pain is a transitional phase, in a journey towards an ultimately more beneficial light at the end of the tunnel. Or, more darkly, that the pain is the point.

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.

Little Victories: Tackling energy costs would be a small win with big consequences

Photograph: Power Lines from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

We're living in times of big conflicts. Fascism has reared it's ugly head (in various guises), there are big changes under way in international politics and for the first time in three decades, a nuclear war is again talked about as something that might actually happen. It can all get overwhelming.

If you're feeling overwrought, remember that the big problems are rarely overcome with grandstanding solutions. More often, they're broken down into more manageable problems with little victories adding up to a much more profound and lasting change. As Bobby Kennedy put it:

"Each time a man [sic] stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest wall of oppression and resistance."

That is the task ahead of progressives in Britain: to send out the little ripples that build into a wave. But where to start? One opportunity on the horizon is opening on the cost of living.

Over the summer recess, pressure has been building within the Conservative Party over the May Government's decision to drop promises of tough measures to tackle the energy sector. That pressure is mounting towards a rupture.

On Sunday, 53 Conservative MPs signed a letter to Theresa May that demanded a reinstatement of the energy price pledge - that promised to protect ordinary households from the 'Big Six' energy companies - which was dropped from the Queen's Speech.

This backbench rebellion won't be completely selfless concern. At the last election, Tory MPs caught wind of public unhappiness at the unfair burdens that are being piled onto them. These MPs have to act to save their seats.

But there-in lies an opportunity. 53 rebel MPs is a huge problem for Theresa May, who holds only a slim majority. If the opposition is united, the government will have little choice but to take action or face a possible defeat in the Commons.

In the short term, that might lead to a small material improvement for the most vulnerable households. That in itself would be a welcome and tangible help to people just trying to get by. A small win for a good cause.

Little victories, however, build into much larger ones. Changing the government's direction would also have a much wider and lasting impact. Acting to regulate the energy market strikes a blow against deregulation - the market fundamentalist belief that outcomes are better when oversight and rules are limited.

Acting to regulate the energy market admits market failures. Admits that, left to their own devices, companies in deregulated markets can fall into unfairness and exploitation that produce worse outcomes for the many to the profit of the few.

For those feeling overwhelmed in tumultuous times, this is a grounded cause. A small win for people trying to keep their living costs down, would strike blow against exploitative capitalism. One foot in front of the other, one step at a time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queen's Speech: Theresa May has her DUP pact. What comes next for the Progressive Alliance in opposition?

Theresa May's first time as Prime Minister putting forward a Speech from the Throne was not the triumph she had counted when she called the election on 8th June. The document she provided for the Queen to read was threadbare.

It was an affair more rushed and with less frills than usual. Gone too were the main thrusts of her party's manifesto. Much was reduced to consultations and two thirds of the bills were just carry-overs from the last legislative session.

With no majority, even this thin schedule looked in fragile. Today, Theresa May sought to firm up her position by finalising the deal with DUP for support - bought with billions in funding. But that support comes with the price of a potentially toxic relationship.

With the support of the DUP, Theresa May might just survive the confidence vote will be held on the Queen's Speech. While losing the vote would mean an immediate end to her Premiership, winning will probably only delay the inevitable.

There is an opportunity now for the progressive parties. The Tories have dropped much of their manifesto, have no overall control of the Lords, and a DUP deal is likely to disappoint and aggravate moderate and liberal conservatives among Tory MPs. There will be fall out for the Barnett formula and funding for Scotland and Wales, and an impact on rebooting devolved government at Stormont.

There are even a few bills in the Tories legislative programme over which progressives could exert a strong influence, like the bill to ban tenant fees and a new domestic violence bill. These are a chance for progressives to show they can get the job done.

These productive actions will be important to offset the other side of opposition: frustrating the government's efforts to carry on in its austere rightward direction - and there is still plenty that needs to be frustrated.

Despite the promise of an additional £1 billion in funding for Northern Ireland, there Queen's Speech showed little intent of deviating from the austerity agenda. There is a fight still to be had on social care funding and welfare cuts continue to roll on.

There will also be a colossal amount of work to do on Brexit. The Tory programme contains a range of bills brought about by Brexit that will also need deep scrutiny. It may not be possible to avert Brexit, but its impact on the most vulnerable most be mitigated.

Tory rule has been weakened but it hasn't been toppled. The result of the election has given Parliament new power to hold the Government to account. The parties of progress must get opposition right. They must assert themselves and start setting the terms of debate. There is a new future to be won and this is just the beginning.

General Election 2017 - A hopeful night for progressives: It's time to do opposition right

The provisional results, that give the Conservative-Unionist pact a very slim working majority.

The aim for progressives going into last night was supposed to be damage control. As it happened, they'd gone above and beyond - in fact, as the night went on, matters so very nearly tipped the Conservatives right out of government.

It will be interesting to see as the turnout is broken down to see how much of it came down to tactical voting among progressives - not organised by the parties, but voters themselves taking the lead and making their presence felt.

In the end, progressives had to settle for seeing off the Tory advance - a goal achieved with surprising comfort in the end. It came with the cherry topper of handing Theresa May an embarrassing rejection. She demanded the country unite around her and the country said no.

So much for strong and stable.

Theresa May has lost the Conservative majority and is now left dependent upon Arlene Foster and the Democratic Unionist Party - very recently hit by scandal and criticised over mismanagement in government at Stormont - to form a government.

Despite the Conservatives constant criticism of coalitions and relying on regional parties, Theresa May showed no hesitation in cobbling together a government that relied on the support of a narrowly focused regional party with some extreme views.

While the Conservatives deal with despondency, Labour are in a jubilant mood. Although celebrating and calling this a victory might be a little loose with the truth, it's a clear step forward.

In fact it is plenty enough for Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to be justified in their stance that Labour are right now ready to govern as a minority government. It is a strong and confident stance they need to push and Labour MPs need to echo and reinforce.

You have to wonder if Corbyn and McDonnell always understood that Labour's route back to government would always take two elections. Last night they defied a threat of Tory advance, and revitalised themselves at home in their own seats.

Much criticised from within the party or focusing on boosting the party itself, in its own constituencies and ranks of members first, the strategy paid off. Labour's heartlands remained so and young turned out in droves.

Labour even expanded threateningly into Tory country. They took down junior ministers and established a following in the seats of senior ministers, that ran their incumbents very close and place them well for the next big push.

That will be at the next election. It will be a big moment for Labour. They've placed themselves breathing down the necks of the Conservatives and there will be no excuse next time. The platform is now there to launch Labour are into government.

However, Labour winning an election these days requires more than just Labour wins. It needs Liberal Democrat wins too. Last night the Lib Dems showed that they could win, but their performance was otherwise absurdly erratic.

From the nine seats they began the night with with, the party held four seats, lost five seats and gained eight seats. The Lib Dems also had a number of close calls either way - they really could have ended with anything from eight to eighteen seats.

The party largely held up its share of the vote - likely losing some to tactical voting, while gaining a little too. But the party could have hoped for a lot more and there will be some introspection among liberals in the days to come.

Honestly, considering the party's whole campaign at a distance, it's hard not to see Tim Farron's leadership as being compromised, despite the overall slight improvement in the party's position.

The leadership seemed to misjudge the public mood, unwaveringly focusing it's campaign on Brexit and rerun referendums, when many who the Lib Dems had to pitch to appear to have either gotten passed or not cared about in the first place.

And then there were the blunders Farron himself made, that were just plain ridiculous. No leaders of liberals should find themselves getting stuck with the label of intolerance on questions of support for LGBT and abortion rights.

The party's messy night speaks to the lack of clear message that connects values to policies to people, and resonated with an audience - as if the party simply wasn't sure to who exactly it was pitching it's ideas.

The return of Jo Swinson to the Commons for East Dunbartonshire on a clear majority perhaps presents the Liberal Democrats with a viable alternative leader - a woman, not least, outspoken and capable. All things the Lib Dems need to put at the forefront.

The SNP also had a dramatic night. While it is obviously on the one hand a tactic of media management to play down seat losses as best as possible, it was not unreasonable in this case. There really wasn't anywhere for the SNP to go after they swept Scotland last time out and the monopoly couldn't last.

The drama came from who the Lib Dems lost seats to: the Tories. Before the independence referendum that would have been, nearly, unthinkable. But last night, the Tories pretty much saved their political skins with gains in Scotland.

Their gains brought a particularly sad loss: Angus Robertson has lost his Moray seat. Sadly, Robertson will no longer bring his impressive performances to bear from the opposition benches in the Commons.

The big question going ahead now will be who can maintain their vote share and move forward. On several fronts, the Tories seem to have hit a wall that suggests they've maximised their reach. Labour, in contrast, broke new ground.

For Labour, this is a platform to win from. However, to turn that potential into a reality will depend upon keeping young voters, particularly first time voters, engaged and coming back time and again - and that will mean rewarding their engagement.

Labour also has to make a big pitch to Wales over the next five years. Voters in Wales shielded Labour last night, but the party hasn't really earned it - even with Corbyn's bright new manifesto. It has to start delivering.

There is a progressive majority. Seventeen million voted for the Centre-Left, while fifteen million went for the Right. Yet there is a Conservative government - a Hard Right Blue-Orange Loyalist coalition, no less.

It's mandate and majority are thin. Labour has a platform to fight and overturn that now, but first things first. All of the progressive parties have to get opposition right. There can be no messing around this time.

All progressive parties - Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens - have to start coordinating. And right now. Right from the start. The infighting must stop. The progressives turning fire on each other must stop.

All focus now has to be on holding the government to account, to prevent its Hard Right nature from getting out. On LGBT, on abortion, on human rights, on welfare - there are so many crossovers for progressives were opposition will be needed.

Corbyn's result has restored hope to progressives. It has trammelled the Conservatives. The time to make that count is now. The next election campaign starts now - and this time it'll be a fight progressives can win.

General Election 2017 - SNP and Scotland: To have a wider influence at Westminster, Scottish MPs must bring soft power to bear

Thanks to devolution, Scottish MPs occupy an awkward role at Westminster - dependent upon the soft power of Westminster outside of the reserved questions of foreign policy and defence.

MPs for Scotland, thanks to the devolution of powers, have a very particular role. The few matters still reserved to Westminster are foreign policy and defence, energy and welfare - and with the extension of tax raising powers, even welfare can now be influenced from Holyrood.

So, for those who represent Scottish constituencies, Westminster has become in fact a federal parliament - focused on collective questions of Britain's relationship with the world and how it makes use of its natural resources.

Scottish National Party

Strangely though, the SNP have chosen to release a full manifesto that covers even the devolved matters. Perhaps the opportunity to put across its intentions at Holyrood or pressure to appear comprehensive has forced the party's hand.

On the devolved matters are some major pledges: centred on an £118 billion investment package in public services to counteract Tory cuts impact on Scotland - including investment in the NHS and introducing a new 50p tax rate.

But it's on reserved matters, what the party's MPs will tackle at Westminster, that attention here will focus.

The party has pledged to push for devolution of immigration powers to ensure a fairer immigration policy. The SNP argue that Scotland has different needs to those of the UK as a whole - that free movement of working age immigrants is vital to the economy of Scotland.

The party has also pledged to fight against fight cuts to welfare, treading ground on which even other progressive parties have been timid. Labour have not pledged much and while the Lib Dems pledged a little more, they have not really campaigned on those proposals.

Now, welfare policy will soon be something that can be adjusted and added to in Scotland, but baseline will be set for UK in Westminster. The SNP has promised to fight funding cuts and to raise money to make welfare more generous North of the border.

On foreign policy and defence - including Brexit - the SNP have the advantage of a clear stance. While the party supports EU cooperation, remaining in the Single Market, and ending the use of the Trident nuclear deterrent, there is a not a lot of depth on foreign policy in the area of defence and intervention.

Historically though, the SNP has taken a similar, centrist line to the Liberal Democrats - that the military should be maintained and that interventions should be led by United Nations resolutions, in accordance with international law.

The lack of depth perhaps reflects the question which muddies the waters of the SNP's voice on foreign policy and how much it influences, or should influence, wider UK opinion: if the SNP wishes for Scotland to be independent of the UK, how can it hope to play a leading role in setting the tone of Britain's relationship with the world?

SNP and their opposition

The SNP's opponents have their own stances on foreign policy that might be more clear, for better or worse.

The Tories are now resolved to pursue Brexit, are very clearly prepared to intervene militarily, and are clearly pro-Nuclear deterrent. Opposite to them stand the Liberal Democrats, who are the pro-European party. They want EU cooperation on foreign policy. On other questions though, they tread a tightrope of centrist equivocation.

Labour has also faced being indistinct on some of these big foreign policy questions - though it has been a symptom of being deeply divided internal politics rather than pragmatism.

Despite Jeremy Corbyn's own stances, however, the party has resolved in favour of NATO and in favour of retaining Trident. The party's MPs also rebelled against the party line, following a Hillary Benn speech, to support intervention in Syria.

On foreign policy the SNP are pro-UN, anti-Nuclear weapons, pragmatists, in a field of pragmatists, with independence hanging over their stances. So it is unsurprising that they are trying to distinguish themselves by way of their role at the head of the Scottish Government.

Above all, the SNP are promising to be an anti-Tory party of strong opposition. But for the SNP, as with other parties in Scotland, MPs from Scotland's constituencies will have little voting power on the broad majority of issues.

Soft Power

Defending the party's ability to act as an opposition at Westminster, Nicola Sturgeon praised Angus Robertson - the SNP's Westminster leader - for being the effective voice of opposition at PMQs and raising important issues in key debates. The SNP have also repeatedly stressed that they are prepared to work with other progressive parties at Westminster, to cooperate and collaborate in defending common values that are threatened by Tory policies.

Sturgeon stressed how the SNP had played a pivotal role at Westminster in exposing the issues hidden within Tory policies and forcing Theresa May and David Cameron, and their respective governments, into one U-turn after another.

However, devolution for Scotland has created in fact a two-tier Parliament at Westminster and taken away the hard power, the ability to vote, of Scottish MPs on many issues. With devolved matters, the SNP's accomplishments have to be achieved with soft power. With speeches, by getting press interest on an issue, and then gathering public pressure - and bringing it to bear.

Voters in Scotland should keep this in mind when casting their ballots. Who represents them on foreign policy? On defence? On Brexit? And, who can bring the soft power of public opinion and rhetoric to bear on those issues that fall on the periphery of Scottish jurisdiction?

When it comes down to it, Scottish MPs go to Westminster with a very specific mandate to address collective UK matters of foreign policy, defence and reserved broader economic questions. It is really on these issues that Scottish voters should make their choice.

As Theresa May triggers Article 50 this week, progressives must begin forging new path to protect cherished values post-EU

This week will see Theresa May trigger Article 50 and the negotiations will begin to part Britain from the European Union. With this just over the horizon, there was another outpouring of support for the European Union on its 60th anniversary on Saturday (BBC, 2017; BBC, 2017{2}).

Even now the question has been settled by Act of Parliament (Asthana et al, 2017), there remains understandable opposition. Only a third of voters chose to support leaving the EU - contrary to the 52% claims of the 'Brexit Majority', that opponents of Brexit are have apparently had the last word on the matter.

However, while opposition, resistance and mourning will continue, there also needs to be a concerted effort and determined focus on building the new friendships, alliances and institutions that will ensure cherished values in the years to come.

The first frontier for this will be the city. As citizens of neighbourhoods and municipalities there is a whole new path, a local front, on which to work for progressive values to play a vital role in everyday lives.

In the United States, the Republican control of Federal institutions - the Presidency, the Supreme Court and both the Senate and the House in Congresses, however ineffective its leaders may be in using it (Revesz, 2017) - people have found in the city a frontier for effective opposition.

With the Dakota Access Pipeline having been green-lit again, opponents in a number of American cities have sought a new approach. Working with local government, they have sought to take public money out of the hands of the banks and financial institutions that back the pipeline.

The first divestment success has been won in Seattle, where community pressure led to the city announcing it would pull its money from the DAPL backing bank Wells Fargo (Gabriel Ware & Trimarco, 2017). Other cities have sought to follow their example - under the banner of public money being used only with more socially conscious partners (Tobias, 2017).

There is hope to be taken in the contrast that can be seen between the ineffectiveness, U-turns and deadlocks of central governments from the US to the UK and Spain, and the changes, such as divestment, that can be won at the municipal level.

In Barcelona, at the beating heart of the municipalist movement, Ada Colau was elected to the role of Mayor two years ago (Burgen, 2015) and governs the city with the support of just 11 of 41 members of the city council, in the form of the citizen's movement Barcelona En Comu.

And yet. The impact of the movement has been huge, not least in terms of the visibility that its open, engaged and transparent approach. For instance, the city has cut the pay of elected officials and freed up some $200,000 to support a social projects fund (Russell & Reyes, 2017).

Tackling housing issues was at the top of the list of things to address for Colau when she took office, as a former housing activist. The first issue they took on was empty homes. Right from the start, there were fines for holding properties empty in the city for a long period of time (Kassam, 2015).

The first step was to start securing these empty properties for social housing at a social rent - a project that in the first year freed up hundreds of homes (Rodriguez, 2016). It was accompanied by subsidies for those who are falling behind on their rent (Kassam, 2015), as part of the fight against eviction and homelessness.

More fines, and larger, were around the corner for long term abusers who had failed to respond to smaller fines the year before (Badcock, 2016). Yet there is also a carrot to go with the stick, as those willing to make empty properties available for low rents are offered subsidies on renovation and property tax rebates.

The second is tackling the negative impact of tourism in Barcelona, particularly on housing. In particular, AirBnB has been targeted by the city council for working around the city's tourist license approach to curbing the huge number of tourists (The Economist, 2016).

Reestablishing municipal control of important local services has also been a feature of Colau and Barcelona En Comu's time in office. In order to tackle costs, both a municipal funeral company and a municipal water company have been voted through (BComu Global, 2016; BComu Global, 2016{2}).

And Barcelona En Comu has been active on the international stage too. Working with other cities and local governments horizontally (Zechner & Hansen, 2016), they've been at the heart of organising on a range of issues from support for refugees and fighting TTIP.

This is of particular significance to those mourning the impending loss of EU membership. Over the past few years, continent wide city forums have become more prominent. From sharing best practice, to partnering up to take on big challenges together, municipal government is showing just how much of an impact it can have.

There are sparks of municipalism springing up around Britain too. In Preston, in face of the council's funding being cut in half, councillors have been trying to find ways to make the city more self-sufficient (Sheffield, 2017). The start of that has been to redirect procurement through local businesses - doubling its investment in local businesses over three years - to boost the local economy.

And in 2015, Bristol City Council established 'Bristol Energy' as a municipal energy company to fight unfair energy prices (Melville, 2016) - with assistance from the EU's European Local ENergy Assistance (ELENA).

Last year's local council elections showed that in Britain, even under the dark cloud that seems to hover over progressive movements at the moment, winning big elections is still possible on the ground, in local government - even in the days of the "unelectable" Jeremy Corbyn.

Sadiq Khan became Mayor of London, despite the hostile campaign of Zac Goldsmith; and Labour won three other Mayoral elections in Bristol, Liverpool and Salford. Meanwhile the Lib Dems made the most gains of any party.

With more cities getting devolution deals and brand new mayors come the summer, there are not just more chances for progressive parties, but for progressive local action by and for citizens.

In Greater Manchester, the favourite, Labour's Andy Burnham, has already made a number of significant promises that could make a big difference at the municipal level, including longer term security of tenure for renters, longer term security of funding for the community and voluntary sector and paying off student loans for graduates who stay and work in the Greater Manchester NHS (GMCVO Hustings, 2017; Weston, 2017).

But there is more to be done. For instance, an experiment with participatory budgeting in Madrid, were funds were earmarked for local projects decided by online polling, caught some attention in Greater Manchester were the People's Plan was formed, with journalist Paul Mason expressing his support for the idea (Mason, 2016).

What all of this reminds us is that real political and social change starts in your own community, in your own municipality. Whether trying to fix local services or build an international movement, the starting point is your own neighbourhood.

On health, housing, energy - on any of the chief issues - action can be taken at the local level that makes a tangible difference. With Brexit, one path towards cooperation is closing. But others are open and we must turn out attention towards getting the most out of them.

Italian Constitutional Referendum: No wins and Renzi to resign - what next for Italy?

Matteo Renzi staked his Government on the referendum and lost. Photograph: Matteo Renzi a San Giobbe, October 2015, by the Università Ca' Foscari Venezia (License) (Cropped)

On Sunday, voters in Italy rejected the proposed constitutional reforms on which Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has staked his Government (BBC, 2016). Renzi put voting Yes in the referendum as the condition for his continued leadership - and with it the seeming last piece of stability in Italian political life.

Ahead, in the not too distant future, seems to be an election where the rising populist parties will pit themselves against whatever the coalition the establishment can assemble. But no deadlock has been broken and the politically divided do not look likely to be united.

It was just these interminable political stalemates Renzi's referendum reforms were aimed at ending. Yet the centralising - to its critics, executive power-hoarding - aims of the proposal had alienated groups across Italy's political spectrum, from Left to Right.

The Prime Minister's proposed reforms included weakening the Senate and the Regional Councils in favour of further the House of Deputies, while furthering the majority prize electoral system - in all, handing an extraordinary amount of power to a future Prime Minister through a guaranteed and untouchable lower house majority.

The idea of such centralised majority power is in itself controversial. Even on the Left of Renzi's own Partito Democratico, veterans like former leader Pier Luigi Bersani warned that the reforms would create a "government of the boss", centred on a strongman who would control the Parliament (Follain, 2016).

Perhaps for precisely those reasons, business and investors were supportive of the changes, so that the reforms they believe necessary to sort out Italy's economic problems could be passed with greater ease (Kirchgaessner, 2016).

Yet other moderate, and even 'establishment', opposition shared the Left's criticism of the proposals - fundamentally, that the reforms did not address what is actually wrong. While Renzi's reforms sought a solution to legislative paralysis, critics thought that dealing with the country's economic stagnation and corruption were the higher priority and strongman government no solution (The Economist, 2016).

The primary opposition to Renzi's proposed changes, and further to his government, are Beppe Grillo's Movimento 5 Stella - the populist and anti-establishment Five Star Movement. First made their first big breakthrough on the national scene in 2013, where they took the largest share of votes amongst parties, though Italy's complex electoral system assured they would receive a smaller share of seats.

Grillo's party are a strange mix. In some ways they're like UKIP in their internal incoherence. The party's membership includes everyone from young progressive libertarians to anti-Europe conservative nationalists. In the European institutions they've associated with the continent's far-right.

The Five Star Movement have set themselves up as anti-establishment, as the opponents of cronyism and corruption, a post-ideological party for the disaffected. Yet the party mixes its appeals to the Left with anti-immigration rhetoric and stood in the way of same-sex civil unions (Kirchgaessner, 2016{2}). The party is also a focal point for anti-media sentiment and for a counter-truth, conspiracy theory culture (Nardelli & Silverman, 2016).

And with Renzi's defeat, the Five Star Movement are the only force that really stand to be empowered.

Italy is going through its second major political transformation in two decades. The old parties and figures are fading away and crumbling, while social democracy is struggling with itself as elsewhere around the world. As in 1994, when Silvio Berlusconi rose to the political pinnacle he would occupy for the next twenty years, populism is taking its opportunity.

That hard situation now falls on the shoulders of the Italy's President Sergio Mattarella. His first task will be to decide whether to accept the resignation of Renzi, with no other obvious choice for a stable government. But keeping the Democrat in office will do little at this point to maintain stability.

So ultimately Mattarella must find a new government and lay out plans for a fresh election. That task will begin within the factional chaos of Renzi's Democrats. But after short term stability must come a longer term democratic solution.

An election would surely herald strong numbers for M5S and also for Matteo Salvini's Lega Nord - the less equivocally right-wing, anti-establishment, anti-immigration party. But there is not necessarily an indication that they could muster the support necessary to govern (Kirchgaessner, 2016{3}).

The most likely outcome seems to be more political paralysis, though not as a result of Italy's pluralistic system, as Renzi appeared to believe. Rather, the cause is instead the deeply partisan divisions between Left and Right in Italy, and European interference due to the country's substantial public debt.

These conditions have made only certain governments possible, with no regard for party, that pursue 'corrective' economic measures - that have been consistent from Prime Minister to Prime Minister, through Monti, Letta and Renzi - that are fundamentally neoliberal and pro-austerity.

That deadlock needs to be broken. Public trust is being severely tested and when it shatters neither Left, Centre or Centre Right, in Italy or across Europe, will be the benefactor. Populists will feed on the fear and mistrust, and fuel it further, to their own benefit.

Italy is deeply in need of a way to rebuild some semblance of what used to be termed republicanism - a government of balance, in a civic space built on bi-partisanship and pluralism, in the name of the public good. The old pluralism of Italy died amidst cronyism and corruption. The mistrust that collapse created has spent twenty years dividing people in the political space and continues to spread.

Pluralism has to be taken back. Any plan to build a progressive alternative for Italy, has to put returning pluralism to Italy's political sphere at its heart. Italy needs tangible solutions, but even the best of policies are no good if they do not reach and include those in all corners of a society.

What to expect from President Trump? To see how an opportunist backed by the far right will fare in government, look no further than Italy's Silvio Berlusconi

Silvio Berlusconi, through controversies and legal battles, held the position of Prime Minister in Italy for nine years out of seventeen on the political frontline. Photograph: Silvio Berlusconi by paz.ca (License) (Cropped)

If progressives are going to start building a meaningful opposition to the global rise of far right populism, seen most recently in the Trump Presidential Campaign, they first need to understand what they will be standing against. What will the representatives of the far right pursue when actually in office?

When considering what to expect, its important to look to history. For Trump in particular, there are obvious comparisons to Ronald Reagan (Rich, 2016) - though, it seems, except for those who really buy into the Myth of Reagan but don't like Trump, and so want to distance the two as much as possible.

But perhaps a better guide for expectations, both for Trump and beyond, might be the rise of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy in the early 1990s, out of the wreckage of the Italian political system that imploded with the exposure of  huge corruption under the Mani Pulite investigation.

Amidst massive political disillusionment and a global downturn, a seeming outsider, with business credentials, and in alliance with parties of the far right, put themselves forward as the champion of the populist opposition to the corrupt old establishment - despite plenty of their own legal battles, to which their support seems immune.

Sound familiar? Trump's rise mirrors Berlusconi's own route to power. The media chief, and chairman of football club AC Milan, began his long relationship with political power in Italy at the head of his party Forza Italia - named for a popular football chant.

If that does not say enough, as a measure of the man consider that Berlusconi once claimed, with extravagant outrage, that one of his longest running political opponents, Romano Prodi, called him a drunk during a 2006 election debate - and offered him a "no, you are" in return (Popham, 2006). What Prodi had actually said was:

"He uses statistics like a drunk uses lamp-posts, more for support than illumination."

For those who want decency and reason in the political arena, this level of obfuscating outrage is infuriating. When a political candidate is willing to twist anything, to play whatever role happens to be convenient to the relevant situation, coherency be damned, it makes it impossible to get to grips with what that candidate actually believes - and so to have a meaningful political exchange.

But whether that was what he actually believes is besides the point. What that exchange presented was an opportunity. And the seizing of such opportunities defined Berlusconi's career - as it does Trump's as well.

Silvio Berlusconi rose to power on the back of a career as a media personality, a celebrity, just as much as he did on his career in business. His media company took on the establishment and broke through the state owned monopoly on broadcasting - though in part thanks to his connections in that very same government establishment.

And when that - again, very same - government establishment collapsed amidst one of the biggest political corruption scandals ever seen, Berlusconi took to the political field - despite his own connections and the spreading of investigations into his own businesses (The Economist, 2001).

Berlusconi promised to keep Italy pro-Western and pro-Market, create a million new jobs and protect the country from the communists - the Italian Communist Party successor, the Democrats of the Left, were virtually the last party standing in the Italian political system after the corruption scandal.

The coalition he put together to achieve those promises - with the separatist Lega Nord in the North and the post-fascist Alleanza Nazionale in the South - backed by a massive publicity campaign on his own TV channels, received the most votes and seats in the 1994 Italian general election.

His first government collapsed after only nine months, torn apart by its own internal contradictions. Yet, though often with only a tenuous grip, Berlusconi returned to power time after time, with rebuilt coalitions that pushed the same mix of social conservatism and economic neoliberalism.

And he was never far from controversy. Berlusconi was accused of being sexism in Italy's most powerful apologist, as his personal life often spilling over into the political and even sparking protests (Marshall, 2016). His legal troubles also followed him constantly.

The same kinds of fate are now being predicted for Trump's Administration, as he tries to marry his misogynist and nativist support with the Republican mainstream - itself a contradictory collections of libertarians and nativist Christian nationalists.

Just as legal scandals chased Berlusconi throughout his career, they're likely also to follow Trump. With numerous cases still outstanding against him, some commentators are even predicting that Trump may ultimately end up being impeached by the Republican-controlled Congress (Oppenheim, 2016).

The election of Trump answered one question to which the answer was already known: that negative campaigning is used because it works - even, it seems, in its most extreme forms. It also drew parallels between Trump and Berlusconi, that suggest that far right populism is unlikely to hurt the Reagan-esque tax-cutting, laissez-faire, pro-business establishment.

But what about about in Europe, where far right parties have pushed their way into the mainstream with fewer compromises and mainstream alliances? As with Trump, promises of social conservatism, anti-immigration and harsh law and order policies have abounded. Yet on economic policy, the stances of far right movements have been inconsistent.

Trump's one elaborated economic policy was for a massive tax cut. That matches up with UKIP's policies, which have historically leaned toward less compromising version of Conservative manifestos, with tax cuts, especially for those at the top and large amounts of deregulation.

Yet while Trump has hinted at protectionism, it has been more strongly pushed in Europe. For instance, Front National have travelled over time from aggressively, anti-welfare, 'parasite' opposing, Reagan neoliberals, to ardent advocates of state control and protectionism (Shields, 2007).

Other far right parties in Europe, such as the Freedom Party of Austria and the Party for Freedom of the Netherlands, or elements of the Five Star Movement in Italy, have expressed a kind of national liberalism, to which the French Front National seems aligned.

The parties are standing, ostensibly, to 'protect' their 'national values', which have over time extended to include liberal tolerance, particularly of native homosexual and Jewish communities; and attempted to reconcile what amounts to 'national welfare', claiming to expel outsiders from the system, with the neoliberal capitalist system.

These positions express profound contradictions: between the rousing of intolerance and promises of social protection, and between deep connections to the low tax, low regulation and big business neoliberal order and promises of economic protection.

Berlusconi showed that these contradictions can be maintained, though not without difficulty and obvious fragility, over a long political career. So whichever way these parties break, caught between intolerant, nationalist and statist demands and their neoliberal connections, progressives need to have a strong argument that counters the flaws of both. And that argument needs to bring together radicals and moderates, democrats and liberals.

Justice, Liberty and Progress; equality, cooperation and sustainability; these values drive progressives. The far right stands opposed to them, picking and choosing between them as it suits their cause. Progressives need to unite around them - whether against neoliberalism or nationalism, as both are disastrous.

Petty squabbles are the opportunities that the Berlusconis and Trumps exploit. They disillusion the public and open the doors to opportunists and extremists. That pattern needs to end, in the name supporting those made most vulnerable by the rise of such forces: women, minorities, refugees, immigrants and the impoverished.

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.

Corbyn tries to give Labour a fresh start to the new year, but infighting and bitterness again sours efforts to take party forward

Corbyn's reshuffle ensures his own views are better represented in key posts and increases representation of women, but has been soured by more squabbling. Photograph: Jeremy Corbyn at CWU Manchester event in October 2015.

Ahead of the return of MPs to their work at Westminster on Tuesday, Jeremy Corbyn set out to give the Labour Party a fresh start to 2016. In the light of the divisions in his shadow cabinet during his first few months, Corbyn sought to do this with a reshuffle of his team (Mason, 2016).

For progressives, whether supporters of either Corbyn or Labour's 'moderate' faction, or neither, a fresh start has to be considered a positive step. However, as seems to be becoming an unfortunate trend, the effort looks at risk of being buried beneath internal squabbling.

That would be a disappointing start for the Left in 2016. While some victories have been won by progressives in opposition, in only a very few months - like stopping the implementation of tax credit cuts and at least delaying the eventual onset of their affects (Stewart et al, 2015) - the Left still needs to rally and present an effective opposition in the year ahead.

Despite rumours and speculation, facts were scarce as Jeremy Corbyn set about the task of reshuffling Labour's shadow cabinet on Monday. The clearest consensus seemed to be that making too drastic of a change would be foolish (Kuenssberg, 2016), as it might be interpreted as the taking of revenge on some shadow cabinet members who had spoken out against the party line.

In the event, the reshuffle itself was small in scale (Perraudin, 2016) - although it took days to resolve itself, almost running over into Prime Minister's Questions. Only Michael Dugher and Pat McFadden were ousted from the portfolio's of Culture and Europe, respectively. Maria Eagle moved sideways to culture, replaced in the Defence portfolio by Emily Thornberry, with Pat Glass taking on the Europe brief - certainly increasing the representation of women on the Labour frontbench.

However, controversies have still arisen even from those small alterations. Labour's, now former, frontbencher Michael Dugher took to twitter and the media circuit to denounce Corbyn, claiming he had been sacked for being straight talking and honest (ITV, 2016). Other rumours circle as to why certain MPs were singled out, with words like disloyalty and incompetence being used, and other frontbench MPs have resigned (BBC, 2016; Sparrow, 2016).

To let the beginning of a new year be eaten by more infighting would be a tragic state of affairs for the Left. Some sort of symbolic break, even small, from the first few months could have been a positive move, establishing Labour on a new plateau. After three months in charge, while there had been difficulties and threats of splits, Labour had also, nonetheless, had some successes upon which to build such a position.

At the moment, Corbyn is the Left's most prominent leader - seen as a principled man, an idealist (White, 2016), and as a leader willing also to be an activist, out on the streets in support of a cause (Perraudin, 2016{2}). Corbyn won the Labour leadership election with a huge swell of public support, his party comfortably won the Oldham by-election, and they were also deeply involved in forcing the Chancellor to backdown over the implementation of cuts to tax credits.

Coming up in 2016 are local council, London Mayoral, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections in the Spring, and potentially the EU referendum in the Summer, in all of which progressives need to present a strong and coherent message. There are also policies like the Conservative's Housing Bill that need to be properly scrutinised and opposed. Yet that can only be the case if progressives can come together and working constructively, side by side for the common good.

That means the Left, and in particular Labour, need to learn to play nicely with others - as the political system in the UK still gives too much power to one faction for any single opposition party to make much headway alone. The various groups in opposition need to start finding real ways of working together on common issues - particularly, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, but also with the progressive though nationalist groups like the SNP and Plaid Cymru.

A reset, and a fresh start, would have been nice for the Left. For now though, the best that the Left can hope for from Labour is that bridges begin to be rebuilt. The squabbling has to stop (Jones, 2016). Labour's MPs have to remember that their party is the largest on the Left and that the position comes with a responsibility to lead scrutiny of the government - a government that has shown itself to be far less than invulnerable. The time has come to focus on that battle rather than internal intrigues.

Oldham will be the first preview of who is winning the political battles in the public eye

Oldham will host the first by-election of this parliament, triggered by the death of Labour MP Michael Meacher. It will be a set piece political event that might just offer some small insights into whether party ideas are capturing the public imagination. Photograph: Oldham Town Hall by Mikey (License) (Cropped)

On Wednesday the Conservative fiscal plan for the next four and a half years was laid out by the Chancellor. Complete with politically considered back tracks and U-turns, George Osborne's spending review laid out the cuts, caps, and the phasing out and shifting of burdens that we should expect.

Yet, even with all of this information now on the table, the question of how to oppose the Conservative approach is putting Labour in a bind. Labour are trying, though not too hard, to avoid fall into a civil war - the result of which would almost be that the New Labour faction would be forced to leave the party and could even taking a majority of Jeremy Corbyn's party MPs with them.

These events are all very poignantly timed, as the first test for all sides - an important trial run, almost - is coming on the 3rd December in the form of the Oldham West and Royton by-election. From its result, it will be admittedly difficult to extrapolate anything particularly substantial.

Not until April, and the National Assembly and London Mayoral elections will we see a full appraisal of the response of the country to the election of a Conservative majority, its policies on human rights and austerity, and Jeremy Corbyn's new approach as leader of the Labour Party. Yet next Thursday's by-election might just provide a small preview.

Voters in Oldham will be the first to pass direct comment on what was, effectively, Osborne's third budget of the year. Those that turn out at the polls for the by-election will get a chance to say what they think of the Chancellor's offerings.

Despite the fact that the focus for most people will be on the headline of Osborne's likely-to-be-popular U-turn on Tax Credits (BBC, 2015) - and the U-turn on cuts to police budgets that he tried to pass off as a Labour idea - there were other policies to be found in the spending review.

These policies include the gradual phasing out of tax credits, to be replaced with the less supportive universal credit (Allen et al, 2015); a new cap on housing benefit (Cross, 2015); and the replacement of grants for student nurses with loans (Sims, 2015).

According to the assessment by the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), the poorest will be the most heavily impacted by these changes (Allen et al, 2015) - although that is disputed by Conservatives. Critics have also been sure to point out that austerity is far from over (Wearden, 2015). Further cuts or tax rises may even be necessary if Osborne's gamble on the OBR's positive outlook fails to pay off (Peston, 2015).

Osborne's domestic reforms also appear to match the ideas in his recent speech laying out his plan for the European Union - another issue that may well be on voters' minds. For the Conservatives, the aim is clearly for a deregulated EU that is for business (Sparrow, 2015), rather than citizens - reserving free movement only for trade and money.

Leading the progressive opposition at this point should be the Labour Party. However, Jeremy Corbyn's opposition to intervention in Syria (Wintour, 2015), at least in the present terms and under the present conditions, is proving to be just the latest opportunity for a divide to open up between Corbyn, along with his supporters, and the party's mainstream - particularly in the parliamentary party.

It doesn't seem to be helping to quell the dissent of the few - at the moment, at least - in the Labour Party who support intervention, that even Conservative commentators are saying that the UK's most powerful role right now may well be diplomatic rather than military (Davis, 2015).

There is also the likelihood of a hugely significant event on Tuesday, just days before the by-election, when NHS doctors go on strike, to be followed by two more days of action later in December, if renewed negotiations do not achieve enough ground (Tran, 2015).

Politically, ideologically, there is a lot of pressure building. Yet it won't all be about objective analysis of the impact of policies. Politics is also a contest over the popular perception fought in, and often with, the media. In that game, the Conservatives have tended to fare best, and Osborne has managed to make all of the headlines about how he is protecting, for now at least, those already in the system.

What it is essential for progressives to get across, and rally support behind, is that this is something the Chancellor has only achieved through the shifting of burdens and letting new entrants be hit by the deepest cutbacks (Allen et al, 2015, Cross, 2015). Yet it is always difficult to make heard the narrative based on those who will be hurt in theory, when up against a narrative of those will not now be hurt in the present.

As for other progressive opposition parties, like the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, they will just want to be heard and to see a decent turnout. They both risk being drowned out by the larger narratives coalescing around the two big parties, yet there is room for them to still make an impact. For the Greens, the UN climate change summit in Paris puts the environment and clean energy in the public eye (Vaughan, 2015), while the Lib Dems have been vocal in their opposition to the government over human rights and the rights of refugees (Riley-Smith, 2015) - a key pillar in their plan for a 'Lib Dem Fightback'.

However, set piece events like Thursday's by-election only offer a snapshot impression of where the different factions and parties are, relative to each other, and who is hearing the message sent out by who. The big question - which will likely only be answered in subtle shades of grey - will be whether Osborne has succeeded in getting out the message he wants heard, and whether Corbyn's approach can produce in terms of practical results.